Search Results

Keyword: ‘democratic party current form no future’

The Democratic Party, in its Current Form, has No Worthwhile Future: 4

January 5, 2017 7 comments

In the previous and third part of this series- I pointed out that the democratic party, in its current form, is highly dependent upon continued support by the professional (and wannabe professional) class. In that post, I also talked about why this particular socio-economic group has such an outsize influence on the actual policy positions of democratic party. To quickly summarize: a number of overlapping factors such as their geographic distribution, co-localization with other groups of reliably democratic voters, importance in fund-raising, filling the lower ranks of their party apparatus etc make them an especially important category of likely voters for establishment democratic candidates. It is worth mentioning that the professional (and wannabe professional) class also benefit and profit from their association with, and their support of, the democratic party.

The level and depth of support by this class of the democratic party does however bring up another seldom asked question- Why are members of the professional (and wannabe professional) class in USA so likely to support, and vote for, establishment democratic candidates? I mean.. why are people in the top 10-20% of the income distribution scale, at least on the national scale, so supportive of a party which still brands itself as pro-working-class? Now some of you will point out that not all people who make a decent income tend vote for democrats.. and that is true. There is however a big difference between people who make a upper-middle class level income for 5-20 years of their life and those who are part of that class.

A working class person with a decent paying job (cop, electrician, tradesman or some other blue-collar type) is not part of the upper-middle class even if they, in some parts of the country, make an almost upper middle-class income for a couple of decades in their life. On the other hand- somebody born in a family where both parents, and frequently close relatives, have post-graduate degrees will almost always end up as part of the professional (and wannabe professional) class. Curiously people born into that class tend to remain part of it even if they are not as financially successful, at least in the short-term, as their parents. So while the kids of a professor, doctor or lawyer might not end up in occupations similar to their parents, they are rather unlikely to end up as electricians or plumbers.

But what does our brief discussion on socio-economic class in USA have to do with future electoral prospects of the democratic party? As you will see in the remainder of this post- a lot!

To better understand what I am going to say next, ask yourself another simple question- What is the idealized self-image of the professional (and wannabe professional) class? Who, and what, do they see themselves as? What do they aspire to become? At the risk of making an over generalized statement, it is fair to say that this particular class sees itself as the truly deserving elite- though most of them would never admit it loudly in public. But why would they think like that? Well.. because it is kinda true. All highly unequal and pyramidal wealth distributions owe their continued existence to the striving of those in the levels immediately below the uppermost level of the social order. To put it another way, it is the professional class who do all the hard work that keeps the status quo going- which benefits the rich elites far more than it benefits them.

And this brings us to peculiar relationship between the professional class and the rich elites. The former, you see, want to become the later. There are however only two pathways for them to realistically achieve that goal. They can either replace them through violent revolution or ingratiate themselves further to the elites. If you have read enough history, it becomes obvious that ingratiation is by far more common than outright replacement- largely because most members of the professional class are clever but spineless creatures who are better at being courtiers than warriors. The professional class therefore spend a lot of effort imitating the moneyed elite. Such mimicry ranges from the fairly harmless copying of their masters tastes in food, drink, dress, mannerisms and leisure activities to the far more insidious process of adopting their worldview as their own.

But why is the false consciousness of the professional (and wannabe professional) class in USA so problematic for the future viability of the democratic party? And why now?

To better answer this question we have to ask ourselves: has the class composition of decision makers and their flunkies in the democratic party (aka the establishment) changed over the decades? As many of you know- the answer to that is a big fucking YES! The democratic party establishment, right upto the early 1990s, represented a far wider range of social classes than in 2016. My point is that, while the party establishment then was just as (or more) corrupt and hierarchical as it is now- it was not the near perfect echo chamber of ideological conformity we see in 2016. But why is having high levels of self-imposed ideological conformity in an organization dangerous for its future? I mean.. didn’t state communism in eastern European countries last for decades under similar levels of self-imposed ideological conformity?

Which brings me to the real reason why extensive support by the professional class is so damaging to the future of the democratic party. Rigid ideological conformity, you see, works pretty well as long as external conditions don’t change too much. Think about using cruise control on a car.. it works great as long as you are driving on a road (and under conditions) similar to the one under which it was turned on. However you cannot keep on using the cruise control setting you turned on a straight and uncrowded stretch of the freeway once you reach its more crowded sections or exit onto a smaller road with different speed limits. And you certainly cannot drive on a snow-covered road like you would do on a dry road in southern California. In other words, keeping yourself on the road requires you to adapt the way you drive according to prevailing road conditions and traffic.

Similarly large human organizations such as political parties have to adjust their mode of functioning and strategies to the prevailing conditions. But how do they “know” about changes in the political and socio-economic climate? In a democracy, elections are supposed to provide such a feedback. But what if they are unable to do so? What if the entire electoral process is so rigged and gerrymandered that most incumbent candidates of either political party keeps on winning “fair and free” elections until the whole underlying system is literally about to collapse? What if a political party is capable of consistently winning elections in certain parts of the country regardless of their policies and performance in office? In case you didn’t realize it- I was talking about the electoral process in USA.

Anyway.. my point, here, is that elections are basically unable to effect any real change in the policy directions of established political parties. Any change in that area (short of the public losing all faith in the system) has therefore to come from people inside the establishment of political parties. We already know that “leaders” and other high-ranking officials in any political party will never change their ways or accept the need for such change. And this brings us to the loyal rank-and-file of political parties. As far as the democratic party is concerned, its loyal rank-and-file = professional (and wannabe professional) class. To put it another way, the loyal rank-and-file of the democratic party is basically a large echo chamber which supports and vigorously defends the interests and worldview of rich elites.

That is why the democratic establishment and its loyal supporters have been able to consistently reelect their repeatedly unsuccessful leadership. That is why they keep on acting as if they were not badly defeated in 2016. That is why they keep on nominating mediocre insider presidential candidates like Dukakis, Gore, Kerry and HRC. That is why all the electoral reverses of the previous eight years had little to no effect on their political strategies. That is also why they are busy blaming everybody but their own strategies and policies for their electoral setbacks. That is also why they are so interested in getting the votes of “moderate” republicans rather than increasing their turnout among the working class.

To make a long story short, establishment democrats will very likely continue on their disastrous trajectory because everybody who has any real say in making that decision believes it to be the only path. Perhaps more troublingly, they will continue to win enough elections in certain populous parts of the party to keep them relevant as a national party and thereby allow them to dismiss (or stifle) emerging internal dissent in the party. Unless some combination of persons and events discredits the current democratic establishment and their flunkies, in the near future, to an extent which makes it impossible for them to be seen as a credible national political party- they have no worthwhile future.

What do you think? Comments?

The Democratic Party, in its Current Form, has No Worthwhile Future: 3

December 30, 2016 7 comments

In a previous (and second) post of this series, I wrote about the largely unspoken reasons underlying the inability and unwillingness of establishment democrats to change their political strategy and choice of electoral candidates. I made a case that the “managed” version of democracy (actually an illusion of democratic legitimacy) which was prevalent in western countries over the previous 40 years has now experienced irreversible systematic failure. The real question, then, is “when” (not “if”) the current status quo will implode.

To be clear, I am not implying that this hollow and rotten edifice will come down tumbling in the near future. It is, in fact, unlikely to fail over the next few months or even the few (say.. 2-4) years. I am merely pointing out that the current setup has demonstrated its inability to maintain the status quo which perpetuates its own existence. The exact sequence of events that will trigger its final implosion are still a matter of chance. My guess is that they will unfold over a time-span of the next 2-12 years, with my best guesstimate being 3-7 years. But that is a topic for a future post or series.

Readers might recall that my previous two posts in the current series were about the numerous systemic failures of the democratic party establishment over previous 40 years. As they might also recall, these failures have become especially obvious over the last decade. But are establishment democrats the only group responsible for their own slow motion destruction and increasing irrelevance? Have other identifiable groups contributed to, or accelerated, the pace of destruction and loss of relevance for democrats? Well.. as much as I would like to assign all blame for their (own) destruction on establishment democrats, it is clear that they had lots of external help.

The rest of this post is about one external group, which more than any other, has facilitated the ongoing slow motion destruction of the democratic party. To better understand what I am going to say next, ask yourself a simple question: how can any political party, as well-funded as it might be, keep on winning elections at any level of government if it cannot get enough people to vote for it? In other words- tribal minded voters who will loyally vote for a given political party, no matter what, are crucial to the continued survival of that party. This dependence on a core of enthusiastic and tribal minded voters is especially important for political parties in stage-managed “democracies” such as USA.

You might have noticed that party primaries in USA tend to favor candidates who can fake fidelity to the most extreme version of what their most loyal and tribal minded voters want to hear. That is why republican primaries (at all levels of government) have traditionally been dominated by candidates who profess extreme religiosity, want to eliminate income taxes, cut “deficit spending”, expand the military-industrial and prison-surveillance-industrial complex, support racist incarceration policies and want to restrict the right of women to get abortions. Similarly, democratic primaries have historically been dominated by candidates who pretend to profess fidelity to ideals such as defending and expanding credentialism, promoting and expanding rule by technocrats, maintaining the economic status quo, paying lip service to racial equality and pretending to support expanded access to better education, healthcare etc.

In other words- beyond promoting the interests of their big money donors, candidates of any political party are most beholden to issues that animate their most loyal and tribal minded voters. And this brings us to the next question- what kind of person reliably votes for democratic candidates in party primaries? As it turns out, most of these super loyal democratic voters fall into one of two major categories. One category consists of middle-aged and elderly black women who live in predominantly urban or black-majority neighborhoods. Voters in this particular category are also promptly forgotten and ignored by establishment democrats after each election season.

The other reliably enthusiastic category of democratic voters consists of the professional (and wannabe professional) class- and they have carry more clout with the party establishment than black women. This category of voters is also an important secondary source of campaign funds in addition to providing the bulk of their electoral campaign volunteers. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the policies of establishment democrats, beyond those required by the big money financiers, are mostly driven by the concerns and needs of their professional (and wannabe professional) class supporters- who have become increasingly concentrated in a few coastal states and major metropolitan areas.

The willingness of the democratic establishment to promote ideas such as gun control, transgender bathrooms, even more credentialism, “free trade” policies, increased immigration, austerity and policy wonkism is largely due to their desire to satisfy their professional (and wannabe professional) class voters. The desire to maintain support of this particular category of voters is also behind the reluctance of establishment democrats to support ideas such as increasing the minimum wage, reducing immigration and job outsourcing, reducing growing economic inequality, investing in infrastructure development, reducing the costs of housing, education and healthcare etc. You get the picture..

But why is reliable support of professional (and wannabe professional) class so harmful to the future electoral prospects of the democratic party? And why did such support apparently not hurt them in past elections?

Well.. for starters, it has hurt them in the past. The loss of a majority in the house after almost fifty years in 1994, Gore losing the electoral college to Bush in the 2000 election, Kerry losing to Bush in 2004, the loss of a majority of state legislatures and governorships by democrats (between 2008-2016) in addition to their loss of majorities in the house (in 2010) and senate (2014) during that same time period owe a lot to major policy positions of establishment democrats and the type of candidates chosen in party primaries. I should add that HRC, who was the dream candidate of this voter class, lost the 2016 presidential election to Trump.

But it gets worse.. Establishment democrats have responded to these electoral setbacks by doubling down on widely unpopular policy positions favored by the professional (and wannabe professional) class. While there is certainly an element of ego in not admitting to screwing up, I believe that maintaining the continued allegiance of this voter class also plays a role in democrats maintaining their current course. It is not exactly a secret that winning elections without much effort in certain populous and highly urbanized states such as CA, NY and MA requires democrats to promote the beliefs and concerns of this professional (and wannabe professional) class.

To make a long story short- the 2008 financial crisis and it’s still ongoing aftermath has made it hard for democrats to win elections in non-coastal and non-metropolitan areas of the country. The majority of eligible voters in most parts of USA don’t want to vote for them or prefer the other party. It seems that the whole ‘socially liberal + fiscally conservative republican-lite’ shtick is no longer capable of convincing enough people to vote for them. Even worse, these electoral loses have made democrats even more dependent on continued electoral victories in coastal states and major metropolitan areas. In other words, trying to keep this particular class of loyal voters has forced establishment democrats to double down on the very policy positions and type of candidates responsible for their continued electoral losses in the rest of USA.

What do you think? Comments?

The Democratic Party, in its Current Form, has No Worthwhile Future: 2

December 28, 2016 7 comments

In the previous post of this series, I had written about how the democratic party establishment plus its major supporters and financiers have been thrown in total disarray by the surprising (to them) election of Donald Trump. It seems that most of them are still in deep denial about the combination of factors and trends which led to the humiliating defeat of their chosen candidate in the 2016 presidential election. Even more troubling, is their almost complete unwillingness to analyse and act upon factors behind the slow-motion electoral rout of their party at multiple levels of government throughout the entire country. While the democratic establishment and its flunkies have put forth a number of reasons for their massive electoral losses at both the federal and state levels, it is clear that they are trying to avoid the proverbial elephant in the room- low turnout of voters for their candidates.

So why is the democratic establishment so unwilling to confront the real reasons behind low voter turnout for their candidates? Why are democrats so obsessed with talking about various voter suppression laws passed by republicans which have, at best, a marginal effect on the ultimate outcome? Why are they unwilling to address the far higher numbers and percentages of eligible voters who choose to not vote in any election? Would it not make sense to increase the low turnout among working class voters- who tend to vote for democratic candidates? Furthermore, why have democratic politicians been rather unwilling to actually pass legislation which would increase electoral turnout (for example- by making voting easier and more convenient) when they had the ability to do so. Why are establishment democrats obsessed with who votes for them, rather than how many cast their votes for them?

Well.. it comes down to one the conspicuously unsaid but fundamental precepts of the neoliberal worldview that is the official ideology of both major parties in USA and indeed all major political parties in countries of the so-called “democratic west”. Neoliberalism works only as long it operates in a command-control type of socio-economic-legal environment. In other words, neoliberalism cannot function in anything approaching a functional democratic socio-economic-legal environment. Now, this inherent contradiction poses a peculiar problem for all those supposedly democratic countries in the “west”. How can the government and elites in such countries retain the veneer of democratic legitimacy while continuing to act in an undemocratic and authoritarian manner? For almost 40 years, elected officials from all major political countries in the so-called “democratic” west have addressed this contradiction by increasing levels of voter suppression by consciously, and unconsciously, discouraging them from voting.

Ever wondered the rates of voter participation have kept on dropping in almost every single “democratic” western country over the last 40 years? Why are so many people, especially in younger age groups, not interested in voting? Perhaps most tellingly, why are the majority of political parties in these countries not concerned about this progressive decline? Why do they almost never do anything to address this issue beyond paying lip-service to it near election time? If you ask people who do not vote about the reasons behind their decision- they will tell you, almost to the last person, that they do not believe that their vote makes a difference. If you dig down a bit further, they will tell you they do not believe (with good reason) that their elected representatives will ever legislate in their interests.

A significant percentage of people in the supposedly “democratic” west have come to the realization that their elected representatives are not answerable to those who elected them. Even worse, every conventional political party in countries as (allegedly) diverse as USA, UK, France and Sweden is utterly beholden to elites- especially of the financial and managerial type. For a long time (late 1970s- 2012?) there was no real alternative for the rapidly rising percentage of people who were unhappy with the official range of choices for political representation. The elected representatives of conventional political parties were, however, quite happy with this situation as it allowed them to maintain the veneer of democratic legitimacy while they were servicing their moneyed elite masters. It is worth mentioning that this situation was tenable for so long largely because inertia kept covering up (if somewhat incompletely) the growing numbers of cracks in the system. Then 2008 happened..

Sophistic CONmen (academics from “famous” universities) and other assorted public “intellectuals” want people to believe that the 2008 financial crisis was the direct initiator for our current era of political instability. I would argue otherwise. The financial crisis of 2008 was, if anything, the end of an era. More specifically, it marked the end of an era marked by widespread public support for the neoliberal worldview. Prior to 2008 a majority of people in the west were willing to believe that the neoliberal way of doing things might, one day, let them become part of elite or at least the upper-middle class. The financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent establishment reactions to it destroyed the last vestige of hope that kept people from challenging the increasingly disconnected and authoritarian nature of their “democratically elected” governments.

I would argue that the response and reactions of credentialed “experts” and elected officials to the 2008 crisis between 2009 and 2012, rather than the actual event, heralded the current era of political instability. The resurgence of hard leftist and populist right-wing parties in western European countries, the Brexit vote in 2016 and the election of Trump in 2016 are therefore responses to exposure of the almost complete incompetence of the conventional political establishment in those countries. It does not help that all conventional political parties in these countries are almost totally controlled by moneyed elites. The aftermath of the 2008 crisis also reopened supposedly settled questions such as the inevitability, let alone the desirability, of “free trade” and “internationalism”. In short, it made many once respectable ideas and their promoters people look like greedy tools and confabulating idiots.

But what does any of the stuff I talked about in the preceding paragraphs have to do with the future of the democratic party in USA and its inability to increase voters turnout for its candidates? As it turns out.. a lot!

The democratic party in the USA, like its republican counterpart, is a conventional political party full of politicians and advisers who cannot imagine a world that is not based in neoliberalism. Consequently they will do anything and everything in their power to maintain the status quo- even if doing so destroys them in the end. That is why the democrats keep blaming everybody except HRC and themselves for their shitty performance in the most recent election cycles. You might have noticed that even an electoral defeat as humiliating as the one dealt to them in 2016 has not resulted in any worthwhile changes in their focus, overall strategy and leadership. They have, if anything, doubled down on all their pre- Nov 8 positions and will make themselves irrelevant in the near future- at least in their current form. I predict that the republicans will also suffer the same fate once they become the incumbent (and largely unopposed) party at all levels of the federal government.

Establishment democrats are not, and were never really, interested in raising general voter turnout for their candidates because that would result in the selection and election of candidates who were not beholden to their moneyed elite patrons. That is a reason that establishment democrats punch left, rather than right. That is why HRC was far more interested in getting the votes of suburban white republican women than poor working class whites. It was always about finding enough voters who were willing to vote for perpetuating neoliberal agendas. Establishment democrats don’t hate working class whites because the later might be racist. They hate them because getting their votes requires making and keeping some populist promises. Establishment democrats love black voters because getting their votes has (at least until now) not required them to make and keep any populist promises. Similarly they love hispanic voters because getting their votes does not require them to promise anything that is not on a neoliberal checklist.

The preference of establishment democrats for getting votes by appealing to identity politics, rather than class politics, should therefore be seen as part of a strategy to win elections without making promises which might contradict the neoliberal agenda. While they have had some success with this general strategy in past elections (especially in 2008 and 2012), it is clear that it is not working- inspite of demographic trends which were supposed to make it even more successful. As it turns out, an increasing number of people are no longer interested in voting for candidates who have no desire (or ability) to improve their lives. However the magnitude of institutional inertia in the democratic establishment is still too high for it to make the necessary strategy and personal changes necessary to win in 2020, let alone 2018. I expect them to double, triple and quadruple down on their positions and ride their hobby horses into electoral irrelevancy. But don’t worry.. establishment republicans will join them in that quest within 2-4 years.

What do you think? Comments?

The Democratic Party, in its Current Form, has No Worthwhile Future: 1

December 18, 2016 5 comments

The many reactions of democratic party establishment to its loss in the 2016 presidential election have been, to put it mildly, rather amusing. On a related note- the horrible performance of democrats in this election cycle at other levels of the government such as the senate, house and state level seem to have (oddly enough) escaped the kind of scrutiny and analysis devoted to the abyssal performance of HRC in the presidential election. FYI- I am certainly not the first person to notice that establishment democrats seem to have given up trying to win elections other than the presidential one and those in reliably “blue” coastal states like NY, CA etc. But that is a topic best left for a future post.

Let us restrict this post, as far as possible, to analyzing the many reactions of establishment democrats to HRC’s “surprising” loss of the electoral college in the 2016 presidential election. As you will see, their reactions to her loss is actually a pretty good primer (and microcosm) for understanding what is wrong with the democratic party and why I think that the party, in its current form, has no worthwhile future. To be clear, I am not implying that the republican party has a bright future either. Indeed, in some ways it is even more damaged than the democratic party. It just happens to be the case that the democrat facade has cracked before its republican equivalent.

And this brings us to the question why most organisations decline or fail without recovery, while others can recover (if usually only partially) and keep on going for a bit longer. A study of history shows that the resilience of an organisation, especially its ability to recover from defeats and serious setbacks, is largely related to how it reacts to negative external events. In other words, more resilient organisations seem to be better at changing themselves to adapt to new circumstances. Some even manage to partially reinvent themselves. Doomed and declining organisations, in contrast, respond to setbacks by doubling down on the very practices and behaviors that caused the setbacks in the first place.

So how have establishment democrats responded to the big setback of HRC losing the presidential election to Trump? Have they initiated any attempt at an objective analysis of the factors behind the humiliating loss? Have they replaced party leaders whose presided over them losing the house in 2010, senate in 2014 and presidency in 2016? Have they even attempted to look back at the decisions that cost them the presidency in 2016? Have they changed, or even attempted to change, what the party is about? Well.. as many of you know they have not done any of the above. In fact, they have doubled down and basically reaffirmed their fealty to their old leaders and not changed any of their public (and private) positions.

As far as the democratic establishment is concerned, it is still business as usual. Moreover they have rolled out a list of “reasons” and talking points to explain HRCs humiliating defeat in the presidential election. These include, in no particular order: Wikileaks, Julian Assange, Russian Hackers, Vladimir Putin, racist white working class men, self-hating white women, inadequately enthusiastic black voters, uninspired millennial voters, James Comey, the FBI and of course Bernie Sanders and his “Bernie Bros” (a significant percentage of whom are female and non-white). It is as if they are invoking and promoting any reason they can think of which does not require them to self-reflect or change course.

The public reaction and talking points promoted by establishment democrats and their servile presstitutes in the 4-5 weeks since Trump defeated HRC are especially telling. Readers might be aware of the non-stop “Russia hacked our elections” hysteric bullshit promoted by establishment democrats (from Obama to every democratic politician with a pulse) and more than a few establishment republicans. I have not seen so much bullshit and lies promoted by establishment media and presstitutes since.. they were predicting Trump losing to HRC as late as early evening of November 8. It is especially striking to see democrats so willing to “believe” in unsubstantiated leaks and hearsay from the CIA- who also told us that Iraq had WMDs in 2003. Furthermore, the CIA is no longer even moderately successful at doing what it is supposed to do.. look at Syria.

Many of you might also have witnessed the ridiculous spectacle of “prominent” actors and entertainers making TV and YouTube ads with the objective of sway republican members of the electoral college into not voting for Trump on December 19. You might also have come across similar pleas from “famous” “ivy-league” academics and other assorted “public” intellectuals. To put it another way, establishment democrats and their flunkies have been reduced to begging republican members of electoral college to vote for establishment republican assholes like Kasich and Pence. The fact that establishment democrats are willing to help elect people like Kasich and Pence over Trump says a lot about the current direction and priorities of that party.

Perhaps more problematically for them, establishment democrats do not appear to have learned anything from the humiliating defeat of HRC in 2016. The list of potential candidates the democratic establishment is currently trying to groom for the 2020 election is full of spineless, corporate friendly, empty talking, mildly photogenic, anti-gun, working class hating morons. In other words, all their current potential presidential candidates for 2020 are in the same mould as HRC and Obama. Corey Booker (Obama-lite), Kirsten Gillibrand (HRC-lite), Andrew Cuomo, Julian Castro are the very type of people rejected by the electorate in 2016, Even the so-called “progressives” among these potential candidates such as Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren are more known for making the right noises than for actually demonstrating a strong desire to change the status quo.

Even more troubling is the democratic establishment is still almost totally beholden to large corporations, especially rich fake-liberal donors and the bi-coastal upper-middle class. So there is still no real chance of somebody like Bernie Sanders winning the democratic presidential nomination in 2020. Also, social and cultural issues keeping up democratic donors at night such as “gun control< "checking your privilege", "transgender bathrooms", "trigger warnings" and promoting fat women in films and TV just do not resonate with the majority of people who are struggling to make a half-decent livelihood. It bears repeating that democrats have never vigorously defended actually popular socio-cultural issues such as the right to abortion.

The democratic establishment has been more than willing to sell its voters down the river through their willingness to cut (or as they call it reform) social security, medicare and medicaid. They have not demonstrated any real compassion towards the plight of people who survive on food stamps or are disabled. Establishment democrats have also demonstrated no real willingness or urgency to actually fix the criminal justice system and substantively reduce or eliminate mass incarceration in USA. They have been quite enthusiastic about scams like the charter school movement, precarious employment, mass surveillance, militarization of police and funding endless unwinnable wars. Establishment democrats have also never seen a "free" trade agreement that they did not like.

The real platform for establishment democrats for the last thirty years can be summarized as: We will do everything the republicans promise to do for their rich donors- but will do so while looking liberal, polished, professional and cosmopolitan. The problem is that many of their voters have stopped buying the product they are offering.

What do you think? Comments?

Response to COVID-19 Will Destroy Democratic Party in 2020 Elections

April 20, 2020 74 comments

I was going to post an article about the stupid western LIEbral reaction to use of Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine to treat SARS-2 disease in its initial stages. FYI- there is a rapidly increasing amount of evidence from different parts of the world that standard dosages of both drugs started within first few days of symptomatic SARS-2 illness do significantly reduce (by about 4-5 times) the risk of hospitalization in its later stages. This is a big deal, as the percentage of older people who die after becoming sick enough to be hospitalized is much higher than those below 65. While writing that article, which will be hopefully post next, I had an interesting epiphany. In its briefest form, it is as follows: the reactions (and in cases, the lack thereof) by establishment LIEbrals to the economic crisis created by current dumb and ineffectual measures deployed to contain this coronavirus pandemic will likely sink the democratic party during 2020 elections.

While this particular take on what is clearly a rapidly evolving and multifactorial crisis might seem premature, especially since the election is almost 6 months away- my analysis is based on solid factors which most LIEbrals are ignoring at their own peril. I am sure some of the more ardent worshipers of LIEbralism (MikeCA?) would like to tell me how the republican party will suffer the biggest electoral losses in generations since Trump (and by association, that party) botched the initial response to this pandemic. To which I say.. sure, Trump and the republican party certainly botched the initial response to this pandemic and ensuing crisis- but so did every other major western country (from UK and France to Italy and Spain). But let us be honest about something, we have already passed the point where the initial botched response still matters to most people. What matters now is how the political parties in power in those countries deal with the massive economic fallout caused by measures instituted to allegedly contain this pandemic.

Some of you might say.. isn’t the mortality due to this pandemic still the biggest cause for concern. Well.. based on a preponderance of evidence, it is not and let me explain how I reached that conclusion. A number of recent population studies which look for specific antibodies generated in response to SARS-2 infection seem to strongly suggest that the percentage of population who were exposed to this infection and went on to develop an asymptomatic (or mildly symptomatic) form is about 10-50 times higher than the cases who were ill enough to be tested by the PCR tests used for detecting viral RNA. In other words, rate of functionally asymptomatic infections for SARS-2 is at least 10 fold higher than previously thought- especially in otherwise healthy people below 60. While there is no shortage of doomers pretending to be “statisticians” who want to tell you that all that data is somehow wrong, the number of studies from different countries (using different test kits) which support the high rates of asymptomatic infection is now so high that a non-biased person would have to admit that it is true.

So why does this matter? Well.. it immediately changes the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) of SARS-2 from 1-3% in countries with extensive PCR-based testing to lower than 0.3-0.1% or even lower for those under 65. While a CFR of about 0.2% is higher than most yearly influenza epidemics, it is in the range of major influenza pandemics such as the one in 1957-1958. That pandemic killed about 100k people in USA when its population was almost half of what it is today. At that time it was seen as an unfortunate, but still acceptable, body count and things improved quickly once it was over. My point is that, heartless as it might seem, a body count of 200k (mostly old people) is not going to have a long-term adverse effect on this country. However a prolonged shutdown which creates 30-40% unemployment rates on top of massive number of business failures is going to cause far more problems that burying or burning the corpses of 200k mostly very old (and white) dead people. And yes, I have factored in the differences in rates of death by race as well as the percentage of each group in population.

But what does any of this have to do with why the official response to this pandemic will likely destroy the democratic party in 2020 elections. To better understand what I am going to talk about, let us first spell out a few obvious facts. Firstly, elections will occur in early November 2020, when the economic impact of the shutdown due to official government response will be a far bigger issue than the number of old dead people. As a consequence, the way both parties respond over next few months to the growing economic disaster will be far more relevant than it is right now. But.. wouldn’t that favor the democrats, since they are allegedly the working class party? Well, in case you haven’t been reading what I have been writing for last few years- the democratic party became the party of credentialed suburbanites + professionals a long time ago. Sure.. some black people vote for them- but that is largely due to historical affiliations among older black people. Neither the democratic party, or its republican equivalent, cares about black people or most white people for that matter.

So what have the democrats have been doing so far?

1] It is no secret that democrats haven’t been doing much, if anything, to help the working class they claim to represent. Most of the two-something trillion dollars in first bailout bill has gone to large business pretending to be small ones. In fact, republican dipshits such as Marco Rubio and Josh Hawley are the reason why it even contains a provision to bail out small business. But it gets worse.. democrats did not seriously try to pass a 2k/month universal unemployment provision in that bill. That number is important because every west-European country, Canada, Australia etc made sure that even their gig and contract workers could easily get at least 2k/ month in addition to generous (75-80%) support for both large and small business to keep their employees on payroll. Now LIEbrals (like MikeCA?) might say that such a measure would not have passed in the senate. Well.. they never tried seriously, so we don’t know. But even if it hadn’t passed, trying hard to pass it would have shown potential voters that the party cared about them- especially important in a presidential election year.

Instead democrats are totally banking on Trump screwing up the response to this pandemic. Yes.. you heard that right. Thy have no other plan to win the 2020 elections other than hope and pray that Orange Man fucks up so badly that people will just vote for their dementia patient aka Joe Biden. To make matters even worse, if that is possible, their response to the crisis has been either cringeworthy or downright repulsive. Some of you might have seen Nancy Pelsoi displaying the expensive contents of her super-expensive refrigerators on national TV at a time when about half the country don’t know whether they can afford food within few weeks and food banks in many cities have been swamped by tens of thousands who had never used such services in the past. Or look at that stupid cunt who is the current governor of Michigan acting like an out-of touch autocrat or the governor of Virgina using this opportunity to push through ‘gun control’ legislation. It is as if democrats at both the national and state level are completely out of touch with the needs and demands of their supposed constituencies.

2] Many of you might have also seen the decrepit MSM giving tons to air time to Andrew Cuomo and to a lesser extent- Gavin Newsom. They are doing so to project both of them, especially the former, as future potential presidential candidates. The only problem is that they are both very mediocre and borderline incompetent leaders with serious electability issues at national level. Don’t believe me? Let us go through their records. Cuomo is a part of a political dynasty which benefited from being in the 2nd most openly corrupt state in USA- after neighboring New Jersey. Andrew’s biggest achievement has been his full throated support for neoliberalism and working with the republican party to keep in his state to maintain that status quo. Did I mention NY is one the most unequal states in this country. As far as his supposed ability to contain this pandemic.. well, it was Cuomo (who against the better judgement of Bill de Blasio) delayed any serious response to the pandemic in NY state by about 2-3 weeks. Under Cuomo, NY reduced its hospital bed count by over 20k in the last few years to build luxury condos and now he also cut Medicaid funding in the most recent state budget.

Gavin Newsom, while not as venally corrupt as Cuomo, is nonetheless a highly problematic potential democratic party leader at national level. From his support of severe ‘gun control’, SJW causes such as trangenderism to being ineffectual at actually solving real problems such as very high levels of homelessness and economic inequality in that state. At best he is a neoliberal who is not as bad as Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden, assuming the later still knows who he is. But the much bigger problem, as far as 2020 elections are concerned, is how they are acting right now. See.. both are trying to position themselves as ‘resistance’ to Trump, which means opposing everything put forth by Trump- irrespective of the merit of each idea. That is why both are opposed to any concrete and defined plan for reopening the economy in their states. But why would this matter? Well.. because other states, especially those run by republican governors will reopen sooner and while they may initially suffer from outbreaks of SARS-2, their economies won’t be as thoroughly trashed as those of NY and CA. And this will matter come election time.

As I have repeatedly mentioned in my previous posts on this general topic, USA has neither the bureaucratic framework or ideological bent to quickly provide effective levels of financial help to its citizens in times of crisis. Consequently, this shutdown is going to an incredible amount of socio-economic damage to everyone in this country who is not rich, well connected or has a sinecured job. Sure, some will be hurt more than others but even most doctors are seeing their income plummet because of the cancellation of scheduled surgeries, normal medical procedures and reduction in appointments. The same is true for supposedly resilient entities such as universities, municipalities and many more. Even if the government decides to bail them out, under the present set of rules, most of the money will not reach the people it was intended to help (employees, contractors, small business dependent on them etc). In other words, a prolonged shutdown will cause exponentially increasing amounts of damage to economy and those states which are closed for a longer time (to show their resistance to Trump) will inflict the most suffering on their residents. And this will be weaponized by Trump reelection campaign.

3] Talking about the ‘resistance’.. it is an open secret that corporate media and democrats want Trump to fail. To be clear, I am not suggesting Trump is competent- but then again, there is no evidence that his predecessors were any better than him. Sure, they were somewhat “better spoken” in public, but their policies were just as neoliberal, poorly thought out and shitty as his. You might have seen these ‘resistance’ bullshitters convert each press briefing into an adversarial nightmare and constantly question his actions. The problem with such behavior is that it highly counterproductive. Because the corporate media is so openly adversarial to Trump, he can claim false persecution and thus divert attention from this many actions which are actually stupid and shitty. There is a reason why “RussiaGate”, “Mueller Report”, “UkraineGate”, “impeachment” and now this crisis has not had any impact on his popularity. The relentless but totally ineffectual media attacks on Trump are, ironically, what keep his popularity from going down.

It does not help that all the losers clamoring for prolonged shutdowns in media, and on social media, are limo LIEbrals who have enough money and other resources to weather them. These dumbfucks have little, to no, connection or understanding of how the majority of people make a living. This position is going to become increasingly problematic as more and more evidence from other countries will show that specific antibodies to this virus in asymptomatic people (evidence of exposure and recovery) are far more widespread than currently believed- which implies that CFR is significantly less that 1-1.5%. At that point, I predict that these resistance dummies will try to sabotage testing of people for antibodies or claim that “antibodies in recovered patients do not offer protection” because they want to prolong shutdown and cause more economic damage to make Trump lose is reelection bid. Needless to say, such behavior is only going to make Trump and the republicans look like the better option in November for most of the country.

In summary, the reaction of establishment LIEbrals and corporate media to this pandemic is very likely to severely damage the electoral prospects of democratic party in the 2020 elections.

What do you think? Comments?

Future of One Ethno-Religious Group in USA is Not Looking Bright: 1

December 8, 2019 12 comments

Let me begin by saying that I have a feeling this post is going to get more than its fair share of comments. With that out of the way, let me state an observation I made a few years ago. The general public perception of, and good-will towards, a certain ethno-religious group in USA has really gone down over the past decade. More worryingly, for them, this decline shows no sign of slowing down- nor does it appear to have reached even a temporary floor. Just so that all of you know, I was not born into any monotheistic religion nor do I believe in any other religion, be it traditional or secular. Furthermore, I have worked with many people belonging to this specific ethno-religious group throughout my career and don’t have an especially negative or positive opinion about them. In other words, I have no dog in this fight.

With that in mind, let us finally get into this rather controversial topic. But before going there, it is important to understand that the vast majority of this group aren’t rich or powerful- with most being somewhere between middle-class and upper-middle class. But for reasons, historical and contemporary, the majority of this group ends up being seen as no different from their own rich and increasingly disliked minority. My point is that this association is now increasingly having negative consequences for their overall public image and this will, sooner or later, find its way into real life- especially if the average quality of life in countries such as USA keeps going down. To understand what I am talking about, you might want to brush up on your European history, and not just the part between 1933-1945. Moreover, the causes behind this current trend are multi-factorial and have a lot with do with how things worked out after 1945, especially in USA.

1] The public has lost faith in neoliberalism and its institutions. Oddly enough, the most important reason for the increasingly negative public perception of this group is accidental. As I have often hinted in many of my previous posts, the past twenty years have become the two “lost”decades for most people in this country. And yes, there are many culprits- ranging from deindustrialization, loss of stable jobs and careers, negative effects of unchecked corporate monopolization. However the top 10-20% (not just the top 1%) have done OK during this period. It just so happens that the top 10-20% have a noticeably higher percentage of aforementioned group. Now this was not a problem during the period between 1945-2001.. you know, when the economy was kinda working for most people. But it becomes rather hard to ignore when the economy has not worked for most people for past twenty years.

To make matters worse, the managerial class of this country (both middle and upper) who are most closely associated with laying off people, closing factories, running hostile HR departments also contain a noticeably high percentage of this group. The occupations and professions which people most closely associate with their immiseration often unfortunately have a hard to ignore percentage of said group. Furthermore, professions which have preserved their income via cartel formation (doctors, dentists etc) or through closed-off private ‘clubs’ (large law firms, investment banking etc) also have a rather noticeable percentage of this group. Once again, none of this would have mattered if the economy was working for most people- but it isn’t! And it gets worse..

The academic defense of neoliberal economic policies in USA, is conducted by paid credentialed “academics”, “scholars”, “experts” and other assorted intellectuals. Once again, a rather large percentage of the more famous intellectual defenders of neoliberalism unfortunately belong to this group. To be clear, I am not suggesting that the majority of people from this group subscribe to neoliberalism. Indeed, there is good evidence that a fair number of them do actively oppose neoliberalism. However, in the minds of the public, the imposition and defense of neoliberal economic policies (aka their immiseration) is now associated with this group- significantly more so than others. This was not always the case. In fact, during a good part of the last century this group produced many famous people who preached in defense of socialism, justice and equality.

2] Greatly increased insularity and living in social, cultural bubbles is not helpful. One of the many effects of the neoliberal transformation of USA in past forty years has been the vastly increased levels of intellectual and political and polarization. We all know that people living in affluent areas and suburbs of coastal cities have vastly different views on a number of topics from their counterparts living in less affluent parts of the same state. It only gets worse when you start comparing the social and cultural bubbles of those living in affluent coastal zip-codes with their counterparts in some city or large town in the ‘flyover’ states. I have made this point in a number of recent posts such as link 1, link 2 and link 3. The educational and geographical concentration of aforementioned group result in them taking stances on many issues (gun control, SJW-ism and other “woke” performative behavior etc) which are at odds with most people in this country.

To make matters worse, supporting fashionable “woke” fads, trends and behaviors while also been seen as the human face of neoliberal immiseration makes one look especially hypocritical, fake and well.. despicable. Once again, other affluent whites of various European ancestries who are credentialed in the same institutions and living in same zip-codes also inhabit the same social bubble. However the lack of a distinctive last name or ancestry shields them from being subject to the same degree of public contempt. There is a reason why the alt-right has been so successful at labeling the coastal elite as rootless cosmopolitans with no real connection to this country. And there is a reason that this trend gathered steam after 2010. In future posts of this series, I will go into how connecting one’s religious identity to a particular country and embracing a strident version of race-based nationalism is not a good idea as well as being deeply ironic.

What do you think? Comments?

How the Democratic Party Could Lose in 2020 Elections and Beyond: 4

September 20, 2019 14 comments

In the previous part of this series, I wrote about how politicians who dutifully recite their allegedly traditional beliefs and pieties can no longer compete with those willing to push beyond previous boundaries of what was considered “routine”, “polite” or “acceptable”. We have reached this point because, over the past four decades, living standards for the vast majority of people have either stagnated or deteriorated. The majority, therefore, no longer feel that a better future is possible. This is why the stale and canned pseudo-populist antics of people such as Reagan40, Clinton42, Bush43, Obama44 and their ilk are no longer sufficient to win elections. Now, we will go into why the current democrat party obsession with “gun control”, “LGTBTQ issues” and other supposedly “woke issues” fashionable with the incestuous and effete “elite” of modern day america.

A couple of years ago, I first wrote about how “wokeness” is largely driven by neoliberals trying to show that they are morally superior to the rest. Since then, we have seen a concerted push by the effete managerial class and every politician who wants to pretend that they too are somehow morally superior to push “solutions” for problems which do not exist. Even worse, in almost all cases their “solutions” either make things worse, cause public backlash and provide ammunition to their equally despicable opponents in the so-called ‘culture wars’. There is a reason why almost everyone in this country, other than those who live in a few exclusive zip codes, see ideas such a “plastic straw ban” or unrealistic fuel consumption guidelines for cars as bad and stupid. And in case you are wondering, the recent proliferation of crossovers in USA has a lot to do with how such automobiles are classified for the purpose of fuel economy standards.

So what does any of this have to with the promotion of electorally disastrous issues such as “gun control”, LGBTQ issues and environmentalism by the democratic party? Well.. a lot. But before we go there, let me clear about a couple of things. While republicans screw their voter-base as much as democrats, they do so without insulting them like the later. Secondly, seemingly unconnected issues promoted by many democrats such as “gun control, LGBTQ issues and environmentalism are closely related, but not for the reasons most of you might have guessed. This is not to say that virtue display has no role in the promotion of such bullshit policies. But while virtue display can explain behaviors such as adopting non-white children, being vegetarian or vegan, driving a Prius and donating to certain charities, it cannot explain the deep obsession of core democrat constituencies with issues such as “gun control” and promotion of LGBTQ.

But what is the difference between adopting a non-white child or going vegetarian and pushing for “gun control” and promoting LGBTQ. Well.. it comes down to doing something yourself versus trying to manipulate of force others to do things your way. For example, almost nobody who has adopted an African child or driven a Prius is forcing you to do the same. But those who allegedly believe in “gun control” and “gender fluidity” want to take away the guns of other people and castrate their children, all in the name of “social progress”. Most of the enduring, and unpopular, hobbyhorses of the democratic party center around top-down control of the lives and behaviors of those “other” people. That is right.. most issues animating the core white constituency of democratic party are about credentialed types and managers trying to control other people.

But to what end? And why are establishment democrats so tone deaf to the unpopularity of their hobby horses. Sure.. focusing on such cultural issues also allows them to ignore real issues such as the desperate need for affordable healthcare, post-secondary education, housing stock etc. Having said that, it mostly comes down to the need to exert power (for its own sake) over other people, not unlike what is presented in George Orwell’s’ 1984. Promoting issues such as “gun control”, “gender fluidity” and environmentalism is about using the framework of a traditional religion to push for its secular equivalent. Did I mention that all religions are about making other people go along with lies and bullshit fairytales to further your control over them.

Religions have another feature that is relevant to this discussion. All the “truths” and “causes” espoused by any given religion cannot be disproved or questioned. This is why establishment democrats who cannot tell the difference between a semi-automatic and select-fire rifle will never change their mind on that subject. It was never about “facts”, “truth” or anything approaching reality. Belief in the righteousness of “gun control” is part of the gospel of coastal american liberalism. Similarly, belief in the validity of “wokeness”, “gender fluidity” and other similar new sacraments of american liberalism has nothing to do with acting in the best interest of other people or children. Do you really think they care if tens of thousands of gender-atypical children get wrongfully castrated and suffer permanent psychological damage because of their beliefs?

Some of you might remember that I recently posted a series about how belief in anthropogenic climate change is a form of secular apocalyptism. In it, I also made the case that the belief in man-made climate change has massive parallels to Catholicism. The part relevant to this post is who benefited from religions such as Catholicism. To make a long story short, the only groups and institutions who really benefit from Catholicism (or any other religion) are the clergy, church, contemporary ruling elites and their stooges. Everyone else suffers necessary deprivation and immiseration. But this, you see, is a central feature of all organized religions- not a bug.

Since we are at almost 1000 words, I will wrap up this post. In the next part, I will go into why support for these liberal causes is going to backfire on democrats during the 2020 elections. Yes.. I am aware that it was supposed to be in this part.

What do you think? Comments?

How the Democratic Party Could Lose in 2020 Elections and Beyond: 3

September 8, 2019 13 comments

In my previous post of this series, I pointed out that the upper echelons of democratic party are so full of effete professionals that it can no longer win national elections unless the other party screws up hard. And to reiterate, racist white anger after the passage of civil rights legislation in 1960s is not the main reason behind the decline of democratic party in most states since the early 1990s. If that was the case, why did a few coastal states such as California, Oregon and Washington go from being reliable republican strongholds in early 1980s to reliably democrat by early 2000s? My point is that something else is at work.

Here is a clue. The shift of any given state (historically non-slave owning) from the democrat to republican column almost always occurs after many years of economic stagnation, permanent job losses, systemic deindustrialization, increase in poverty and zero hope for a better future. On the other hand, those which fare better under the neoliberal regime of “free” trade (predominantly coastal states) end up becoming democrat strongholds. You might have also noticed that the propensity of a state or even a city to vote for democrats after 1992 has a peculiar correlation with its percentage who have office jobs and others that require “credentials” or “licenses” of some sort. So why does this connection exist?

To make a long story short, it comes down to which socio-economic group benefits from the real policies of each party. White university “educated” petite bourgeoisie are the core constituency of modern democratic party. Notably, this group is heavily dependent on government spending and “regulation” for keeping their often useless jobs and professions protected from the negative effects of globalization, while simultaneously being able to use outsourcing of manufacturing jobs and influx of desperate undocumented immigrants to inflate their own living standards. Think of them as the modern equivalent of white people who weren’t rich enough to afford tons of slaves but had enough money for a couple of slaves.

But aren’t there tons of the mythical small-business owners who are reliably conservative and vote republican? Well.. there used to be. Right till the end of 1980s, the business environment in USA was reasonably conducive to the establishment and growth of small to medium businesses. Since then, the neoliberal consolidation of businesses and financialization of the economy resulted in the slow-motion destruction of small to medium sized enterprises. The vast majority of “small businesses” in this country today are now single-person entities used to process earnings from side-gigs or unstable contractor-type jobs.

Corporate consolidation has now created a system that is almost totally dominated by monopolies and oligopolies. Most petite bourgeoisie in america are, therefore, now mostly professionals, people in “licensed” professions, middle to upper management types and those aspiring to join their ranks. These people also happen to be concentrated in larger cities, especially on the coast. Now you know why democrats are so desperate to gain votes from richer white suburbs who are still marginally republican. Ok.. but why do so many black people, especially from the older generation, vote for democrats.

Well.. there are a few reasons for that pattern, but it largely comes down to two major ones. In the early 1960s, the democratic party (at national level) moved from its previous pro-apartheid position to one which supported civil rights. A large number of black people, especially those born after 1930 but before 1970, see democrats as the party of civil rights. They also actively recruited a few black politicians in its ranks. The other reason is that republicans, after 1968, became the party of working class whites. Some of you might wonder as to why republicans focused on working class whites instead of focusing on the entire working class.

The superficial reason for that choice is as follows: the demographic and racial profile of USA in 1960s-1980s was such that restricting oneself to working class whites was a viable political strategy. But the real reason is far more interesting. Both parties have always been controlled and beholden to the very rich and large corporations. Also, electoral politics in USA has always been a stage-managed show. But why did it appear to work? Well.. because a combination of circumstances and situations in the first seven decades of 20th century created enough spare wealth to duct-tape over a lot of systemic problems.

Until the 1980s and even 1990s, the overall economic situation for most people was good enough for them to ignore class-based politics. The peculiar history of USA and its racial demography in those decades. also, made it much easier to push race-based political divisions. In other words, restricting your electoral support to the white working class was a very viable strategy. And that is why republicans became so obsessed with “crime”, “law and order”, “war on drugs” and all that other bullshit after 1968. But note that even in the late-1970s, rates of incarceration (except in deep south) were comparable to other western countries.

But what does any of this have to with democrats in 2019 wanting to implement strict “gun control” laws, trying to outdo each other at being “woke” and do meaningless token bullshit such as banning plastic straws and passing other stupid laws to “protect” the environment. And why are these virtue-display based strategies likely to be counterproductive? To better understand what I am getting at, let me ask you a simple question- why did Trump win the republican nomination and then the presidency in 2018. So let us start by answering the first part, namely how he was able to beat 16 other candidates, some with especially deep pockets.

While some of you might still want to believe that it had something to do with “Russia” or “Putin”, the real if somewhat unpleasant explanation is that his success in the primaries was the logical culmination of post-1968 direction of republican party. Trump was (and is) not an aberration. He was just far more open about his worldview. More interesting, but seldom explored, is why all those other generic mediocrities failed. Why did all those republican politicians duly reciting republican beliefs and pieties fail against Trump? To make a long story short, their performance of the republican version of virtue displays could no longer compete with Trump’s pretense of caring for the white working class.

A slightly longer version is that since 2008, or even a few years earlier, public trust in institutions and systems have fallen in a precipitous and irreversible manner. Performing the same virtue displays which would have guaranteed victory in republican primaries as late as 2008 are not longer sufficient. A few years ago, I wrote a post on how anodyne communication styles have destroyed societal trust. But how is any of this connected to the current clown car of democratic presidential candidates? Well.. it comes down to what that party has learned, or not learned, from their humiliation in 2016. As it turns out, democrats haven’t learned anything useful.

As I wrote in my previous post in this series, people in 2019 care far more about issues such as being able to afford “healthcare”, cost of university education, poor job and career security than the urgent need to ban guns. Face it.. this issue only matters to some credentialed professionals living in urban areas of certain coastal states. However these parasites are highly represented in the social bubble inhabited by the upper echelons of the democratic party. I cannot resist pointing out that this situation is analogous to that time in 2015-2016 when many republican candidates (except Trump) tried to portray themselves as morally upright family men educated at famous universities. Guess what.. most republican voters did not give a shit about the personal moral standards of their elected representatives.

So why did all those allegedly mainstream republican candidates in 2015-2016 keep on reciting these pieties? Here is a clue.. it had to do with their social circle and bubble. In the past thirty years, most politicians of both parties have lost the ability to relate with people outside their carefully insulated social bubble. Consequently they keep harping on stuff which is fashionable and ‘hip’ in their social circles but is seen as out of touch in the real world. Democrats talking about their “wokeness” or being “totally supportive” of LGBTQ issues is similar to republicans talking about their “christian faith” and “virtues of hard work entrepreneurship”. The average voter perceives both as comically inept hypocrites and parasites.

In the next part, I will finally get into some detail about why democratic support for causes such as “gun control”, LGBTQ+ issues and environmentalism are going to be especially disastrous during the 2020 elections.

What do you think? Comments?

How the Democratic Party Could Lose in 2020 Elections and Beyond: 1

August 31, 2019 11 comments

As regular readers know, I have written a series about why the Democratic party does not have a bright future– to put it mildly. To be clear, I am not suggesting that the Republican party is going to fare any better. It will be interesting to observe which one becomes irrelevant first. As things stand today, my money is on democrats becoming irrelevant few years before their republican compatriots suffer a similar fate. While there are many reasons behind this particular guess, one stands out because of its connection to the ongoing clown car show of presidential candidates. It seems that the democratic establishment, and almost every single candidate in the fray, has not learned any useful lessons from the 2016 debacle when their candidate lost to that orange troll.

There are those who believe that the democratic party will ultimately prevail because of changing demographics, aka “coalition of the ascendant”. I am old enough to remember this bullshit idea was floated, in its current form, over 10 years ago when democrats briefly won the house, senate and presidency. Of course, as we all know, things did not quite work out that way. Between 2008 and 2017, democrats lost multiple governorships, over a thousand seats in state legislatures, the house, senate and finally the presidency. I am sure some of you (MikeCA?) will try to portray the slight majority in house won by democrats in 2018 as a harbinger of further electoral victories. I for one, am not sure that this will be the case and here are the reasons.

The electoral victories of democrats in 2018 had far more to do with the incredibly inept handling of “healthcare reform” by Trump and republicans at state as well as national levels. The level of tone-deafness exhibited by orange man and his fellow republicans towards the concerns of tens of millions of voters about their healthcare coverage was the deciding factor in them losing the house and numerous governorship and seats in state legislatures to democrats. I am sure that there are more than a few partisan democrat voters who believe that the Mueller sideshow or newer disclosures about Trump’s extramarital liaisons had an effect. But who are we kidding? The popular image of Trump as a lecherous conman with mediocre business instincts hasn’t changed since 2015. Everyone who voted for him did so in spite of all his public shortcomings.

The real question we should be asking ourselves is: why did so many voters in many states either vote for a orange troll or, more importantly, not vote for HRC. And let us clear about something else, the number of non-voters in USA has exceeded those of the winning presidential candidate for many decades. Indeed, in at least 3 of the last 8 elections, the number of non-voters came real close to being larger than all candidates combined. The percentage of people who vote in USA, especially at national level, has historically been lower than other democracies. But why? Well.. there are many reasons, but most can be summarized in one sentence- majority of voters correctly believe that voting has no real positive impact on their lives. But, once again, why is that so? What makes the USA a Potemkin democracy as opposed to a real one?

To understand what I am talking about and how it relates to the subject of this post, let me ask you another question. Why is the democratic party today unable to win elections in many states which used to be its strongholds in the recent past. The conventional explanation invoked by idiots aka “political pundits” involves something about post-1965 (voting rights act related) political realignment. And there is a sliver of truth in that explanation. The democratic party did pay a considerable electoral price for all the civil rights related laws passed in 1960s. However the damage was largely restricted to ex-slave owning states in the deep south. Democrats actually gained seats in the house in 1968, 1976 and 1988. They also held the house in 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1992. Heck, democrats were competitive in states such as Texas, West Virginia, Kansas etc into the late-1980s.

My point is that while passage of civil rights laws damaged democratic party prospects in deep south, things were pretty OK for them in rest of country for over twenty years. In other words, sorry state of democratic part in the post-1994 era has little to do with legislation passed in the mid-1960s. So what caused voters in many states, especially non-coastal ones, to abandon the democratic party? In a post from about two years ago, I pointed out that ascendancy of issues such as ‘gun control’ in democratic party started at around the same time as its leadership and upper echelons were increasingly populated by the credentialed professional class who tends to be concentrated in large coastal cities. While there are, once again, many reasons why this shift occurred, it resulted in the needs of working class (especially white) being ignored. Consequently, these voters either started voting republican or simply stopped voting altogether.

But why would many white voting class voters start voting republican, even though doing so was not in their own interests? Well.. we can blame a small part of this on sheer stupidity. But a much larger reason was that there wasn’t much difference between the two, politically speaking. Both parties were controlled by the same big corporations and super-rich who wanted to impoverish the working class and suck them dry. Even today, establishment democrats cannot stop talking about ‘bipartisanship’ aka passing laws and rules to fuck over everybody other than their rich campaign donors. But this still does not explain why people who seemingly gain nothing from voting republican continue to vote them into office.

In my opinion, it comes down to how each party treats the majority of its voters. The republican party, while busy fucking over their voters, provides lip service to ‘social issues’ (abortion, church, guns etc). More importantly, they don’t treat most of their voter base with the disdain with which democratic party treats its own. Confused.. see, unless you are a member of the credentialed professional class, you are a deplorable nobody to the democratic party. It does not matter if you voted for them or not, being anyone other than a member of the credentialed class makes you an object of contempt, derision and neglect. That is why they have kept focusing on ‘gun control’ since the 1980s, even though it has been electorally disastrous since early 1990s.

To put it another way, they see people who are not credentialed professionals as nothing more than undeserving retards whose beliefs don’t matter. Democratic politician and candidates, in turn, remind most voters of the shitty middle managers who make their working lives miserable and the HR harpies who fire them. To summarize, many working class voters in flyover states vote republican because it does not insult their beliefs while fucking them over. The democratic party, in contrast, believes that it has a god-given right to harangue and insult it voters while also fucking them over. In the upcoming part, I shall go into the many reasons why the much hyped “coalition of the ascendant” has turned out to be a damp squib and will likely remain so for the future. We shall also talk about how democratic party positions on issues such as “anthropogenic climate change”, “gun control” and “LGBTQ issues” are insulting to most voters.

What do you think? Comments?

Quick Thoughts on Trump’s Upcoming Order About Internet Monopolies

August 13, 2019 3 comments

A few days ago, I started seeing articles about people within the Trump administration leaking various drafts of an upcoming executive order which would allegedly “break the internet”. Other presstitutes have written pieces about how this order would “censor” the internet, and still others claim it would be “illegal” or something along those lines. As usual, my thoughts on this topic are nuanced and about the larger picture as opposed to most clickbait-type ‘hot takes’ found on the internet. Also, I am not going to pretend knowledge about the final version of that executive order nor will my views on this topic be popular with everyone.

So let us start by talking about the real reason why we are even having this discussion. It is no secret that the public image of internet monopolies, tech companies and basically anything they touch has suffered an irreversible decline during the past decade. Remember how you used to believe about Google, Amazon, FakeBook, Twitter, Apple etc were “innovators” in 2008-2009? Remember that time when most of you believed that Google could make no mistake and how their search engine used to just work. It might be hard to believe, but there was a time when Google did not deliberately crappify their products through generations of bad design or shove unpopular and monopolistic changes down their user’s throats. They once even had OK customer service. I know the previous sentence is hard to believe.. but it is true.

While Google has gone down the proverbial shitter to become an inferior version of IBM from the 1960s, it is clearly not the only tech company which taken that route. Indeed, I cannot think of a single internet or tech company which has not become an unpopular, inferior and shittier version of itself over the past decade. Adobe, Microsoft, Amazon, Netflix, FakeBook, Cisco, Twitter, Apple and even Intel have become sorry excuses of what they used to be a decade ago. Sure.. they have become more profitable and made their upper management much richer, but have lost the battle for their public image. But why would this matter? After all, monopolies and oligopolies don’t have to care about what their customers think.. right?

Regrettably for their autistic founders and sterile drones.. I mean workers, public image matters- even if you are a monopoly or oligopoly. That is why totalitarian governments in “communist” eastern bloc countries fell so quickly in the late 1980s to early 1990s. That is also why ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’ works so well in China. The ability to deliver adequately, on time and fulfill public expectations is the most important predictor of whether an organization or institution retains public trust and good will. But why is it important to retain good will, if (as some autists at Google believe) one can manipulate perceptions at will. Well.. for starters, you cannot manipulate public perception over any significant length of time. Isn’t that obvious by now?

The second reason is more important and, as you will soon see, goes to the heart of the issue. Turns out, popular legitimacy is extremely important for medium- to long- term survival of any institution. Without such legitimacy even the most tyrannical institutions become fragile and implode under the slightest external stresses. Ever wonder why people in China have a far higher opinion of their government than people in USA. Here is a clue.. look at photos of the same part of any city in China from 1990 and today. Now do the same for USA. It is important to note that people who grew up in USA between 1933 and 1974 have a far higher opinion of government because they saw it largely deliver what was promised.

But how is any of this relevant to a proposed executive order which would gut legal protection to large social media platforms currently granted under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. See.. if something like this had been proposed by even an allegedly popular president like Obama in 2008, 2012 or even 2014, it would have elicited massive public outrage. There would have a series of large movements against such an idea, and a groundswell of popular support for tech companies. Do you see anything like that now, and don’t forget that Trump is an unpopular president by historical standards. So what changed between 2012-2014 and 2019? Well.. a lot, and none of it has helped the public image of internet and tech monopolies.

The precise moment when people started hating internet and tech monopolies varies from person to person, but here are some important milestones. For some, it was the progressive crapification of google maps and email starting sometime in 2012. For others, it was the SJW-led censorship in the wake of Gamergate in 2013. Many detested the underhanded tactics used by Microsoft to push Windoze 10 (aka spyware as operating system) on its customer base starting 2015. Others were mortified by Snowden’s disclosure about the nexus between large tech corporations and government surveillance agencies in 2013. Others started hating them after learning about how most smartphone apps spy on their users without explicit consent.

Still others got tired of a seemingly endless series of hostile site redesigns. Some got burned by interactions with Amazon, Paypal, Yelp, Uber and other “darlings” of tech sector. Many others have come to hate these corporations because of how they constantly mistreat and abuse their customers and this includes everyone from Microsoft and Apple to all those “voice assistants” which spy on you 24/7. Then there is Internet of Shit.. I mean Internet of Things, an idea so horrendous from a security viewpoint that I am still not sure whether anybody who buys “connected” and “smart” devices has any capacity for rational thought. And we haven’t even talked about arbitrary censorship etc on social media and sites such as YouTube.

To make a very long story short, internet and tech monopolies are now so hated and despised that a significant minority would vote for a presidential candidate whose sole campaign promise was to torture and kill anybody and everybody associated with this deeply tainted sector of the economy. And this is the environment in which Trump is going to sign his executive order about regulation internet monopolies in the near future. Regardless of how bad a solution his stupid flunkies come up with, it will be widely seen as good- if only because it shits on the aspy losers in Silly Valley and Seattle. And we have seen this dynamic before.. in 2016.

As some of you might remember, I was able to predict Trump winning the republican nomination and presidency because of my ability to sense the depth of hatred, contempt and disgust most people felt towards all those establishment parasites.. I mean politicians. It was this popular hatred for, and lack of trust in, certain institutions which allowed that orange conman to defeat 16 republicans and then HRC. We are likely to see a repeat of this, where even the most ineffectual and counterproductive legislation by Trump will be welcomed by a majority of people just because they enjoy seeing somebody finally kick Silly Valley types in the balls.

I cannot resist pointing out that the democratic party had multiple opportunities over the last decade (and even past 2 years) to start reigning in internet and tech monopolies. But they did no such thing, given how much Silly Valley contributes to their party. In fact, Obama went further than doing nothing and encouraged consolidation in tech sector and turned a blind eye to their ever increasing abuses. Let me make another prediction.. most people are going to get boners watching the aspy losers of internet and tech monopolies squeal like a pig after such an executive order is passed- even if its bad, stupid and dangerous in the long-term.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Democratic Party’s Unfortunate Obsession with Gun Control

August 26, 2017 35 comments

A few months ago, I wrote a short series enumerating the many reasons why the democratic party, in its current form, has no worthwhile future. Some reasons, such as the nature of their core support base and institutional inertia, are systemic in nature. Others, like their obsession with promoting certain allegedly “social causes”, are a cover for the neo-liberal policies promoted by them. But a few do not fall neatly into either of these two categories. One of the best example from this category is the obsession of the democratic party establishment with implementing severely punitive gun control policies.

As some of my regular readers might remember, I have written many posts on why attempts at tight gun control are unworkable, futile and likely to backfire in more ways than at the ballot box. The very short version of those posts is that deaths due to guns in USA are largely the result of socio-economic factors (suicide, financial problems, lack of job security) and explicit government policies (“war on drugs”, abandoning poorer areas). To make a long story short, attempts at stricter gun control do not address the far larger and much more dangerous underlying systemic issues which drive the relatively high incidence of deaths by guns in USA.

However, time after time, we have seen the democratic party establishment try to use every newsworthy shooting to push for stricter gun regulations. Of course, we have also seen the democratic party lose election after election in many areas of the country during that period. As it stands today, the democratic party does not have control of any elected branch of the federal government and almost 2/3rds of state governments. The democratic party of today is so weak and impotent on the national stage that they cannot even properly exploit the ongoing train-wreck of the Trump presidency, which would otherwise be a god-send to a marginally competent opposition party.

Of course, there are many reasons why the democratic party has been on a downward path since the mid-1990s. Firstly, their embrace of neo-liberalism and its policies such as “free trade” and laissez-faire regulation of corporations which started during the Clinton era have antagonized a significant part of the population, especially in non-coastal states. Secondly, the leadership (and top cadre) of democratic party is full of people who either got in during the 1960s-1980s or are ivy-league credentialed C-grade actors who look ridiculous and phony in 2017. They would rather hold on to their premium berths on the ‘Titanic’ than change course and avoid the iceberg.

But none of this provides a satisfactory answer for why establishment democrats are anti-2nd amendment. I mean.. wouldn’t a political party in semi-permanent political wilderness prefer its supporters to be armed than not? Also, it is fairly well-known that taking an anti-gun stand was a factor in them losing the 2000, 20004 and 2016 presidential election- in addition to many more at the states level. So why persist in pushing a cause that does not make sense from the viewpoint of winning elections? And let us clear about something- politicians, regardless of their party affiliations and stated ideologies, are in to win power. Some are more corrupt and easily bought than others but basically all politicians compromise on their beliefs.

So how can you account for establishment democrats repeatedly pushing an electorally bad ideology? One theory I have seen being floated is that democrats think that decrease in overall rates of gun ownership will somehow translate into future success of their campaign to criminalize civilian ownership of firearms. While that might sound like a nice story, ground reality as measured by sales of guns and relaxation of rules and regulations surrounding gun ownership since 1994 suggest otherwise. It appears, then, that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was the high point of democratic success in legislating for greater gun control. It has been downhill for them since then.

Another theory, I have heard, suggests that the establishment democrat obsession with gun control is linked to institutional stagnation within the party. There is some truth to the idea that political parties whose establishment is led by people who are mentally in the 1980s and 1990s might try to maintain what they believe to be the status quo and keep pressing for more bad policies, especially if their positions within the organisation are secure from competition. But that does not explain why the somewhat younger establishment types (Corey Booker, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand etc) in that party are still pushing such disastrous ideas.

Well.. I have a theory that can explain the obsession of democrats with gun control. You see, it comes down to appealing to their core base of supporters and volunteers- to be more specific, the credentialed professional class. As I have said in some of previous posts, a lot of the odd behavior displayed by democratic party makes sense once you realize that its most important non-corporate supporters are people who owe their well-compensated livelihood to credentials obtained from “famous” educational institutions. It is also no secret that most of those who work for or volunteer at higher levels in that party have such socio-economic backgrounds.

But why would that translate into support for gun control? Why would such a socio-economic group, or class, be interested in gun control? Let me try to explain it in the nicest possible language.. never mind- because they are greedy and insecure parasites. The credentialed class (especially in USA) derives its income, livelihood and social status from thievery and extortion through law and rules. That is why doctors in USA makes much more money than other developed countries while not being any better than them. That is why tenured professors at large “famous” universities in USA can make so much extra money though side projects. That is why pretty much any credentialed or licensed professional makes more in USA than other developed countries.

The degree of parasitism displayed by the credentialed professional classes in USA is second only to outright legalized theft and extortion practiced by corporate entities. But why then are corporations not especially interested in gun control? Why the professional class but not corporations? The answer to that is simple- because corporations already have the full might of the state behind them. Credentialed professionals, on the other hand, are in that peculiar zone where they are visibly doing better than others in a rapidly impoverishing society but lack any special protection by the state. In other words, they can feel (if only on a subconscious level) that they will become targets for popular rage if the proverbial shit hits the fan.

And that is why the credentialed professional class, which is the 2nd most important constituency for democrats as well as the source of most of their party establishment cadre want to disarm “less deserving” poorer people. Parasites, you see, prefer hosts who are unable to stop the party. Credentialed professionals perceive the widespread ownership of guns as a threat to their cushy livelihoods which depend on theft and extortion via laws and regulations. However, unlike corporations, they are not powerful or singularly important enough to get special protection by the state.

Attempting to ban widespread ownership of guns, then, appears to be the second best option. And that is why the democratic establishment keeps on pursuing a policy that has brought it repeated electoral failure in parts of the country that are not New York or California. On a side note, I do not think that their obsession with gun control is going to change even if they perform poorly in the 2018 and 2020 elections. As long as they can still win a few coastal states, they will keep shooting themselves in the foot.

What do you think? Comments?

Funny YouTube Clip: Why the Democratic Party Is USELESS

March 13, 2017 2 comments

Here is a really funny montage of establishment democrats telling you, somewhat unintentionally, why the democratic party in its current form has no real future. Came across it on YouTube channel of TYT Politics. While I certainly do not agree with everybody on that channel or TYT (especially some democratic establishment apologists), their content is generally superior to the outright corporatist crap you see on TV news channels like CNN, MSNBC, Fox etc.

“They had learned nothing and forgotten nothing”― popularly attributed to Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord.

Enjoy! Comment?

Inept Western Response to COVID-19 Will Result in Public Backlash: 4

April 13, 2020 25 comments

In the previous post of this series, I made the point that all of the dumbshit “democratic” western countries and their sad imitators (India etc) have not thought through the full consequences of shutting down most of their economies in response to the SARS-2 pandemic. Because, if they had performed any due diligence, it would be obvious that stopping the collection of all types of rents and bills had to be done before shutting down other things. It is also no secret that some large countries (USA and India) lack both the bureaucratic and financial infrastructure to deliver timely and sufficient money to most of their people who have lost income because of this shutdown. Even those who have done a far better job in this regard (Denmark, Canada, UK etc) are still half-assing it by not covering all their people and cancelling economic rents. Bad as these things are, these are not their biggest failures- so far.

In my opinon, the single biggest failure (thus far) has been the complete lack of any exit plan- something which Kim Iversen alluded to in one of her many videos. Any politician, bureaucrat or “credentialed epidemiologist” who cannot present a definitive and feasible exit strategy from this thoughtless lockdown is not living in the real world. While there will be ample opportunity to dunk on politicians and bureaucrats later on this post (or series), let me start by exposing the utter incompetence of all those “credentialed epidemiologists” who staff the public health departments of western countries. You know who they remind me of.. WW1 generals. If you have read a significant amount of history, you will be aware that the vast majority of generals in WW1 on both sides were epic disasters and clusterfucks whose decisions caused far more casualties than if they hadn’t been born. But why were they such massive disasters? Well it has to do with how they ended up in their positions and careers prior to 1914.

See.. for almost 50 years prior to WW1, there was no large scale warfare in western Europe. The only real action most soldiers and generals in that part of world saw from end of Franco-Prussian War in 1871 to the start of WW1 in 1914 was restricted to putting down rebellions in colonies and a few small skirmishes in the Balkans. Therefore, an entire generation of western generals had never faced anything beyond dark-skinned tribals with spears and a few old firearms. To put it another way, the upper military ranks of western countries were filled with shysters and dummies who had reached their position via family connections, patronage and bribes, flattery and good social manners etc. Sure.. many of them had attended “prestigious” schools and universities and were capable of accurately reciting back whatever they had learned in them. To put it another way, they were incompetent posers who could nevertheless give the appearance of competence. But reality cannot be fooled and WW1 exposed them in a most unflattering manner.

The current crop of “credentialed epidemiologists” in USA and other western countries are, in many ways, similar to WW1 generals. Here is why.. firstly, neither has actually faced a large scale challenge of this magnitude in their entire careers. Sure, there have been bad influenza seasons and occasional outbreaks of some exotic diseases in Africa or East Asia- but dealing with routine or small-scale problems does not prepare one for making decisions during large scale meltdowns. Secondly, just like their military counterparts a century ago, the bulk of these “credentialed epidemiologists” went to “prestigious” universities where they learned to regurgitate the alleged “wisdom” of those who had fought past wars while also building up their social networks. Most importantly, their training and experience leaves them particularly unequipped to think outside the box of “conventional wisdom” and “established norms”. You know.. in some ways, they remind me of the current democratic party establishment.

But why does any of this matter? The brief answer is as follows: any strategy or plan is always subject to the constraints of the system it operates within and available resources. Sure.. you can always find new ways to unlock resources that were previously unavailable or partially bypass existing constraints, but in the end the feasibility of any given plan is dictated by what exists and is available at that time. Let me explain that concept with a couple of examples- the stalemate of trench warfare in WW1 was ultimately broken by using shock-troop tactics by Germans and combined arms operations by the other side- but both approaches, though new, were extensions of what was feasible at that time. Similarly, in WW2- the development of jet aircraft made it possible to fly faster, V1 and V2 demonstrated that cruise and ballistic missiles were not pipe dreams. However, once again, they were extensions of what was feasible at that time.

My point is that physical, logistical and technological feasibility of any strategy or plan of action is central to success- whether you are waging war or trying to control a pandemic. With that in mind, let us talk about something almost every commentator in mainstream media seems to have missed. Ever wonder how you can motivate people to follow a plan of action which might be painful in short-term, but potentially rewarding in long run? The more delusional of you might think that fear would work. However any close reading of history shows that fear by itself, at best, can only buy you a short time (weeks to months). So what else can? The answer is hope.. specifically hope for a better future. In other words, a leader with a reasonably feasible plan to overcome whatever adversity they are facing will always motivate people to go along for a far longer time than somebody who is using only fear. Hope trumps fear. With that in mind, let us go through their stupidities, not necessarily in order of importance.

1] ‘Social distancing’ and shutting down most of economy is unworkable over any period longer than a few weeks. Even countries which provide far more generous direct monetary support to their population than USA have been either unable/unwilling to provide full income replacement. Consequently, any shutdown that goes on for more than a few weeks will definitely have very nasty downstream and knock-on economic effects. But why does this matter? Well.. here is why. SARS-2 aka COVID-19 has a maximum fatality rate of about 1.5% in populations which conduct extensive testing + factoring in asymptomatic or very mildly symptomatic patients who recovered (not counted in official positive numbers). Compare this to massive and inevitable job loss in the service sector due to ‘social distancing’ guidelines and the inevitable closure of many small business.Long story short, shutting down economy for more than a few weeks gives results in unemployment rates reaching 30% and beyond. Note that this will be on top of all the other problems caused by many people being unable to pay rent and other bills.

To put it bluntly, the number of severely pissed off people who are unemployed and in poverty will exceed the potential number of who might die by a minimum of over 20 times. Continuing the bullshit charade of ‘social distancing’ and shutdowns until we develop an effective vaccine a year or more from now is not a viable option, regardless of what dumbfucks such as Faucci or Bill Gates want to to believe. We are already seeing lineups of thousands (who own cars) in many american cities to use food banks- and this is just the beginning. Let me remind you that similar combinations of unemployment and non-existent safety nets have, in the past, led to the rise of people such as Mussolini and Hitler. Unless the “credentialed epidemiologists” come up with a viable plan to reopen the economy real soon, things will develop a momentum and direction of their own- in ways that are not controllable.

2] ‘Social distancing’ and ‘flattening the curve’ loses its utility after a few weeks. Slowing the spread of a highly contagious but not-especially-lethal disease (in the absence of effective treatments or vaccines) for more than a couple of months merely prolongs the outbreak. While such measures can buy us a few weeks (at the beginning) to get things in order, find a better protocol for treatment or develop better measures to protect the most vulnerable groups etc- it cannot stop the inevitable. This becomes much more relevant once you understand that excess deaths due to ignoring other diseases and conditions, because of a misguided focus on SARS-2, will keep on increasing and quickly eclipse the extra mortality due to the later. People don’t stop having heart attacks, strokes, needing anti-cancer therapy, requiring elective surgery or receiving treatment for other acute and chronic conditions because there is a moderate pandemic of some sort. Anything which takes resources away from other medical issues will increase total mortality.

To make matters more interesting, most people above 80 who require incubation due to severe presentations of SARS-2 don’t make it- at least with currently used therapeutic interventions. This groups also makes up the majority of deaths due to that disease. At some stage, people will start asking whether intensive therapeutic interventions in severely ill people over a certain age is desirable given that it takes those resources away from people with far more treatable disease conditions. In wretched countries such as USA and India, the loss of income in a system without a decent safety net will cause additional problems such as many people being unable to purchase medications, seek medical help or even buy food. Do not, even for a minute, believe the idiots who are trying to tell you that such deprivations won’t cause widespread and violet social unrest.

Since this post is already close to 1700 words, I will stop now. In the next part we will talk about why legal enforcement of ‘social distancing’ and shutdowns are going to cause far more problems than you realize- especially after next two weeks. Will also go into why the fear of looking bad due to covid-19 deaths after shutdown is lifted might cause decision paralysis among the “credentialed” leading to further collateral damage. Might also go into the scientific and clinical evidence behind using Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine to treat SARS-2 in early stages of disease. Here is a quick spoiler, there is considerable evidence that both drugs are very effective at reducing the number of those who require hospitalization and ICU care, but only if given within first few days of initial symptoms- and this actually supports their known mode of action.

What do you think? Comments?

Inept Western Response to COVID-19 Will Result in Public Backlash: 3

April 1, 2020 22 comments

In the previous post, I posted links to two YouTube clips by Kim Iversen in which she makes the point that shutting down economy of most countries for many months, till the COVID-19 virus is contained, is just not feasible. Nor is it possible, without a yet to be developed and efficacious vaccine, to eliminate a highly infectious virus with a low mortality rate which has already spread all around the world. The point she was trying to make is that the bullshit being sold to you as official government response and policies is likely to cause far more collateral socio-economic damage and human deaths than the viral pandemic itself. Some of you might have also noticed that tons of online virtue signalling losers, who have never worked a manual job in their entire life or being anything other than economically secure, were infuriated by her observations and are still busy trying to censor and “de-platform” her.

It is telling that the so-called “left” in western countries is as intellectually bankrupt as the right-wing nutcases they pretend to oppose and claim moral superiority over. This similarity between supporters of the two alleged political extremes will, however, not be surprising to some readers. As you might have also read in some of my other previous posts on this topic (link 1, link 2) the governmental response to this pandemic in most western countries has so far heavily favored corporations and very rich over the majority of their citizens. Even western European countries, who have so far done more for their citizens than USA, have still not formulated an effective response. Now.. I am not saying that they won’t get their shit together eventually, but they have not shown any signs of doing that- so far. Confused at what I am talking about? Let me explain..

1] Let me ask you a series of simple questions. What percentage of all paid jobs in the west are not in the ‘essential’ category AND cannot be performed from home? You know the answer to this one- the majority. Now let us follow on to the related question. How many jobs in these sectors pay more than what you can get on unemployment insurance? The answer tro this one is that a large percentage do pay more than even the generous unemployment insurance paid in west European countries today. Things might have been different decades ago, when it was higher in those countries- but that is a topic for another post. Now, some of you might counter by pointing out the governments in many west European countries are willing to cover 75-80% of the pay (upto a certain amount) of employees for a few months, if their employer does not lay them off. Well.. the key words here are ‘if their employer does not lay them off’.

The point I am trying to make is that even if you assume this economic disruption will not extend past a few weeks, affected employers (aka corporations) will lay off a significant percentage of their employees. In other words, a shutdown which lasts more than a few weeks is going to put a massive number of people on relatively stingy unemployment insurance. This problem is hard to solve in so-called “liberal democracies” where interests and needs of corporations and capitalists always outweigh those of the majority. See.. the government of one-party states such as China can simply order its corporations to keep paying their employees at an acceptable rate, because those corporations know that they will be refunded by government and have no option other than accepting the government’s order. Even other supposedly democratic east Asian countries such as Japan and South Korea can make their corporations and businesses retain employees in ways than supposedly “liberal democracies” cannot or don’t want to.

And the situation get even more dismal once you consider things such as residential and small business rent, auto insurance, utilities and other forms of economic rents on the majority. Do you really think voluntary guidelines and suggestions to postpone rent and similar payments is going to cut it? Do you really think that people on significantly reduced income who don’t have much money saved because they were paid so poorly even before this crisis can afford the upcoming balloon payments on rent, utilities etc while being able to afford all essentials and have enough leftover to to stimulate the depressed economy by spending like they used to? And let us clear about something else, most of the trillions being given to corporations right now are going to end up in secret bank accounts in oversea tax havens- one way or the other. And this holds for large corporations that are based in west Europe as much as those based in USA.

2] No western country (which I am aware of) has thus far implemented a freeze on financial rents of any type. To put it bluntly, most of the paltry unemployment insurance payments (to those who ‘qualify’) are just going to end up in the pockets of those collect rents, credit card payments, auto loans payments etc. In other words, many large corporations will receive government money twice- once directly to “save” jobs and then indirectly as people who could barely afford these rent payments in past have to pass an even larger portion of their income onto those corporations. Now imagine what this will do for the disposable income and ability of those people to support business which do not collect such rents. And this not a trivial question as businesses which do not collect such rents employ many times the number of those that do collect rent. Imagine the effect of such an economic contraction on all those retail stores in malls and other business which depend on them. And it gets worse.

Have you seriously considered the impact of this pandemic on the financial situation of those who work in airlines, airports, tourism, hotels and restaurants. What about those who livelihood is connected to running music concerts and other large cultural gatherings? You do realize that most people working in those sectors aren’t well-paid in the best of times.. right? Have all those idiots who incessantly talk about shutting down the economy indefinitely “until the pandemic is over” understand the ramifications of such actions on the livelihood of a substantial minority of the population? Given that most western countries have still not offered to replace income of their working citizens and small businesses in addition to freezing rents, where do they think all that money necessary for restarting the economy is going to come from? Then again, virtue signalers are not known for their ability to think through their actions.

To make matters more interesting, the mortality rate of COVID-19 (once you factor in people who don’t develop symptoms and recover uneventfully) is less than 1%. And ya.. I am basing that number on countries such as South Korea and Germany who have done a much better job of extensive testing of their population than others such as Italy and Spain. Did I mention that majority of those who die will be more than 80 years old? The point I am trying to make is as follows: At some stage relatively soon (not more than four weeks from now) a lot of people who are younger and not well-paid or compensated for this shutdown will start asking questions about whether ineffectual attempts to stop a disease that kills mostly very old people is worth them losing their livelihoods and future. To make matters worse, if that is possible, the pig-headed response of bureaucrats to such concerns will only inflame this situation further. And it is going to cause far more problems in countries such as USA and UK than Italy or Spain who have the social structure necessary to deal with prolonged economic adversity.

In the next part, I will write about how the lack of realistic plans for controlling this virus or mitigating its effect and reopening economy will make the situation far worse than it has to be. Might also write about how this pandemic will diminish the already decreasing the direct and indirect power of USA (and west in general) outside their borders.

What do you think? Comments?

More Recent Articles by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone and Substack

October 22, 2019 13 comments

About a month ago, I posted an article with links to recent articles by well-known journalist, Matt Taibbi. Here are a couple more and most readers know which commentator they are aimed at..

Everyone Is a Russian Asset

Everyone is foreign scum these days. Democrats spent three years trying to prove Donald Trump is a Russian pawn. Mitch McConnell is “Moscow Mitch.” Third party candidates are a Russian plot. The Bernie Sanders movement is not just a wasteland of racist and misogynist “Bros,” but — according to intelligence agencies and mainstream pundits alike — the beneficiary of an ambitious Russian plot to “stoke the divide” within the Democratic Party. The Joe Rogan independents attracted to the mild antiwar message of Tulsi Gabbard are likewise traitors and dupes for the Kremlin. If you’re keeping score, that’s pretty much the whole spectrum of American political thought, excepting MSNBC Democrats. What a coincidence!

The #Resistance has come up with all sorts of words for such fifth-columnists and deviationists: they are “false-balancers” or “false equivalencers,” “neo-Naderites,” “purity-testers,” “both-sidesists,” “whataboutists,” “horseshoe theorists,” “Russia skeptics” or “Russia denialists,” and “anti-anti-Trumpers.” Such heretics are all ultimately seen as being on “team Putin.” This witch-hunting insanity isn’t just dangerous, it’s a massive breach from reality. Trump’s campaign was a clown show. He had almost no institutional backing. His “ground game” was nonexistent: his “campaign” was a TV program based almost wholly around unscripted media appearances. Trump raised just over half the $1.2 billion Hillary pulled in (making him the first presidential candidate dating back to 1976 to win with a funds deficit). He didn’t prepare a victory speech, for the perfectly logical reason that he never expected to win.

We’re in a permanent coup

This latest incident, set against the impeachment mania and the reportedly “expanding” Russiagate investigation of U.S. Attorney John Durham, accelerates our timeline to chaos. We are speeding toward a situation when someone in one of these camps refuses to obey a major decree, arrest order, or court decision, at which point Americans will get to experience the joys of their political futures being decided by phone calls to generals and police chiefs. My discomfort in the last few years, first with Russiagate and now with Ukrainegate and impeachment, stems from the belief that the people pushing hardest for Trump’s early removal are more dangerous than Trump. Many Americans don’t see this because they’re not used to waking up in a country where you’re not sure who the president will be by nightfall. They don’t understand that this predicament is worse than having a bad president.

We’re now in that same paradigm in America. CNN has hired nearly a dozen former intelligence or counterintelligence officials as analysts in the last few years. Their big get was former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, but they also now have former deputy FBI chief Andrew McCabe, former FBI counsel James Baker, and multiple former CIA, NSA, and NSC officials. Meanwhile, former CIA director John Brennan has an MSNBC/NBC gig, as does former CIA and DOD chief of staff Jeremy Bash, and several other ex-spooks. The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, who doubles as the CEO of one of America’s largest intelligence contractors. This odious situation is similar to 2003-2004, when cable networks were tossing contributor deals to every ex-general and ex-spook they could find while they were reporting on the Iraq invasion. At one point, FAIR.org found that 52 percent of the sources in network newscasts were current or former government officials.

What do you think? Comments?