Archive

Archive for February, 2020

Thoughts on Recent Developments in the 2020 Democratic Primaries: 2

February 28, 2020 6 comments

In the previous post of this series, I wrote about the ongoing shitshow of Iowa’s 2020 democratic primary caucus and the better-run New Hampshire primary. I also wrote a bit about the future- specifically how only Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg have any future prospects after Nevada and South Carolina. Since then, a few things have happened. Firstly, the Iowa’s shitshow still hasn’t been resolved. Yes, you is correct- it is still going on. Many of you might also know that Bernie won a resounding victory in the Nevada Caucus and ended up getting almost twice the number of votes as his nearest opponent- as well as the majority of delegates from that state. We also had the pleasure of watching mini-Mike Bloomberg implode in front of a large national audience in his first appearance at a debate. And he did not show any signs of improvement in his more recent second appearance. Of course, he is still spending dozens of million dollars per day on TV and web advertisements- which I guess is good news for the people he is currently employing.

So let us begin by talking about Bloomberg. In my opinion, he has no realistic chance of winning the presidential election against Trump. Here is why.. For starters, he has zero public presence and he just cannot help coming across as an out of touch elitist billionaire with serious personal insecurities. Even the character of Mr. Burns in ‘The Simpsons’ is far more likable that Bloomberg. In contrast, even though Trump might be worth only a couple of billion, he has a much better understanding of how average people, live, think and most importantly- want to see. It does not help that Mike Bloomberg has as many skeletons in his closet as Trump, and nowhere near the charm of Trump to let potential voters ignore them. Here is an example to help you understand what I am getting at. Ever wonder why Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby ended up in jail for what they did to women over these years, but equally lecherous but handsome or otherwise desirable male actors and musicians almost always get a free pass.

Yes, the public will accept and forgive people who are assholes if they are charming and open about their behavior. Many of you might remember how democrat idiots thought that the release of that “pussy grab” tape would sink Trump’s 2016 campaign. But it did not and was pretty easy to understand why- if you were not a credentialed incestuous circle-jerker. But in case a few of you don’t, let me explain. See.. the personal morality of politicians was an issue only as long as most people had a prosperous and stable life. That is why the Monica Lewinsky scandal could have only become a big issue in the late 1990s- and even then it did not hurt Bill Clinton’s image to any appreciable extent. More importantly, people stop caring about that sort of bullshit once socio-economic conditions start deteriorating. I bet you that people would have looked the other way had Obama openly cheated on his wife with multiple white women, IF he had delivered on economically populist policies. Most people care far more about outcomes than image.

Don’t believe me? Obama got 69.5 million votes in 2008, but only 65.9 million in 2012- in spite of the population of USA increasing by a few million during that time-span. And you know why.. because he failed to deliver on the populist stuff he vaguely hinted at during the 2008 electoral campaign. Even though MikeCA won’t like to hear this, the rise of Trump is best understood as the logical consequence of the unwillingness and inability of Obama to deliver on his pre-election populist promises. In fact, Obama would have lost the 2012 election if Republicans had fielded even a moderately populist candidate instead of a smug corporate asshole aka Mitt Romney. To make a long story short, corporatist candidates such as Bloomberg and even Biden (let alone Warren and Buttboy) will lose to a fake populist such as Trump in the general election.

Of course, this hasn’t stopped the incompetent democratic establishment from hatching ever more hilarious plans to stop Sanders via procedural bullshit. And mark my words, they will try to pull of such a stupid scheme even if Sanders wins over 50% of the delegates. Yes.. I am serious about that scenario and to understand why, please read the linked article above to see the incredible amount of magical thinking these idiots are capable of. One noteworthy example include recruiting Obama’s wife and some no-name senator who did not even participate in this primary as the unity nominees. At this stage, I would not be surprised if they tried to rope in Hillary Clinton and her forgettable VP candidate from 2016 as the nominees. To put it another way, they would rather have four more years of Trump than a democratic nominee who is not “centrist”, in spite of the failure of candidates such as Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton in the past few presidential elections.

I am sure that MikeCA will jump in to tell us how this is all wrong and that the democratic establishment actually cares about the plight of average voters. Newsflash- it does not, and has not given a fuck about non-professional class voters since the mid 1970s. Since we are already close to a thousand words, I will wrap this post now. In the next part, I will talk about the results of the South Caroline primary, Joe Biden’s cognitive status and why Bernie towing the line of democratic establishment on cultural issues is such a bad idea.

What do you think? Comments?

Identity Politics is the Western Equivalent of Caste Politics In India

February 23, 2020 35 comments

Most regular readers are aware that I detest SJW, wokeism and everything else associated with identity politics. While some reasons behind my contempt of this performative bullshit scam are common to most other critics, one of them is distinctly unique- and is summarized in the title of this post. As some of you might rember, I wrote a series about why the caste system was, and still is, so damaging to Indians. For the purposes of this post, the gist is as follows: The caste or ‘jati’ system created so many stupid divisions in Indian society that it has become almost totally dysfunctional for the past 1,500 years. It also created a mindset which lacks the capability for critical thought and reason. To make a long story short, much of what is wrong with that country today can be traced back to the ‘jati’ system.

And this brings us to a question which I did not tackle in that series- namely, what explains the persistence of such a stupid and shitty social system? How can a system which disadvantages the majority of its followers, in a multitude of ways, still remain popular among them? To be fair, this issue is not unique to the caste system since a similar argument can be made about any other religion. In my opinion, it comes down to how the caste or ‘jati’ system shapes power- or more precisely, how it reproduces itself at societal level. See.. one of central tenet of the ‘jati’ system is that only somebody of your own ‘jati’ can be trusted to represent your interests. In other words, only somebody of your own caste or ‘jati’ can be your leader and since there are hundreds (if not thousands) of ‘jatis’ there can also never be a broadly recognized leader or group of leaders.

Sure.. you can have national figureheads who are reasonably popular among the majority, but they simply do not command the power and reach of their equivalents in, say, China or USA. But why does this matter and how is any of this related to contemporary identity politics in the west. For starters, many of you must have realized by now that the core tenet of identity politics is that only somebody from your own ‘group’ can ever be a legitimate leader of people from said group. According to them, only a woman can truly represent the interests of women, a gay man of gay men, a “trans woman” of “trans women” etc. The corollary of this belief is that no society can have a legitimate leader and leadership acceptable to most people in it. But why is this belief so problematic? Wouldn’t people be best represented by others who are “like” them?

Well.. let us have a look at this issue by analyzing the one example of identity politics which is well established in USA. It is no secret that almost every single black politician who has been elected to any office in this country has achieved that position because of the strong support of black voters. Ya, sure.. there are some major historical reasons for why this is the case. But let me ask you another question- can you think of a single major black political figure who has done anything other than ignore his or her constituents once elected to office. A few, such as Obama, have actually championed policies which preferentially immiserated their most ardent supporters. Instead, the vast majority of black politicians do nothing beyond using their position for enriching themselves and their friends and relatives while acting as the ‘help’ for white politicians who want to maintain the shitty status quo.

Funny thing.. this is exactly how caste-based politics plays out in India. All the idiots who vote for politicians from their own castes get nothing worthwhile in return, while those elected to office go on to amass millions and billions through graft and scams in addition to preferential treatment of relatives and friends. Their supporters then get angry and frequently vote them out in the next election cycle by selecting a new bunch of scammers through the same thought process- if you can call it that. Guess what, the same thing happens again and the voters go back to the previous bunch of scammers. And the cycle goes on.. And now you know why China can get everything done properly on time while India can’t seem to get anything important done, let alone on time. My point is that identity politics is a recipe for stagnation, decay and ultimately, chaos.

Moving back to the situation in USA and west in general.. How has, for example, selecting more women as CEOs of large corporations improved the overall quality of lives for most women? Has it increased their paycheck, given them better job security, a longer paid maternity leaves or otherwise improved the quality of their children’s lives etc? It hasn’t! The only thing it has achieved is the elevation of a minuscule number of women to positions where they can be as greedy and asshole-ish as the very few men they replaced. The same is true, perhaps even more so, for black politicians and black “business leaders”, whose much publicized rise has not resulted in any worthwhile improvement in the conditions of the constituency they allegedly represent.

This also applies for gay politicians and “business leaders”. Has Apple suddenly started making better products because their current CEO is gay or has it somehow improved the material conditions for gay men in USA? The same is true for efforts to promote a few token lesbians, latinos and other ethnic minorities. Putting a few more non-white or non-straight people in positions of power, while simultaneously maintaining the previous status quo, is a scam- and an especially dangerous one. Letting the ‘alphabet people’ aka the LGBTQ..whatever enlarge this scam will only make things worse. Have a look at the political scene, aka the chaos, in India- where nothing of importance or significance gets done, but everyone in politics is constantly shouting at each other andaccusing everybody else of “corruption”- while wearing ridiculous headgear to show their caste credentials. It does makes for good theater though..

In summary, identity politics is a dangerous scam and should be seen as the contemporary western equivalent of caste politics in India. Though it is being currently promoted by elites to maintain the status quo, it will metamorphose into something far more uncontrollable- which in turn will end up creating a highly fragmented, polarized and dysfunctional society.

What do you think? Comments?

A Very Clever Deepfake and Crosscut of ‘The Matrix’ and ‘Office Space’

February 20, 2020 3 comments

A couple of days ago, I came across a very clever deepfake and crosscut clip of two iconic movies from 1999- namely, ‘Office Space’ and ‘The Matrix’. Curiously they were released about 5 weeks from each other- first one on February 19, 1999 and the second on March 31, 1999. The premise of this clip is as follows: What if Neo took the blue pill instead of the red pill?

What makes this clip amazing is the makers correctly point out that the main protagonists in both movies work as software developers in impersonal corporations. Even their cubicles looks very similar and both are surrounded by other cubicles filled with mostly irritating coworkers. The jokes in this YouTube clip are amazingly meta, and correctly describe the blue pill mindset.

What do you think? Comments?

More Observations about the Ongoing Coronavirus Outbreak in China

February 17, 2020 4 comments

A few days ago, I wrote a post about the ongoing coronavirus epidemic in China. In that post, I wrote that the current mortality figures (especially outside Wuhan) strongly suggest that it is far less deadly than many white racist idiots are claiming. I also hinted at the possibility that a large percentage of people exposed to the virus probably don’t develop clinical illness or are only mildly symptomatic. As it turn out, subsequent developments have validated my predictions. With a few hundred confirmed cases (based on lab tests) outside China, there have been only two additional deaths, the latest one being a 80-year-old Chinese man who was on a visit to France. And then I came across a few tweets with some new and interesting information about the broader mortality and morbidity patterns of this outbreak.

Have a look at the first table containing data, which is now already a couple of weeks old, from the main hospitals in Wuhan. The first thing you will notice almost immediately is that the death rate for males (4.45 %) is significantly higher than for females (1.25 %). But there is something even more interesting in this table. Have a look at the death rate for patients under 60 years (1.43 %) versus those above 60 years (5.3 %). It turn out that being male and old significantly increases the risk of death from 2019-nCov. But why? So far, the best explanation for differences in mortality rates between males and females is as follows: Smoking is much more common among men in China than women and seems to increase the expression of a protein which this virus uses to enter cells in respiratory tract. In other words, smoking makes you far more likely to develop more severe forms of this disease.

Now let look at another table containing even more recent and comprehensive statistics about mortality and morbidity due to 2019-nCov. You will immediately notice that the death rate is below 0.5% for those under 50 years and barely over 1% for those between 50 and 60, but goes up pretty steeply for patients above 60, reaching almost 15 % for those above 80. Interestingly children under 10 seem to be somehow protected from developing severe forms of this illness. Also note that the difference between mortality rates in males and females is now smaller, though the later still fare better than the former- in spite of patient numbers in both categories being roughly similar. And yes, the occupation category with highest death rate are retirees- validating the data from previous table. The low case numbers for patients between 0-20 years is also odd.

To summarize, I am even more convinced that 2019-nCov causes only a mildly symptomatic to asymptomatic infection in most people infected by it. This is why the number of those infected was so large before the virus was initially identified. Since older and very ill patients were highly represented among those who ended up in hospitals at beginning of this outbreak, the mortality rate initially seemed much higher than it turned out. To be clear, 2019-nCov is definitely a bigger problem than your average influenza strain- but, as things stand today, it is not the apocalyptic epidemic which many white idiots were hoping for. Based on what we know about microbial evolution, this virus will most likely evolve into even less lethal version- eventually approaching the level of an average Influenza A strain.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Feb 17, 2020

February 17, 2020 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW. Will post something more intellectual tomorrow.

Amateur POV BJs: Jan 28, 2020 – Amateur cuties sucking on the glans.

Amateur POV BJs: Feb 13, 2020 – Amateur cuties in glasses giving BJs.

More Amateur POV BJs: Feb 13, 2020 – More amateur cuties in glasses giving BJs.

Amateur Deepthroat BJs: Feb 16, 2020 – Amateur cuties giving deepthroat BJs.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Future of One Ethno-Religious Group in USA is Not Looking Bright: 3

February 14, 2020 15 comments

In the previous part of this series, I talked about how the obsessions of a certain ethno-religious group with maintaining their public image while often behaving like assholes and mixing religion with nationalism is guaranteed to end badly. Let us now talk about why the conflation of religio-cultural identity with nationalism has a tendency to end badly and why secondary and tertiary downstream effects of such a disaster are much bigger than most people realize- especially for the group in question. But before we go there, let us quickly talk about the origins of modern nationalism and the many problems it caused in the 20th century, including a bit about how older empires and countries managed to function remarkably well (in many cases for centuries at a time) without even a hint of nationalism.

Contrary to what some of you might believe, nationalism as we understand it today is a recent phenomenon that came into being after modern nation-states came into existence. Prior to that, you could have large stable empires and even countries but without the nationalism we associate with such entities. So, an entity such as the roman empire was far more decentralized than most people today can imagine. Sure.. it did have a common set of basic laws and rules, architectural plans, lots of intra-empire trade etc. But the people within that empire (roman and non-roman) did not see themselves as part of a single nation. Rather they saw themselves as as subjects of the same empire and had considerable freedom to follow their old gods and maintain their social structures as long as they did not claim that their ways were the only correct ones.

This is why empires such as the Roman and Ottoman or the many Chinese dynasties which lasted for hundreds of years even though their populations (even in China) were much more ethnically heterogeneous than many modern nation states. To put it another way, systems of governance where there are some uniform laws and a degree of administrative commonality can function very nicely even if there is a pretty high degree of ethno-cultural heterogeneity. Which brings us to the real reason why modern nation states (after 1850s) tried to sell the scam of nationalism to their populations. It comes down to raising large armies of conscripted soldiers for fighting large wars and help expand their respective empires- something which was seen as necessary in that era. That is why nationalism, as we know it today, arose in the colonial states of western Europe and the apartheid country of USA. Yes.. that is why.

Of course, one interesting side-effect of creating bullshit national identities is that they facilitate armed conflict. There is a reason why WW1, WW2, the Armenian Genocide, Greek Genocide in Turkey, Holocaust and a ton of other wars in Eastern Europe occurred in the narrow time-span from 1890 to 1950. It is also why post-WW2 Europe is a far less nationalistic place than in it used to be between 1870-1945.But what does any of this have to do with the dim future of a certain ethno-religious group in USA? What can history teach about the results of nationalism, especially ethno-religious nationalism? Well.. for starters, the side that is numerically inferior will always get walloped by the numerically superior side- even if it takes some time and a few false starts. And this makes perfect sense once you realize that nationalism was always a tool for winning wars and conquering new territories. But it gets worse from here..

The numerically smaller side will not only be ultimately defeated, but will also lose a lot of the territory it used to hold. While technology can stave off the day of reckoning for a few decades, its spread ultimately dooms the numerically inferior side. Israel has not been able to decisively win a land war since the mid 1980s- something it could do with ease a decade before that. We known how their little 2006 misadventure in Lebanon ended. Or take the example of Armenia, whose present area is a faction of what used to Armenian-majority regions used to be prior to WW1. Or look at all the lands lost by Serbians since the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Unlike most people who will tell you whatever you want to hear, I will tell you stuff you don’t like to hear. But what is the relevance of any of this to the future of one enthno-religious group in USA?

Well.. it comes down to who they, or the more visible and vocal members of their group, identify with. Prior to 1945, the majority of this group in USA (and some other western countries) did identify with their religion or culture- more of the later than former. However the vast majority of them did not associate their identity with a physical nation or land area. But how does associating yourself with a specific area of land change anything. Well.. as it turns out, going from an almost purely ethno-religious group to one increasingly defined by association with a piece of land makes other see you as a nation. Now this is not a bad idea if there are hundreds of millions others such as yourself on an area with a decent amount of natural resources. But what if there are only a few million of you and people like yourself have not been historically a liked group?

To make a long story short, it is not advantageous for a historically disliked group with a small population size to become their own nation. It might work OK in the short term, but everything we know about nationalism and especially how it creates and intensifies conflict between groups tells us that the numerically smaller group will always lose in the end- even if it has nuclear weapons. But how does this connect with the future of that group in USA? Let me put it this way.. in prior decades people of that group supported that nation because they felt a kinship with their persecuted co-religionists. However they never stopped seeing themselves as part of the country in which they were born. Over the past twenty to thirty years, an increasing number of that group (especially the visible and vocal types) see themselves as a separate nation within USA.

More importantly, this trend has been noticed by a large percentage of people who do not belong to said ethno-religious group. It also does not help that, today, the group in question is over-represented in the category of greedy assholes. Some of you might be aware that in the past this greedy asshole category used to be full of people with WASPish surnames. Today it is.. well.. different. The guy currently trying to buy the presidency is an asshole billionaire called Michael Bloomberg. One of the most egregious examples of sexual abuse in Hollywood was allegedly committed by somebody known as Harvey Weinstein. One of the biggest financial backers for Donald Trump during 2016 is a billionaire known as Sheldon Adelson. The ex-CEO of Goldman-Sachs, whose company was behind some of the worst shenanigans which resulted in global financial Crisis of 2008, is a charming person known as Lloyd Blankfein.. the same guy who is on record as saying that his company did god’s work. I could go on..

My point is that pulling off this shit in a system which is already experiencing rapid terminal decline (USA) when you are both a small minority as well as increasingly seen by others as an actual nation within a nation might not end well. Since I do not belong to one of the monotheistic religions or believe in any other religion, I have no dog in this fight. Just making an observation based on what I can observe and my understanding of history. Might write more on topic based on responses. Have a feeling there may be a few..

What do you think? Comments?

Thoughts on Recent Developments in the 2020 Democratic Primaries: 1

February 13, 2020 8 comments

Regular readers of my blog might remember that I wrote a few posts in 2015 and 2016 about my thoughts on the 2016 presidential election- party primaries as well as actual electoral campaign. Not to toot my horn too much (again), but I correctly predicted that Trump would win republican party nomination within a few weeks of entering the race and how he would defeat Hilary in the general election as early as February 2016. More importantly, I never changed my opinion about both outcomes based on the latest bullshit narratives and lies pumped out by decrepit and dying corporate media outlets such as NYT, WP, CNN, MSNBC etc. As it turned out, my assessment was more correct than every single one of those incestuous presstitutes.. also known as “credentialed journalists”.. who were (and still are) each paid millions of dollars per year by those outlets. I can sense that MikeCA will get triggered by this paragraph as I am writing it.. lol.

I initially considered not writing about this quadrennial election cycle, because I know it is going to be a much bigger shitshow than the previous one. But after some more thought, and one small trial balloon, have decided to write about it. I will, however, not focus on every shitshow and fake controversy along the way because there will be tons of them. Furthermore, I write as a hobby and despite of what MikeCA might want to believe, I have not made a single cent out of writing this blog or any other. With that out of the way, let me recommend a new and interesting article by Matt Taibbi which summarizes a possibility which I also increasingly see as being very likely. The very short version of that article is as follows: Bernie will win the party nomination outright or get a plurality of delegates in 2020 for the same reasons Trump did in 2016. This is likely since Bernie, like Trump, has a very devoted and significant core of voter support while those opposing him are competing against each other to win the votes of those who are fine with the status quo.

Readers might have noticed how dying corporate media outlets have been busy pumping up each establishment candidate in succession only to see them deflate in a spectacular fashion and then move on to the next one. First they were trying to sell the inevitability of Biden, then it was the summer of Liz Warren, the fall of McKinsey Buttboy and now the rise of that woman who abuses her staff. As things stand today, Biden’s primary campaign, like the candidate, is rapidly falling apart after getting walloped in Iowa and New Hampshire. Lying Harvard lady.. I mean, Elizabeth Warren.. is doing no better, especially given the time and money she invested in both states. McKinsey Buttboy is trying to pull a Juan Guaido even though he has close to zero support among non-white and non-affluent white voters. Did I mention that Pyscho boss-lady has no realistic path beyond New Hampshire. And we haven’t even talked about the effect of the two billionaires aka Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg’s campaigns in later states.

Let us first talk about the recent Iowa primary.. well, the parts other than the purposely botched caucus and McKinsey Buttboy declaring victory before even a single partial result was declared. You might have heard that the aggregate turnout at that state caucus this year was lower than 2020. Well, the total turnout this year was higher than 2016 but lower than 2008. The turnout of youth voters (as a percentage of total) was however slightly higher than 2008 and much higher than 2016. While this is not especially good, it is certainly not bad- especially for a party which has blown so much political capital because of their obsession with the bullshit RussiaGate and UkraineGate investigations and predictably unsuccessful attempt at removing Trump through impeachment. I mean.. you cannot seriously expect record-breaking turnout at the primary of a party whose establishment is pushing nonsense that many of their potential voters don’t give a flying fuck about. And they kept changing the caucus site locations till the day before primary.

Moving on to the New Hampshire democrat primary, the turnout this year was significantly higher than 2016 and will probably exceed 2008. Also, unlike the shitshow of Iowa’s primary the one in New Hampshire went well and results were available later that night. I probably do not have to tell you that Bernie got the most votes, just like he did in Iowa. Sure, the victory margin was less than 2016 because a field with over eight candidates (at least five major ones) has different dynamics than an election with just two. In my opinion, Elizabeth Warren was the biggest loser coming out of that primary since her two consecutive poor performances and tepid support in subsequent states ensures that her campaign (barring some Deus Ex Machina twist) is, for all practical purposes, dead. Even though Amy Klobuchar, aka Psycho boss-woman, did better than expected- her campaign is also dead since she has really poor numbers in upcoming states.

Moving on to McKinsey Buttboy, who was the corporate media darling before Pyscho boss-lady, his campaign will probably hand around till South Carolina or more likely super Tuesday- when it becomes glaringly obvious to his backers that he has no chance. While Biden has been utterly humiliated due to his poor showing in the first two primaries, I would not consider his campaign dead until he is defeated or flounders badly in Nevada and South Carolina. While it is true that his campaign does not have much money and big donors are increasingly skeptical of his chances, older Bill Cosby-worshiping blacks still haven’t deserted him en masse yet. We also have to factor in that bland neoliberal billionaires such as Tom Steyer are pretty competitive in the stupid.. I mean southern.. states. Did I mention that Bloomberg has also setup some committee which large donors can join for free if they pledge to not support any other candidates?

As some have already said, it increasingly appears that the democratic primary will be between Bernie and Bloomberg. Sure.. something totally unexpected can change this building trend but the simple fact is that Bernie has (by far) the largest grassroots support and capability to raise funds from them while Bloomberg is among the ten richest men in USA. One more thing.. the democratic party will lose 2020 presidential election if it is stupid enough to choose Bloomberg as their candidate for reasons I will explain in the next part.

What do you think? Comments?