Search Results

Keyword: ‘propaganda’

Propaganda Provides an Excuse, Rather than Manufacturing Consent: 2

January 18, 2019 11 comments

In the previous part of this series, I said that the unspoken assumption underlying any belief in propaganda “working”, namely that human beings as a species are basically good, is wrong. Even a moderately objective look at history, or the world around you, easily demonstrates that most human beings have no moral compass, are incapable of reason, are deeply obsessed with their inevitable mortality and have a strong predilection for self-destruction. This assessment remains valid regardless of historical era, ethnicity, race, religion or any other division used by people to define their identity. In other words, the majority of human beings are, and have always been, pathetic and delusional creatures who usually lack the courage to act on their impulses.

And this where propaganda enters the picture. It provides an excuse or official sanction to act on their desires and impulses. But is there any real-life difference between how societies react to odious behavior with or without an “official” excuse or approval? Well.. let me illustrate with an example. A white american guy who enters a room (or two) and kills twenty primary-school aged children in USA is a horrible and despicable mass murderer- but if the same guy performed that particular act in some poor middle-eastern country, he is almost always portrayed as an upright soldier just doing his duty or perhaps suffering from “PTSD”. Events such as the My Lai Massacre or more recent ones in Afghanistan are more common than most believe.

Here is another example. What is the real difference between any top-level Nazi regime officials tried at Nuremberg show trials (after WW2) and people such as Curtis LeMay, Henry Kissinger, William Westmoreland, Bush 41, Bush43, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld- to name a few. In my opinion, the most importance difference between top Nazi era officials and their post-WW2 american equivalents is that the former wore far better looking uniforms. But why stop here? Ever wonder how the world would have reacted if Nazi Germany had won WW2? Here is a clue.. look at how the world has reacted to post-WW2 USA. My point is that we should not pretend that post-WW2 (or even pre-WW2) USA exists on a different “moral plane” than Nazi-era Germany, pre-1945 Japan, pre-WW2 UK and France or other 19th century colonial powers.

Still not convinced? Ask ten random people in USA what they think of China. Chances are most of them will say something about totalitarianism, hyper-capitalism, air pollution, alleged oppression of minorities, internet censorship and other assorted bullshit which they desperately want to believe. Oddly enough, almost none of them allow their minds to think about the history of their “own” country in an objective manner. Because, let us face it, USA was built by stealing land from its original inhabitants who were then conveniently genocided, its initial wealth was built, first using race-based slavery and then exploiting poor immigrants from other countries. But it gets better.. its global position in the 20th century was largely due it being not ravaged by WW1 and WW2. And in spite of claiming great military superiority, it has not won a single war since WW2.

In contrast to that, China was able to reach its current position as the largest global economy (in real terms) of the early 21st century without stealing land from other people, without slavery and in spite of having to start from scratch in aftermath of partial Japanese occupation (pre-1945) which was preceded by the century of humiliation by white colonial powers. Moreover, the bulk of that development occurred within the previous forty years. By any objective criteria, China and its people have achieved in 40-50 years what the USA took overt two centuries- and have done so with far fewer negative externalities. They have also achieved that outcome with far less social and economic inequality when compared to USA for most of its history.

My point is that most people believe whatever they want to believe, and most are incapable of objective thinking and reason. Let me further explain that concept with three more (long-form) examples. They are as follows: 1] Rise and fall of Nazism and personality cult of Hitler in 1933-1945 era Germany. 2] Rise and fall of american public support for the Vietnam War and 3] The rise and ongoing fall of neoliberal worldview in the ‘west’. As some might remember, I have written a few posts about the first issue in past, such as: how high unemployment was linked to rise of Nazi party in Germany and similarities between those who joined the Nazi party and contemporary careerists. I have also written a few post about neoliberalism and will therefore start by focusing on the american misadventure in Vietnam, which ended in a humiliating defeat.

Let me begin this part by asking you a few simple questions. Why did barely 20% of Americans think that sending troops to Vietnam was a mistake as late as mid-1966? Why did approval for that war drop so quickly between 1967 and 1969? But perhaps, most curiously, why did almost 30% of americans think that the war was not a mistake as late as 1972-1973? The first question is probably the easiest to answer. Most people will support incredibly bad and dangerous ideas as long as they don’t have skin in the game and think they can get away with it. As late as 1966, the number of young american men drafted in that war was barely about 200,000 and most did not experience any significant risk during their tour of duty. Furthermore, their adversaries were asian- a group largely seen as subhuman by white americans.

So what caused this shift in public attitudes? While the conventional narrative ‘Tet Offensive’ did a lot of damage to public image of american forces in Vietnam, it was (in retrospective) just one of the many factors which caused that shift. A far bigger reason was the rapid increase in number of young men drafted for that war after 1966. Some of you might wonder as why the Korean war (1950-1953), whose final casualty figures were pretty close to the one on Vietnam, did not result in a similar shift in public attitudes. Well.. there are two reasons. Firstly, it was just five years after WW2 and the numbers looked small in comparison. Secondly, the part of that war which involved heavy fighting was much shorter (if far more intense) than in Vietnam. Short intense wars have always been far easier to justify than long drawn-out conflicts.

Which brings us to the most peculiar of the three questions. Why did upto a third of the american public believe that the Vietnam war was not a mistake, as late as 1973? Wasn’t it pretty obvious that the war had been a costly failure by then? In my opinion, this comes down to their complete unwillingness and inability to think in anything approaching a rational manner. As I wrote in a previous series, WW1 and WW2 got rid of a lot of reactionary and CONservative men in Europe and Japan- but the late entry of USA in both wars as well as fairly low casualties in the theaters they were deployed did not get rid of most idiots. In other words, USA has (and had) far more living reactionary and CONservative idiots than Europe and many other countries.

The point I am trying to make is that propaganda does not really change minds or worldviews. It merely provides “official” external validation and cover for bad, stupid and disastrous ideas. This also means that any ideology which assumes that most human beings are intrinsically good or thoughtful is fundamentally flawed. Similarly, arguing or debating racists and other types of assorted assholes in good faith is a total waste of your time. Only death or the fear of certain death has, historically, demonstrated the ability to change terms of discourse about fundamental differences in opinion. Nazism lost popular appeal only after most of its supporters got killed in, or in the immediate aftermath of, WW2. The same is true for all those other odious pre-1945 ideas about racial superiority and colonialism in the ‘west’.

In the next part, I will write about how the majority of people will often support other amazingly bad and disastrous ideas if they feel they can get away with doing so.

What do you think? Comments?

Propaganda Provides an Excuse, Rather than Manufacturing Consent: 1

December 18, 2018 6 comments

Some years ago, I was watching (or rewatching) a YouTube video which was trying to tout the efficacy of government and corporate propaganda. Maybe it was something by Adam Curtis or a derivative work which used excerpts from The Century of Self. In any case, the precise identity of that clip has virtually no relevance to the topic of this series- for reasons which will soon become obvious. While I usually find such bullshit quite entertaining, if only for the apparent conviction of belief displayed by those who are into such stuff- this was different. Perhaps I was just feeling extra misanthropic that particular evening, or maybe it was the alcohol (likely both).. but an interesting idea came to my mind. What if propaganda provides an official-sounding excuse for people to act out their most depraved beliefs, rather than put it in their mind in the first place.

As regular readers of this blog know, my opinions about human beings as a species have never been especially high– to put it mildly. You can, therefore, see this series as an extension of my opinions on that subject. Anyway.. let us get back to the topic of this series by asking ourselves a simple question. What is the one central but unspoken assumption which has to be true for any propaganda to “work”? And remember that this unspoken assumption underlies every single explanation for the efficacy of propaganda- from Noam Chomsky and his ‘Manufacturing Consent’ to the pseudoscience.. I mean psychology crap spouted by any random loser slaving way at a marketing firm. Could it about linguistics, ‘neuroscience’ or some other clever sounding bullshit?
Think harder.. because once I reveal it many of you might say that it was obvious.

Are you ready.. here it goes.. All conventional explanations for the efficacy of propaganda are based around the assumption that human beings as a species are naturally good, kind, decent, altruistic, humane etc. Even the class of explanations which assume that humans are imperfect creatures make the implicit and unspoken assumption that they are basically good. As I will explain you later, there is a reason why even the most fucked-up human being firmly believes that he or she is a ‘good’ person. At this point, some might wonder whether I see human beings as ‘risen apes’ or ‘fallen angels’. Surprise.. I don’t see them as either. In my opinion, comparing human beings to apes is rather insulting to the later. So how do I see human beings as a species?

To be quite blunt.. human beings as a species are incapable of anything approaching objective thought, let alone reason. They are also fundamentally incapable of being kind, decent, altruistic or anything else which they want to believe about themselves. Instead.. they are an incredibly greedy, short-sighted, narcissistic and delusional species with an obsession for trying to dominate others and an all-consuming fear of their inevitable mortality. Human beings as a species not only lack a ‘moral compass’ of any kind, but are actually incapable of creating anything along those lines. Perhaps more importantly, this is the case irrespective of their “culture”, ethnicity, race, “IQ” or sex. And they also have a predilection for self-destruction. The fact that humans beings have not made themselves extinct after invention of nuclear weapons is a minor miracle.

While this assessment might sound unpleasant, it is based in reality. Read enough about history and you will be hard pressed to identify who was the lesser fuckup and delusional asshole in any interaction. If that is too much work, just look at the world around you with critical eyes. Think about all the people you have worked for, worked with, had sex with or are related to and then as yourself.. “Is this what passes for average humans?”. I am not saying that every single person is a delusional sadistic fuckup. Indeed we can all think of a few people (based on our personal experience) who are clearly not, but most of them are.. well.. sad fuckups. And that is why I use the expression ‘human beings as a species’ as opposed to ‘all humans’. In other words, not everyone- just the majority. But the majority, nonetheless.

Now you know why it was so easy to find tons of people willing to burn alleged witches in 16th-17th century Europe or why persecuting and lynching Jews was a popular pastime during the Great Plague epidemic of 1347-1351. That is also why mass human sacrifice was an important part of Aztec Culture or why the very ‘christian’ Spanish and Portuguese conquistadors went about killing and enslaving millions of people in south and central america. This is also how tens of millions died due to famine during British Rule of India or how many tens of millions of white men killed each other during WW1 and WW2. Did I mention the ethnic genocides which occurred in the last century such as the Armenian Genocide, the Ukrainian Famine of the 1930s, the Holocaust, all the millions who died in China between 1959-1961. Oh and that is separate from the millions killed during Japanese occupation of (parts of) China during the 1937-1945 timespan.

And this is just a tiny sliver of what you can find when you read enough history. Now tell me something.. do you think that human beings as a species have to be “brainwashed” to do evil and stupid things? Do you still think human beings really require a bunch of manipulators to get them to kill each other for no good reason? Or perhaps ‘propaganda’ just gives people a public excuse to act out their most depraved desires and pretend that it was not their idea. The far more straightforward (if unpleasant) explanation is that ‘propaganda’ simply provides most people a way to externalize responsibility for their shitty and stupid behavior. That way, they can do horrendous stuff but then also be able to pretend that they are good persons. It is all about enjoying the morbid deed but externalizing the responsibility of said deed.

In the next part, I will use a series of examples to show you that ‘propaganda’ is really about telling people that is OK be pathetic, depraved and murderous assholes. And remember that old white people who watch Fox News did not become sad racist losers after starting to watch that channel. Newsflash.. they were always racist losers. Fox News simply provided external validation for the beliefs which they always held but were too cowardly to display in public until some fuckface or bimbo on Fox News told them that it was OK to do so.

What do you think? Comments?

Propaganda and Advertising have Poor Real-Life Efficacy: 1

December 2, 2017 4 comments

The title of this post might, at first glance, seem almost counter-intuitive to whatever most of you desire to believe about the efficacy of advertising and propaganda. After all, why would all those super rich and therefore allegedly “smart” people spend tens of billions on advertising if it was largely futile? Or why would various governments spend even more money and devote a lot of personnel to create and disseminate propaganda. Surely, even semi-competent people would not spend that much money and effort on something of negligible efficacy. Or would they?

Let us start by talking about all the disastrous, expensive and ultimately ruinous wars initiated by “great leaders” and “highly trained generals” throughout human history, such as WW1 and WW2 and the present. Or think about all the giant multi-national corporations (Xerox, Kodak, Motorola, Blockbuster etc) that have failed because their leadership kept on making bad and ultimately disastrous decisions. My point is that there is no evidence that all those supposedly “smart” leaders of large corporations and nations (and their underlings) are even reasonably good at their jobs- in spite of being paid a lot of money and wielding much power.

If all that evidence doesn’t satisfy you, ponder a bit about how a mediocre reality TV star such as Trump won the republican nomination by steamrolling 16 “professional” life-long politicians and then defeated the darling of the neoliberal establishment, aka HRC, in the 2016 presidential general election. My point is that people who are supposed to be “elite” are, for all practical purposes, incompetent posers who just happened to get a lucky break or hit a lucky streak in their past. Their choices and decisions should not, therefore, be interpreted as evidence of deep thought, competence or efficacy.

But what about all those books you have read touting the amazing effectiveness of propaganda and adverting? What about all those documentaries made by Adam Curtis? What about all those books written by Noam Chomsky, especially this one? Surely, all these supposedly brilliant left-leaning “intellectuals” must have some wondrous insight into the power of propaganda and advertising that is not obvious to “non-experts”. Or maybe they want to pretend to believe in something which can explain their own impotence while simultaneously making a decent amount of money and fame?

To make a very long story a bit shorter, I shall now talk about a few examples of what are often considered to be best examples of success for propaganda and advertising to show you that the real reason why most people appear to go along with that crap is very different from what you are willing to accept.

Example 1: Propaganda in World War I

The attempts by all belligerent European governments to sell the idea of fighting WW1 to their subjects.. I mean citizens.. is sometimes seen as the first instance of governments deploying mass propaganda on a large and systematic scale. But was it really effective? Or were the other reasons behind the public support for war? Have you ever considered that the real reasons for public support for that war might have something to do with the expectations and mindset of people in that era?

Ok, let me ask you a question. What percentage of the population, including the “elites”, of that era could even imagine a war on such a gigantic scale going on for four years? If you don’t believe me.. read the correspondences of both soldiers and generals who fought in that war. It quickly becomes obvious that even 2-3 years into WW1, most of those involved in the actual fighting and planning believed that some new military tactic, weapons system or strategy would somehow magically translate into a swift and decisive victory.

Furthermore, the general public in European countries had not lived through such a large war on their soil, let alone one that could last more than a few weeks. Perhaps most importantly, the very high number of deaths and casualties in each participating nation, within even the first few months of that war, made it basically impossible for either the people of those nations or their leaders to settle for anything short of “total victory”. It was really about an uncontrollable and escalating cycle of vengeance at a time when contemporary culture was characterized by social darwinist thinking.

I would go so far as to suggest that the total absence of propaganda during that time would have no worthwhile effect on the conduct, length or outcome of that war. The sheer amount of wishful thinking based on past experiences in pre-modern societies based on social darwinism combined with the high number of children per woman and the second stage of the industrial revolution made every single aspect of that war pretty much inevitable. The government support of propaganda and advertising were, at best, avenues for creating patriotic sounding jobs for the sons of rich and connected people who did not want to risk their lives at the front.

Example 2: Militaristic Nationalism in Japan between 1920 and 1946.

Another important, though less commonly discussed, alleged example for success of propaganda concerns the rise of extreme militaristic nationalism between 1920 and 1946. It is, for example, common knowledge, that the Japanese armed forces fought bravely and often to the last man even in seemingly futile battles such those for Iwo Jima and Okhinawa. Then there are all those accounts of Kamikaze plane attacks and Banzai charges. By any measure, the soldiers and other personnel of the Imperial Japanese forces during WW2 were highly driven and ideologically motivated. But was it due to propaganda?

Many conventional historical accounts of 1920s-1930s era Japan strongly suggest, or just outright say, that the government- especially factions controlled by the military establishment put in a lot of effort and resources to inculcate a certain nationalistic ideology among the Japanese people. This extended from simple censorship of media to elaborate mock training of schoolchildren to fight in wars. But how much effect did any of these traditional and non-traditional avenues of propaganda have on the type of nation that Japan became in the late 1930s and really 1940s?

In my opinion- very little and here is why. Understanding the reasons which led to the Japanese people embracing an extreme right-wing nationalistic ideology predicated in their racial superiority requires us to put ourselves in the world as seen by the average Japanese person in the that era. Japan, you see, went from a medieval feudal society to a modern industrialized one within less than 50 years from the beginning of the Meiji period. By the beginning of WW1, and certainly by its end in 1918, its industrial, academic and engineering achievements had surpassed almost every other country but a few (USA, UK, France and Germany).

All these achievements and competencies had, however, not been helped it increase its global prestige, power or access to raw materials. In contrast, even third-rate European powers like Portugal, Netherlands and Belgium had large colonies in Asia and Africa. The treaty of Versailles simply confirmed that Japan, as an Asian country, would never be welcome as an equal in the imperialist white man’s club. At that time, Korea was the only real overseas colonial possession of the Japanese empire- and it was hardly a desirable one.

But it was a much bigger problem than diplomatic slights at the hands of white European nations. Japan had a large population but only a small part of it was arable or inhabitable. One unintentional, but somewhat welcome, consequences of the industrial revolution in Japan was that many millions of newly educated and skilled Japanese started moving to Korea, China and other East-Asian countries to make a living. There they encountered nation after nation of subjugated Asian people living in a pre-industrial era.

It is therefore not surprising that the idea of racial superiority was so readily accepted by Japanese people in that era. They could see that their country was the most developed and powerful country for thousands of miles in any direction. And yet, this did not translate into any material advantage for them. It is therefore not surprising that leaders spouting right-wing militaristic ideas about conquering and exploiting the resources of surrounding countries became popular in Japan. They were just saying out loud what everyone else was thinking.

In the upcoming part of this series, I intend to talk about why Nazi propaganda appeared to be so effective until the final year of WW2, why soviet propaganda appeared to succeed until the early 1970s and why american propaganda appeared to succeed for decades before entering its death spiral after 2008. Here is a hint.. in all three cases, people appeared to go along with the propaganda only as long as the underlying system provided at least part of what it had promised.

What do you think? Comments?

Cult of COVID-19 Has Fatally Damaged the Cult of Climate Change: 4

January 12, 2022 18 comments

In the previous post of this series, I wrote about how the fall of communism in Eastern European countries during late 1980s is another example of how seemingly omnipotent systems which have survived for decades can implode over very short periods of time. I also pointed out the collapse of communism was far less bloody than what occurred in many empires and countries after WW1. Then there was the issue of how these systems imploded in spite of having a pretty decent job of improving the quality of life of their people after WW2. While those countries did not have giant malls and department stores by the 1980s, it is equally true that the vast majority of people in those countries were well fed, reasonably housed etc by the early 1980s. So what happened?

To understand that we have to talk about the ‘anti-halo’ effect, but before we do that let us go quickly go through what the communist systems in those countries were able to achieve and where they screwed up. See.. most of you don’t realize that by the time WW2 was finally over, most parts of Eastern Europe looked positively post-apocalyptic. The sheer amount of destruction due to the intense fighting between Nazi Germany and USSR during that war had destroyed or severely damaged most of the buildings, houses, factories, roads, bridges, railways etc in those countries. While some places such as parts of erstwhile Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Yugoslavia were spared from the worst effects of the that conflict, the rest of Eastern Europe (including western Russia looked) looked like something out of a horror movie.

And we haven’t even started talking about the extremely high number of people who died or were permanent disabled by the war or the huge increase in widowed women and orphaned children. My point is the Eastern Europe in immediate aftermath of WW2 was a giant smoking ruin, on many levels. Now compare this starting point to where most of those countries ended up in a couple of decades. My the mid- to late- 1960s, there was no widespread malnourishment, the general situation in these countries had improved to the point where majority of people in them resided in OK if modest apartment buildings, had some consumer appliances, decent if basic selection of clothes, fairly good public transportation and acceptable health-care (especially for that era). To put it another way, people living in those countries were not suffering from the levels of deprivation seen in some parts of Mexico even today- and yet the public in those countries has lost confidence in their governing system by the early-1980s.

Which brings us the ‘anti-halo’ effect. In the previous post, I had written that the ‘anti-halo’ effect is what occurs when people have negative feelings about someone or something in areas other than the one in which they failed. So how does this effect work and why does it not matter in countries such as India or Mexico? The very simple answer is that the ‘anti-halo’ effect, as far as systems of governance are concerned, require at least a semi-competent government to work. In countries such as India or Mexico, the government is seen as irredeemably corrupt, greedy and incompetent. However unlike communist Eastern European countries, the government does not have the capability to insinuate itself into the daily lives of its citizens. To quickly summarize.. the risk of ‘anti-halo’ effect is directly proportional to the degree of involvement by government in daily and private lives of its citizens.

Now let us talk about how the fairly positive view of Eastern Europeans about their governments in the late 1960s had turned to pervasive distrust, hatred and contempt by the early to mid- 1980s. Some Americans want to believe that it was due to their propaganda during the cold war, however this is bullshit because most people in those countries had never been to a western country or had heard much more than a few scraps of laughably bad propaganda on some radio stations. My point is that it takes far more than some dumb propaganda and pumping money into NGOs to so thoroughly discredit the central ideology of governments which had done a fairly acceptable job of improving the quality of life for their citizens. The cause of this rot deeper and, in a way, almost inevitable in any highly centralized system of governance.

While communist governments in Eastern Europe made many mistakes over the few decades of their existence, it is worthwhile to note that they did not make significantly more of them than contemporary western governments. The real difference between those two groups of nations is what happened afterwards. See.. most countries in Europe and North America pursued fairly socialistic in the first three decades after WW2. Even USA had tons of programs to improve levels of university education, home and car purchases etc between 1946 and 1973. Let us not forget all that money spend on everything from building infrastructure, military-industrial complex, space race etc. However the governments of western nations and Japan never had total control over society and mostly kept out of the personal lives of citizens.

This had two major consequences. Firstly, government fuckups and bad decisions never had the same systematic and deeply felt effects on society in the west that they had in communist east. It is not that government critters and bureaucrats in west were smarter or more competent than their counterparts in Eastern Europe, it is just that the former could not do anywhere near the damage the later could and often did. This is one of the major reasons why the east started to fall behind the west in many areas of emerging technologies. It is also why so many Eastern European countries feel like like they were built by unimaginative, stingy bureaucrats or why the production of cars, washing machines and televisions was given such low priority in Eastern Europe during that era. Also why the quality of most restaurants and other services was so poor in those countries. Then there is the issue of invading the personal lives of average people.

While western governments (especially in 1950s) were as socially conservative as their Eastern counterparts, they simply lacked the power to meddle into the personal lives of average people to the extent of their Eastern European counterparts. While the power of communist governments over private lives of the people did vary across countries (East Germany vs Yugoslavia) and even within countries (rural versus urban), it was always significantly more than in the west. It is not a coincidence that Eastern European countries had a noticeably lower rate of fertility than their western counterparts between the late 1940s to 1980s. This does not mean that people had less sex in those countries or had less vacation time. It was just that many of the decisions made by unaccountable bureaucrats and apparatchiks kept making the lives of majority in those countries pretty miserable and hopeless. Might write more about this in a future part of this series.

Getting back to the main focus of this post, let us now talk about how all of this is related to the cult of covid-19 fatally damaging the cult of ‘climate change’. The easiest way to permanently destroy and discredit the public image of a government, system or institution is to give it too much power. See.. all governments and institutions (public and private) throughout history have always been full of incompetent pompous parasites. Under most circumstances, this does not become a big issue since there the majority seldom get to experience the full force of their venal stupidity and incompetence. For a long time in the post-WW2 west, power was spread throughout enough antagonistic interests and institutions that no one person or institution could fuck up things for everybody. This has changed over past three decades as an increasingly homogenous and incestuous bunch of people who grew up in a few neighborhoods and went to certain universities have come to fill up and head the system and its institutions.

Under normal conditions, this would not have caused serious public problems for maybe a decade longer- but then COVID-19 intervened. All the dumb decisions (lockdowns, mask and vaccine mandates, denying early treatment, clumsy censoring of dissenters etc) and their very public inability to control the pandemic have exposed them as the conmen and conwomen they always were. But we don’t live in Mexico or India, where every non-retarded person understands that governments and institutions are full of incompetent thieves. Instead the west is run by systems and institutions who claim to power is intimately connected to their supposed ability and merit. The thing is.. they never had to backup those claims of “elite-ness” with actual performance in the face of a serious real challenge since WW2.

The COVID-19 pandemic, or more precisely its incredibly bad and persistent mishandling, has provided a very public window into their actual capabilities- which have been shown to be atrociously inadequate. This where the ‘anti-halo’ effect comes into the picture. Now everything else they touch, or decisions they make, will be viewed with the same degree of derision and disbelief as their clownishly incompetent response to COVID-19. In the next part of this series, I will try to go into more examples of how being the only center of power speeds the fall of any group, ideology or set of institutions.

What do you think? Comments?

The Current Response by Western Elites to COVID-19 is a Good Thing

January 3, 2022 6 comments

This post is a bit of an aside from the series I am currently working on, but as you will see- it runs almost parallel. The only reason for writing this post as a standalone has to do with the subject matter not neatly fitting within that series. Now let us talk about the peculiar title of this post which might suggest that I approve of how western elites are handling the COVID-19 pandemic. Well.. that is technically true, but only because they are doing such an incredible job of repeatedly and thoroughly fucking things up. Some of you might think that it is ‘all part of a larger plan’ and ‘coordinated conspiracy’. While I certainly believe that elites constantly desire and plan to coordinate actions, real life evidence from past century suggests that they are simply too dumb, incompetent, greedy and treacherous to conspire themselves out of anything larger than a few small scale events for a short period of time.

And there is good reason for their dismal track record. As I have written in older posts, those who becomes elites in any society throughout history has largely been some combination of being born to the right parents or being present at right place at right time. Think of it as the fancy version of winning a lottery jackpot or receiving an unexpected inheritance. Sure.. you have to buy a lottery ticket to win one, but most who buy them will never win anything big. The biggest consequence of elite-hood being a function of luck is that most of them will not survive any significant challenge to the society they are leading. If you have read enough history, you will know that dynasties of all sorts (big and small) rise only to fall into obscurity within a generation or two. Which brings us the question: how do elites maintain their relative position and power for short periods of time if they are not competent?

The answer to that question requires us to first understand what kind of person seeks power in the first place. Once again, the answer is not flattering. To put it bluntly, the vast majority of elites throughout human history also happen to be good at scamming others in their own society into believing that they are smart, competent and deserving of their ill-gotten wealth and power. And here is the funny thing.. the vast majority of people will follow and worship charlatans as long as things are relatively OK and they are getting a large proportion of what was promised. That is why you will almost never see elite replacement occurring in an era of peace and relative prosperity. Even relatively brief episodes of adversity will not result in popular challenges to governing elites. It usually takes either serious long-term decay or external events beyond elite control to destroy their public image to point that people either stop following them or overthrow them in violent manner.

With that in mind, let us go further into one of the analogies I made in a previous post about the COVID-19 pandemic and WW1. In that one, I said that the military and civilian elite of European countries in pre-WW1 era had not faced a serious challenge for over two generations and therefore acted as if WW1 would unfold like one from 1870- but with better rifles, larger cannons and more trains. I can bet you a lot of money that almost none of them would have entered WW1 had they had known how things would turn out. I am always amused by conspiracy buffs talking about WW1 being part of some grand plan, because even a brief overview of the irreversible loss suffered by reigning elites in participating countries would then imply that most were either suicidal or stupid. But what does this have to do with my observation that ‘the current response by western elites to covid-19 pandemic is a good thing’.

As you might recall, in that post I said something about how shifts in public opinion caused by repeated non-performance kept accelerating over course of war to the point where even an semi-famous Italian journalist, Russian activist gadfly and German lance corporal were seen as vast improvements over the establishment status quo. I also mentioned something about how both sides in that war organized an almost endless series of premature celebrations after even small successes in their military campaign to promote the idea that final victory was around the corner. In my opinion, these dumb attempts at propaganda in the background on suffering and deprivation of both civilians and military personnel caused by WW1 was the single biggest factor that drove the increasing unwillingness of population to believe in their elites. And here is why.. by 1917, people on both sides had suffered so much that they knew even outright victory would not make them whole again.

Let us now compare this situation to what is occurring all over the west right now. Until a couple of months ago, the true believers could still pretend that vaccines prevented or reduced infection by, and spread of, COVID-19. But it is now unignorably obvious in each and every country which went down the path of high rates of vaccination with mRNA, that those vaccines have close to zero effectiveness against infection and upper respiratory symptoms. Sure.. they do reduce risk of hospitalization and death by (60-90% depending on age group etc)- but that is far less than what was originally and explicitly promised to the public by those idiots. Heck, even third doses cannot prevent upper respiratory involvement in people under 50- which is a pretty big depreciation from what was promised as recently as two months ago. At this stage, even true believers can no longer pretend that “breakthrough infections” are anything other than the norm. And there is whole issue of masks now failing very visibly.

Some of you might recall that I once wrote a post about why face masks are no better than talismans at preventing infections by airborne respiratory viruses and why making people wear them was an incredibly stupid idea. In the later, I wrote the following:

And there is the other big question.. what happens if COVID-19 does not disappear in spite of forced mask laws and shutdowns? The so-called “elites” have tried to sell these measures as a guaranteed pathway to eliminate the disease, but have they even considered how most people will react if the promised end to new infections does not occur, in spite of these measures. Who are they going to blame?

Turns out that I was always right on this issue also and now it is almost impossible to ignore that all those triple-vaxxed and face-masked people in blue cities are catching COVID-19 at same rates as all those deplorables in MAGA country. And it is not as if those stupid face-masks have worked elsewhere either. Vietnam has large outbreaks in past few months, as have South Korea, Australia, Germany and pretty much every country in western Europe and North America. In other words, they did not work anywhere. So how have the elites in those countries reacted. Comically.. by expanding mask mandates and instituting more ineffectual lockdowns. Oh, and lockdowns did not work in any country since COVID-19 spreads far more efficiently within a household than between households.

We are now close to second year mark for the COVID-19 pandemic and it is telling that all the disruptive, costly and ineffectual measures aimed at eradicating this virus have only prolonged the pandemic. In other words, the elites and their butt-boys aka bureaucrats have repeatedly and visibly failed in ways that are hard to ignore- even for the true believers. Did I mention that these morons are still acting as if was March 2020? Then there is the related issue of supply chain shortages, rampant inflation and staffing issues caused by useless positive tests which do not translate in serious illness. Let us not forget the ongoing disruption in schools and universities caused by the demands of unionized teachers and other assorted parasites. All of which brings us the issue of virtue display costs. See.. it is very easy to virtue signal and go along with the official narrative if the cost and loss from doing so is minimal or temporary.

Liberal morons will pay a few cents more for a burger or pay a bit more for a hybrid or electric car to show off their moral superiority. But even dumb liberals cannot accept disruptions to their lifestyle and leisure which exceed more than a few percent. And this is precisely what the endless vaccine mandates, mask mandates, school closures etc are doing. It also does not help that most zoom liberals have not seen an increase in their paycheck to cover all that inflation and supply chain issues. To make matters worse, their object of worship (liberal politicians, experts, MSM presstitutes, bureaucrats and talking heads) have visibly failed and appear totally incapable of halting the pandemic. I for one, find this situation quite amusing and hope that the western elite and their bureaucratic butt-boys maintain their current course and keep flailing around to prolong a crisis which is not real.

Nothing destroys public willingness to go along with system so thoroughly as watching its leaders and bureaucrats being reduced to flailing puppets being constantly battered by the waves and winds of reality. Popcorn anyone..

What do you think? Comments?

Preliminary Thoughts on the Current COVID-19 Situation in India

May 1, 2021 17 comments

Many readers might have recently heard something along the lines of how “the second wave of COVID-19 in India has caused the healthcare system in that country to collapse” or some other example of wishful thinking by aging western ‘liberal’ whites trying to desperately get a hardon by lapping up any news about possible mass death of non-whites in “those” countries. Of course, aging and demographically doomed white liberals lack the balls to say that it out aloud. With that in mind, let me help you understand about how things actually work in India and why western media is always especially misinformed about news from countries outside their own. What I am going to write here also applies to how western media reports on many other Asian countries, including China (even in 2021).

1] You might have noticed that almost every single source quoted by western MSM when reporting about India is either a English language media outlet or a journalist who works in those outlets. But why is this relevant? To understand what I am talking about, let us revisit a bit of history. The first generation of elites in post-independence India were almost exclusively educated in pre-independence missionary run schools, went to British universities and were uncritical worshipers of anybody who had a lighter skin color than them. In other words, they had a massive racial-inferiority complex. So how did they compensate for their shitty self-image? Well.. by constantly criticizing and belittling other Indians in the hope of gaining a few crumbs of approval from white people- typical massey sahib behavior.

The English language media in India was an extension of this pathetic belief system, with other self-hating and missionary-educated Indians being its main audience. Western news outlets were, at best, a distant second. Notably, they had no interest in engaging the vast majority of Indians- even those who are were literate in English. In the first two (or three) decades after independence, this bunch of missionary-educated self-hating media types had some real power, but by the 1980s- they had lost almost all of it. Their unwillingness to change the way the saw the world also ensured that neither Indians educated in secular English schools or those who predominately used Indian languages would see them as anything but sadly comic white ass-kissers.

But what is the relevance of this explanation to the topic of post? Well.. as it turn out, after 1991 these news outlets and journalists found a much-reduced second life as publishers of western propaganda and interfering in local politics by coordinating with western NGOs. Of course, they had no real influence on the vast majority (over 97%) of Indians- including those in power, but it didn’t matter as they were increasingly financed from.. external sources. In the context of COVID-19 pandemic, these “news” outlets have done nothing but belittling and berating Indians while exaggerating the toll of illness in that country. This might not be obvious to most of you, since you cannot compare how news about the same incident is presented in Indian English-Language Media (ELM) vs outlets in local languages. But I can!

2] Consequently a lot of what is presented by Indian ELM about news stories in that country is exaggerated and (increasingly) bullshit or outright lies. Did you know, for example, that they were also pushing the idea that casualties were 10-100x higher than official numbers during first wave? Turns out, they were not- but these “news” outlets never apologized for their persistent “mistakes”. So how high were the ‘real’ causalities compared to official numbers during first COVID-19 wave in India. The best guesses, made from talking to a lot of people + going through local language media, suggest a number about 1.5x (50%) higher than the official estimates. But more importantly, the first wave left about 20% of India (over 50% in major cities) immune to that virus. And yes.. those figures are based on multiple serological studies performed at the beginning of this year.

About 150-200k people died in exchange for 250-300 million infections. The mathematically inclined among you might have noticed that this translates into a death rate of a bit less than 1 in 1,000. Which brings us to the ongoing second wave. While the first wave affected mostly poor people living in slums, chawls and crowded apartments in big and medium sized cities, this one is affecting the more well-off in cities as well as smaller towns and everyone in rest of country. So how will it play out? Well.. we know that poor people in India (even the elderly) have an unusually low risk of developing serious complications or dying from COVID-19. I expect that trend to continue. The urban middle-class and upper-middle class are a different story. Too many in this demographic have obesity and diabetes from eating high-carb food (among other reasons).

I therefore expect more excess mortality among this group (per capita) compared to, say, poor people who perform physical labor for a living. However this group accounts for a small percentage of the population on that country. Moreover, we already know that the second wave, though more intense than the first one, seems to be a significantly shorter duration. FYI- this conclusion is based on how the second wave is playing out in the most affected state aka Maharashtra- where its has already peaked. If you still want predictions about final death numbers, I am guessing that it will be about 500-600k (same as USA but in a country with over 4 times more people). I also predict that this will occur before even 50% of population is vaccinated. It is an unfortunate loss of life, but totally acceptable for vast majority of people in that country. Very few are going to miss that 1 in 2,000 or even 1 in 1,000 person (urban areas) who passed away due to COVID-19- especially if he or she was old.

3] Now let us talk about all that hyperbole about the “medical system in India collapsing due to COVID-19”. First of all, India does not have a medical system as people in west (including USA) understand that concept. There is basically zero centralized coordination of patient history, standards of treatment or even payment. The medical system in that country is really hundreds of thousands of small clinics, large clinics and hospitals of varying sizes and resources offering medical care according to the ability of patients to pay for them. Of course, you can still get excellent medical care if you have even a half-decent amount of money. But back to all that bullshit talk about the “system collapsing”.. see, there isn’t a system to collapse, just smaller and bigger nodes which will be temporarily overwhelmed.

To be clear, I am not saying that certain hospitals in some Indian cities are not overwhelmed at this moment- but you know what, they will get back to normal- either when enough sick patients die or they find new resources to take care of patients- likely both. This might sound heartless- but let us be real about something.. most governments in that country (federal and state level) have never displayed any real interest in properly funding essential public utilities such as clean drinking water, proper sewage treatment, electricity production and distribution, decent schools or enough hospitals and clinics. So don’t blame me for pointing out the logical consequences of consistently bad decisions made by elected governments over many decades in that country. It is what it is..

Now let us talk about availability of Oxygen. As it turns out, India makes a lot of liquid and compressed oxygen for industrial purposes. While the big plants for extracting it from air are concentrated in certain parts of country, moving the product to other parts by rail or road is trivial. Also, hospitals usually consume only about 1-2% of total industrial oxygen production in India. In other words, the current shortage of oxygen in some cities has everything to do with bad logistics, price gouging and poor decision-making by purchase departments in hospitals. I expect this problem to sort itself out in next 2-3 weeks. But there is one more thing I want to talk about..

While all of this is going on, the vast majority of people in that country (over 95%) don’t really care about COVID-19- because they know it is fairly harmless for them. They have much more pressing issues in their lives than a disease than almost exclusively kills a few old or fat people. They have survived far worse and have a very different view on relative risks than some aging baby boomer in an affluent west coast suburb.

What do you think? Comments?

Impeaching Trump, for the Second Time, is an Even Stupider Idea

January 17, 2021 18 comments

In my previous post, I listed the major reasons why banning Trump from Twitter (and other american-owned social media platforms) was an incredibly stupid and short-sighted idea. In this one, I will go into the many reasons why trying to impeach Trump for the second time is an even stupider idea. Having said that.. I am not surprised that the delusional losers aka democrats would come up with such a brain fart. Just look at what they have been doing for the past thirty years, but especially the past five. Anyway, here are the reasons..

1] Trump received over 74 million votes in 2020 (8 million more than 2016) in spite of a huge and sustained propaganda effort by MSM over past four years which included making up many dozens of nonexistent “scandals” in addition to his highly incompetent managing of response to COVID-19 pandemic. Even after he “officially” lost the election, Trump had no problems getting tens of thousands of enthusiastic supporters to attend his rallies. Anyone who believes that this guy does not have a massive base or that his supporters will desert him in aftermath of that over-hyped January 6 riot in DC is highly delusional aka a democrat.

As I also mentioned in my previous post, it is worth noting that Trump has a far larger base of support among people who work in (or have worked in) the armed services, police and other paramilitary services. If you think that trying to impeach him a second time won’t further piss off and rile up those sorts of people, I have a bridge to sell you. When (not if) push comes to shove, I would bet on the trained guys with guns prevailing over lanyard wearing pencil-dick aspie dweebs from Northern California. Banning him from american-owned social media outlets has only helped Trump further by making him look like a martyr. Don’t be surprised if parts of this post seem similar to the previous one, because the stuff they are talking about are being driven by very similar underlying factors.

It does not help that democratic party and its associated public personalities such as MSM presstitutes, incompetent but credentialed “experts” etc have vociferously supported useless ‘lockdowns’ and school closures which have ruined the lives of many millions of younger people. Does anybody thinks that this will somehow increase the vote-share of democrats in 2022 and 2024 elections? Far more likely, democrats are going to get wiped out in 2022 elections to levels that are unthinkable to most people right now. Trying to impeach Trump, a second time, is only going to make him more popular than he is right now. And the guy who comes after Orange Man is going to be far more competent and systematic than him.

2] Trying to impeach Trump, for a second time, shows how incompetent, desperate and scared the democratic party has become. It is no secret that attempts at presidential impeachment have lost their power due to their frequent use in recent decades. Remember when they tried to impeach Clinton in late 1990s.. how did that turn out? Did it crimp his ability to make money or hurt his popularity after leaving office in early-2001? And did the first attempt to impeach Trump hurt his ability to get the republican nomination or receive a record number of votes in 2020 elections? Why would any sane person think that a second attempt at impeachment would achieve more? And it is not different this time around..

The socio-economic conditions which caused the rise of Trump have become more dominant in past four years. Trump was, if anything, a trailer for the sort of person who is going to rise to power in the next few years. If you think that more ineffectual impeachments and attempts to harass Trump by starting bogus investigations via the NY state attorney’s office is going to stop a future american Caesar, you are probably a democrat moron. Yes.. you read that right. The person who will inherit Trump’s coalition and use it to successfully grab power is not going to play by the rules of credentialed sissy-boys aka democrats. More ineffectual exercises of their imaginary powers will only speed up the appearance of an american Caesar.

To make matters worse, if that is possible, democrats have no plan or desire to address the socio-economic factors which caused the rise of Trump. Instead they are focusing on identity politic issues and virtue display bullshit which will results in them antagonizing even more voters in non-coastal states. They are just like the decrepit European royal families which were destroyed in aftermath of WW1. Also, trying to prevent Trump from running for election again will have no effect on the now almost inevitable rise of an american Caesar. In fact, Trump was accidentally the best chance of blocking an american Caesar because though he was a incompetent moron Trump had enough popular support to compete with and stop the rise of a competent fascist. Funny how these things work..

3] In the aftermath of that January 6 riot in DC, the dumbfucks (aka democrats) are trying to start another ‘War on Terror 2.0’ combined with a Patriot Act 2.0- which is darkly comic since this country lost the ‘War on Terror 1.0’. If you think otherwise, just look at how the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan turned into a spectacular and costly defeat. The same “geniuses” who cheerlead the failed ‘war on Terror 1.0’ in middle-eastern countries are now clamoring for a domestic ‘War and Terror 2.0’. Given that they seem hell-bent on persecuting over 40% of the people in this country (and over 95% of those with military experience and guns), this cannot end well for democrats. It is almost like these delusional dummies aka establishment democrats are trying to accidentally kickstart a second civil war, but one which takes the form of a decentralized insurgency. This cannot end well..

If democrats had any brains, they would have treated the January 6 riot in DC as if it was just another poorly organized riot by a bunch of incompetent bozos- which is exactly what it was! But the dumbfucks think that pretending this poorly organized riot was some serious threat to the republic will allow them to seize power, spite Trump and persecute his supporters. The numbnuts are doing this despite the fact that a majority of republicans did not see that riot as unjustified or a “threat to democracy”. As I mentioned earlier in this post, over 74 million people voted for Trump barely two months ago and they did that in spite of a 5-year long MSM campaign against him. If the dummies in democrat party think that persecuting his supporters (aka majority of registered republican voters) does not carry the inevitable risk 0f serious blowback, they are hallucinating.

It should also be pointed that trying to impeach Trump for a second time and/or trying to persecute him through spurious legal cases filed by prosecutors in democrat-run states such as NY will almost inevitably destroy whatever little credibility those institutions have in rest of country. To put it bluntly, any path taken by democrats other than ignoring Orange Man AND addressing the broader socio-economic factors behind his rise will result in a very large-scale backlash which that decrepit party and its stooges won’t be able to handle. Based on the way things are going, it is obvious that the dumbfucks have made their choice. The next four years might be even more ‘interesting’ than the past four.

What do you think? Comments?

Aftermath of Pandemic Will Destroy Residual Trust in Mainstream Media

May 9, 2020 7 comments

In the past, I have written many posts about why (and how) the majority of people have now lost faith in a range of supposedly “objective” and “impartial” institutions. The takeaway from those posts was as follows: 1] No institution can be “better” than the average person who populates them; 2] All institutions, given sufficient time, will end up being run by cliques of incompetent sycophants; 3] Institutions created to solve any problem will always end up perpetuating that problem in order to remain relevant, 4] All institutions, given time, will either lose or expel their competent members and replace them with clever-sounding but ineffectual cock suckers, 5] These changes make said institutions increasingly incestuous, fragile and ineffectual. 6] While decaying institutions can keep going for some time on social inertia alone, sooner or later they will face a series of real-life challenges exposing them for what they have become.

The above stated pattern holds true whether the institution in question is the democratic party, presidency, AMA, Google or the mainstream corporate media. While I have a few things to say about the WHO, let us leave that for another post and focus on the corporate mainstream media. But before we do that, let us define the term. In my opinion, mainstream corporate media often referred to as MSM is best understood as official propaganda in so-called “democratic” countries. The scam works as follows.. to maintain the pretense of a “democratic” and “free” society, the corporation-controlled government allows certain trusted ass-kissers to label themselves as “objective” journalists. To demonstrate their alleged “objectivity”, these clowns are occasionally allowed to write or publish content that is slightly adversarial to those in power. But don’t worry, these presstitutes will never publish anything that will truly challenge the malfeasance of those in power or expose their sheer incompetence.

This is why, for example, very few journalists challenged the official narrative about the Vietnam war until it was obvious that USA would lose. Something similar happened in 2003, when almost no journalist would contradict the official bullshit about the Iraq War until it became painfully obvious that USA was going to lose this war too. Now you know why the media cheerlead the housing boom of mid-2000s until that house of cards crashed or why it supported an endless slew of “free trade” treaties until pissed off people in the MidWest elected Trump in November 2016. People who work in corporate media outlets are best understood as the modern equivalent of minstrels and troubadours whose livelihood is dependent on remaining in the good graces of their real patrons while they sing songs and tell stories about their patron’s nobility and competence to the masses. However, while the medieval audience of minstrels and troubadours saw them as nothing more than entertainment, more than a few people today (usually older) still see their modern counterparts as courageous truth-tellers.

To be fair, the decline of residual public trust in MSM began sometime during the 1990s. But why the 1990s and not say in the 1950, 60s, 70s or even the 80s? Well.. the early part of the 1990s was the first decade which saw a slow decline in living standards of some Americans. While this decline was initially restricted to blue-collar workers in some flyover states, it was different from other ones in past because it was irreversible. The thing is.. most people will go along with a lot of government bullshit as long as they believe that their present is secure and future is hopeful. The 1990s was the first decade in which some Americans had to finally face the fact that their lives were not going to get better. But why should that fact affect their ability to trust MSM? Well.. belief in the MSM is like belief in any religion or cult. People stop believing in religions and cults once those belief systems cannot satisfactorily explain the reality they face.

This is why material affluence does far more damage to continued belief in Islam and Christianity than continued poverty. Another example would be how urbanization has done far more damage to belief in caste system than any reform movement in Hinduism. Or why the plague pandemic in 14th century did more to damage to the hold of catholic Church over Europe than anything before that or since then. But back to the topic of this post.. many believe that the internet (especially Google, FakeBook etc) struck the fatal blow for MSM by depriving them of money made through advertising. While it is true that the Internet in general, and Internet monopolies in particular, did irreversible harm to the previous business model of many MSM outlets, they did not destroy its credibility. That was a self goal.

See.. media overreaction to 9/11, shilling for the Iraq war, shilling for the housing bubble, shilling for financialism of the economy, shilling for Obama, shilling for LIEbralism in an environment where the fortunes of most people in this country slowly but irreversibly went south was the real reason why it lost so much credibility- especially among people who were born after 1970. People went looking in the internet for alternative news because the establishment mouthpieces were clearly, deliberately and repeatedly misleading them. This is also why a reality show clown.. I mean host.. with a sketchy past could win the presidential election against a “qualified” and “credentialed” establishment insider in 2016. Partisan democrats (MikeCA) still want to believe that the election of Trump was an inexplicable aberration rather than the highly predictable consequences of establishment politicians (of both parties) ignoring the needs and interests of a large section of the population. And this finally brings us the topic of this post.

Many of you might have noticed that an endless parade of “professional journalists” seem to have a deep emotional and material investment in keeping the economy closed during this pandemic. While I won’t go into the details of why this is such an incredibly bad idea in this post (read my previous posts on covid-19), let’s just say that shutting down the economy without a definitive and feasible exit plan or crippling it with restrictions for a diseases that kills less than 1 in 400 people below 65 has far more dangerous medium- and long-term consequences than these ivy league morons can imagine. For one, unemployment rates over 20% (closer to 30 or 40%) in a country without a decent social safety net is a disaster waiting to happen. Trying to shout down and at people who want the economy to open in this environment is more risky than striking a storm-proof match in a room drenched with gasoline.

Then again.. this turn of events is highly predictable. The vast majority of presstitutes alive today fall into one of three categories- 1] People from rich families who attended the “right” universities and don’t need the money, 2] People from a less-privileged but still solidly upper-middle class background who aspire to ge in the first category and 3] Social climbers without much money but who still want to emulate the second type so they can become them. Notice that all of them are in it for the fame, prestige, exposure and yes.. some money. My point is that the vast majority of journalists today are in for for giving each other blowjobs, according to a strict hierarchy- of course. But notice what they are not interested in.. “objective” journalism.. you know that thing they all claim to be their guiding principle. But how can I be so sure that is the case?

Well.. just have a look at the bullshit.. I mean “news stories”.. they are peddling. It is all about ‘how COVID-19 is much worse than we think’ or some fake scare story about ‘how it is mutating into increasingly dangerous forms’. But wait.. there is more. If you start asking them about how the results of serological tests affect our perception of the real IFR of this disease, they will tell you with great certainty that all those tests used to determine the results they don’t like are bad- even though these dumbfucks haven’t studied medical microbiology. These pathetic losers are enthusiastically pumping up doomsday stories peddled by aspy shitheads with delusions of grandeur such as Bill Gates or dishonest guinea dagos who haven’t touched a single laboratory instrument for the past four decades such as Fauci.

And they are doing this while either ignoring the real and massive harm done due to shutdown of everything from elective surgeries and cancer treatments to places that offer haircuts and food. Ask them about how to help the tens of millions whose lives have been turned upside down for no fault of theirs to perhaps protect protect a couple of million (at most) very old and dying people warehoused in nursing homes. Do they have a plan or idea to help the far more numerous group? If not, why not? How do these dumbfucks think people are going to buy food, let alone pay rent in a few months from now? Sure.. opening the economy right now might kill 10-15% of all people living in nursing homes or assisted living facilities. But what is their fraction in the population compared to all those whose lives are being destroyed by this lockdown. Also think about what will happen once it becomes obvious that the IFR is much lower than these presstitutes are claiming it to be. Do they think that tens of millions will just forgive them for helping ruin their lives without adequate compensation.

You might not like my argument because it is too coldly utilitarian. But let me ask you another question.. given the way things are setup in this country, and how the course of events have proceeded thus far, do you have a better and more feasible idea?

What do you think? Comments?

1990s was Last Great Decade for People Living in USA and West: 1

January 26, 2020 15 comments

Here is a series I first contemplated writing about five years ago, though the core idea occurred to me a bit before that and in an unexpected place. See.. spending too much time looking at the less frequented parts of the internet often results in me noticing unusual correlations, trends and patterns which escape the attention of most people. About seven years ago, I was going through a newsgroup about new large architectural projects all over the world and noticed an odd trend. Increasingly the most interesting and large building projects in the world were in Asia, not North America or Europe. Some of you might attribute this to Asia finally catching up to the West, and initially considered that possibility. Then I noticed something else.. most of the few large building projects in the West were increasingly way over budget and took far longer than expected. More interestingly, the results were usually of poor quality and full of poor design choices.

And then I started noticing this same basic trend in many other areas, from drug discovery and computer technology to video games, movies and music. It was as if the past 15-20 years have been one continuous blur of stagnation if you were living in USA or any other western country. Some of you might say that smartphones, “machine learning” and other assorted bullshit is a sign of progress. But is it really? Think about it.. Pocket PCs running Windows Mobile could be used to browse the web, check email, play games, watch movie clips, take photos, utilize GPS and many more things almost 20 years ago. The biggest “advance” smartphones represent is that they are permanently connected to high-speed cellular networks because data rates are now very low. Has all that hype about “machine learning”, “deep learning” and “AI” translated into any worthwhile improvement in your quality of life? Can you think of a counter example?

While I would like to start this series by talking about how technology has stagnated, a better (more popular) place to start would be how cultural products has either stagnated gotten worse. While trends in music and video games will be addressed in subsequent posts, we will focus on trends in films and TV in this post. But before we go there, let us first define the 1990s. In my opinion, the 1990s began on December 26, 1991 and ended on September 11, 2001 though it kinda dragged on until August 31, 2005. The period between those dates was the last time the west (especially USA) was dominant and relatively prosperous. As you will see, these dates define that decade in many fields. It is as if this time-span was the last hurrah for the western socio-economic model including neo-liberalism (and neo-conservatism).

Now let us get back to the main focus of this post, namely the almost complete stagnation of creativity in western films and TV shows (including online offerings). Here is a question- Do you remember any film or TV show released within the past 15 years that was not a direct derivative of something released earlier? Do you remember anything financially successful or unsuccesful that was not a direct derivative of something from before 2006? But why does this matter? Well.. because almost decade in the century before 2006 witnessed multiple major new trends that were not a direct derivative of something from the past one. To be fair, some of it was due to technological advances and changes in social mores. But much of it was driven by people experimenting with new ways to present novel material. Confused? Let me explain..

Consider the 1920s, with german expressionist cinema (The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Nosferatu, Pre-Code Hollywood movies, Russian Cinema (Battleship Potemkin, October). Can anybody deny that these represented new ways of making and editing films, not to mention the fact that they tackle hitherto untackled subject matter- at least in cinema. Or take the 1930s with its classic monster movies, Hollywood musicals, Disney Cartoons, Leni Riefenstahl’s documentaries etc. The 1940s had Film Noir and other memorable movies such as Citizen Kane, It’s a Wonderful Life, Casablanca etc. To be clear, I am not suggesting that previous decades were full of good, let alone original, movies. But it is clear that every decade in the century prior to 2006 saw the emergence of new and influential trends in cinema. However, we haven’t really seen anything similar occurring in the past 15 years.

The 1960s had tons of new trends, as did the 1970s. Even the 1980s had their new trends from low-budget horror movies to summer action blockbusters. There was much innovation in western cinema for a century before 2006. But the something, or more than one thing, happened western cinema became boring, repetitive and (most importantly) forgettable. I have briefly touched on some of these issues in my post about the current rash of film remakes, reboots, sequels and prequels and I sort of started talking about this topic in a post a few months ago– but never got around to building on it. And yes, I am aware that there are broader sociological trends at work. But whichever way you try to explain, it is hard to argue that the past fifteen years saw the alsmot total stagnation of creativity in western cinema and TV shows.

Don’t believe me? Well.. here are some facts. Most of the LOTR trilogy was filmed in New Zealand between October 11, 1999 and December 22, 2000, and the first movie in that series came out on November 20, 2001. The first X-men movie was released on July 14, 2000. The first film in the highly successful Spider Man franchise came out on May 3, 2002. The Matrix was released in 1999, as were the following important movies: Star Wars: Episode I, Office Space, Election, The Mummy, American Pie, The Blair Witch Project, The Sixth Sense, The Green Mile, Fight Club, American Beauty, Sleepy Hollow and many more. 1998 saw the release of important movies such as The Truman Show, Armageddon, Deep Impact, 1998 version of Godzilla, The Big Lebowski, Wild Things, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and many more.

The first Austin Powers movie came out in 1997, the first Jurassic Park in 1993. The first Scream movie came out in 1996 and the first I Know What You Did Last Summer in 1997. The first Toy Story came out in 1995 and the first Shrek movie in 2001. Can you think any equivalents in post 2005-era? Oh, and even the 40-year-old virgin came out in 2005. Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy came out in 2004. Superbad was filmed in 2006 and had been under development since 2000. Once again, I could keep going on and on- but you get my point. Pretty much every single major movie released in past 15 years can with very few exceptions directly trace its roots to the pre-2005 era. In the next part of this series, I will show how that the same is true for TV shows including their streaming variants. We will also start going into why this major socio-cultural-economic shift (aka stagnation) began in earnest around the mid-2000s.

What do you think? Comments?

Why Allegedly ‘Progressive’ Political Parties Keep Losing Elections: 1

December 15, 2019 38 comments

Over the past few days, you might have heard that the Labor party in UK suffered a particularly humiliating electoral defeat in the most recent election in that country. Those who listen to dying lamestream news outlets might try to tell you that this something to do with Jeremy Corbyn and his ‘socialist’ policies. Other paid losers, might want to push the laughably bullshit narrative that this has something to do with the labor party being ‘anti-semitic’ which is now a code word for not giving carte blanche to Zionists. I plan to write, in another post, about the unpleasant blow-back brewing in most countries in response to this particular conflation. But for the moment, let us focus on why Labor lost in this election, but also why it did so well in first post-Brexit election of 2017. That is right.. Labor under Jeremy Corbyn did very well in 2017, but really bad in 2019.

The delusional losers, who constitute a rather large percentage of what passes for left-wing public intellectuals, want to pin the defeat down to anti-Corbyn propaganda by the establishment and its media lapdogs. Except that this was as big an issue in 2017 as in 2019. The few rational types among what now passes for the left have correctly pointed out that in 2019, Labor tried to go “normcore” by promising to hold a second vote which, for all practical purposes, was an attempt to negate the original Brexit vote. In contrast, the 2017 platform of Labor explicitly accepted the will of the people (in England, at least) and simply promised to negotiate withdrawal from the EU on terms which would cause the least disruption to the lives of most people. It is therefore no surprise that they gained votes during 2017 election in traditionally de-industrialized and poorer areas which had voted for Brexit, but then lost those same areas and more in 2019.

But the problems with Labor, and equivalent parties in other western countries go much deeper. The original attraction of people like Corbyn (and Bernie) was that they, unlike the credentialed neoliberal leadership class before them, could relate to the needs and aspirations of common people. Their focus on the problems of class, critiques of economic policies and understanding the needs of average people is what endeared them to their supporters. But that is not the focus of contemporary ‘left- leaning’ parties in the west. Instead, they and their cadre of advisers.. I mean credentialed circle-jerkers, spent most of time addressing “social” issues and taking ideological positions that are either irrelevant to most people or now frequently antagonistic. Confused.. let me explain. Let us start by talking about the support of the credentialed elite of these political parties for the transexual agenda, fake “wokeness” and politically-correct speech.

Tell me something.. in a country where more than half the people are struggling to survive from paycheck to paycheck (both USA and UK), how is supporting thetransexual agenda going to get the majority to support them. This is especially relevant since many people rightly see promotion of that agenda as an attempt to interfere in their personal lives and make them say ‘2+2=5’. How is blind support of the most delusionary parts of white woman feminism a winning strategy when a lot of men (white and non-white) have shitty jobs or often nothing going for them? How is a white guy who has worked in a slew of precarious and poorly paid jobs for his entire working life supposed to be privileged? How many times can you tell men who have lost their house in a divorce that they deserved that fate? How often can you tell men that they are irredeemable sexist pigs? And just how do you expect those who you sneer at, look down and belittle on a daily basis to vote for you come election day?

And it does not get any better when dealing with the ‘working class’. How many of the politicians in the Labor of 2019 (or democrats) actually have a working-class background or some real-life exposure to the realities of that lifestyle? More importantly, how many trace their roots to the petite bourgeoisie and professional types. Do they understand why these “working class’ types are opposed to immigrants who compete for jobs involving manual labor? Calling people racist, stupid and xenophobic because they are not gung-ho about polish or mexican immigrants, without credibly addressing the dismal states of many areas which aren’t parts of a few select prosperous cities is not a recipe for electoral success. Similarly, dismissing ‘working class’ cultural mores as cis-normative patriarchal or the latest “woke” epithet is not likely to win their votes.

To make matters worse, look how easily these parties crumble in the face of fake criticism from elite circle-jerkers. Did Corbyn stand up for all the politicians who had to resign because of clearly fake ‘antisemitism’ charges? Did he ever tell the elite circle-jerkers pushing those lies to just stuff it? Did he ever take a stand against the pushing the trans agenda, even though it is based on lies and will result in the mental scarring and physical mutilation of tens of thousands of kids? Did Labor pay back CONservative propaganda ads and bullshit in the same currency? Why should people trust you to represent their best interests against the rich and multi-national corporations if you can’t event stand up to a few vocal peddlers of the trans ideology? Why should voters trust political parties that do not really like them, cannot stand up for themselves and fight with one hand tied behind their back- all of which they are allegedly doing to restore the system.

See.. the thing is, the vast majority of people understand that the current system is shitty and incapable of substantive reform. They just want to burn down the whole thing and will go along with whoever promises that particular course of action. That is why Trump won in 2016 here and CONservatives in 2019 in UK. The problem with people like Corbyn and Sanders is that, though they understand public sentiments, they still want to save the system. Which is why both enter into compromises with people and vocal minorities who should instead should be subject to public ridicule. Treating political opponents with kids gloves, trying to maintain civility, bowing to whims of SJWs and worrying about your ideological legacy is how you lose to people such as Boris Johnson and Donald Trump. In the next part, I will go into why all that progressive talk about the “environment” and “climate change” is further alienating them from most voters.

What do you think? Comments?

Anthropogenic Climate Change is a Form of Secular Apocalypticism: 3

July 18, 2019 13 comments

In the previous part of this series, I wrote about how there is lots of paleontological evidence that Antarctica (as late as 2.6-2.3 million years ago) was much warmer than it is today. This becomes extremely relevant to any debate about anthropogenic climate change since its ardent believers keep harping about how greenhouse gases released by human activity will, directly and indirectly, cause the ice sheet at both poles to melt and causes sea level rises not seen in many millions of years. As readers have probably figured out by now, the biggest problem with this argument is that Antarctica was far less glaciated until the last two million years. To put it another way, that continent was much warmer over millions of years when the atmospheric CO2 was either equal to or less than current levels. And this occurred while the continents were at their current positions.

So let us talk about paleontological evidence for the most recent forests on that continent. But before that, have a look at first figure (below) to familiarize yourself with its major geographical features- as they appear today. As you can see, Antarctica looks like two continents smushed together and that is sorta correct. Based on surveys using ice-penetrating radar, the larger part aka East Antarctica looks like just another continent with plains, hills and mountain ranges. West Antarctica, on the other hand, is dominated by a striking series of parallel mountain ranges and an unusually wide continental shelf. Note that removing all that ice would cause some of the land currently below sea level to rebound due to isostatic rebound. Here is another link to what lies under that thick ice sheet. Antarctica is like a larger and more mountainous version of Australia.

The 2nd longest mountain range in Antarctica, which partially sticks above the ice, is known as the Trans antarctic mountains or TAM. FYI, the longest one in that continent is found in West Antarctica and is known as the Antarctandes Anyway, back to TAM. You might notice that parts of this range runs pretty close to the geographical south pole. One of the main passages through this range to the polar plateau beyond is a very long and large glacier known as the Beardmore Glacier. One of first famous and tragic attempts to reach the south pole used this route, and oddly enough, is relevant to this topic. The exposed fossil bed of interest aka Oliver Bluffs is located near this glacier. While the plant fossils at this site were first reported in the late 1980s, there is good evidence that Robert Scott of the ill-fated expedition in early 1910s might have discovered this site since he described finding fossilized leaves similar to northern beeches.

Anyway, as you can see in the third figure (below) this area is now very cold, icy and devoid of plant life. While a few coastal areas of Antarctica, especially north of 65 degrees South do have some vegetation- most of it is of the non-vascular type. To date, only two species of vascular plants (Deschampsia antarctica and Colobanthus quitensis) have been found on that continent and they look like stunted shrubs. Oliver Bluffs, on the other hand, is at 85 degrees South and less than 500 km from the south pole. So why did a site that is 20 degrees south to the most southerly parallel currently capable of supporting any vascular plant life host a forest with decent sized southern beech trees and an undergrowth of other plants. More importantly, how was this possible as late as 2-3 million years ago when atmospheric CO2 levels were lower than today?

The fourth figure (below) is a composite of some photographs taken at that site. You might notice that the quality of fossilization is pretty good and one of the layer containing them is sandwiched between two glacier-derived layers implying that that the region went through repeated rounds of glaciation and reforestation. And this brings us to the next question- where did all those seeds for regrowth of these trees come from? While it is not totally impossible that those seeds were dispersed by birds from other continents, the nearest place with such trees (New Zealand) is about 4,000 km away. In other words, it is far more likely that there were more local and permanent forests containing such trees on the Antarctic mainland. But this would mean that a significant part of Antarctica , especially north of 75-70 degrees South and near the ocean was not covered by an ice sheet. Moreover, even the inland ice sheets at that time must have been significantly thinner and smaller than today. So what was going on?

Here is one recent and accessible paper which goes into some detail about various methods used for reconstructing temperature conditions at the Oliver Bluffs site. As you can see, these plant fossils have been dated to the Pliocene (5.3-2.6 million years ago) for past thirty years. Also scientists have been talking about their implication on the climate of that region for almost that long. While some have tried to dispute the dating of these fossils, it is increasingly clear that they do indeed come from somewhere between 4 and 2.6 million years. For example, analysis of pliocene marine sediments from an offshore drill core dated to between 5 to 2.2 million years and over a thousand km from the site with those plant fossils has revealed the presence of fossil nothofagous pollen including from the species found at Oliver Bluffs.

To quickly summarize, there is evidence that many coastal regions of Antarctica were about 30 degrees Celsius warmer than today and resembled parts of Northern Canada, Inland Alaska and Northern Russia during the late Pliocene (2.6-2.3 million years ago). It is also likely that the inland icesheets during that era were significantly thinner and smaller than those present today. Let me remind you that this was during a time when atmospheric CO2 levels were identical or lower than those seen today. Are you beginning to see the problem with current propaganda driven narratives about “global warming” and “anthropocentric climate change”?

What do you think? Comments?

Interesting YouTube Channel: David Hoffman

May 17, 2019 2 comments

A few months ago, I came across an interesting YouTube channel containing many interview clips from the late 1980s. Here is a link to the channel- David Hoffman. They are interesting because the interviewer allows the interviewees to speak without interruption and touch on many of the issues which still haunt american society today. Topics range from race relations in the 1950s and 60s to how the mainstream media promotes fake news and propaganda.

Clip #1: He Saw The Media Manipulate The Story In 1968 Chicago

Some people act as if democratic establishment and mainstream media stealing the presidential nomination from Bernie Sanders in 2016 was something new. Well.. it wasn’t. And the way things are going, we may see something similar in 2020. How little some things change..

Clip #2: Magnificent Storyteller Soldier Reveals What He Saw In Vietnam

This clip is interesting because what he says about his initial opinion about, and later experience in, 1960s-era Vietnam are not that dissimilar from those who ended up in Afghanistan and Iraq after 2002-2003. As I have long maintained, people do not learn until they suffer consequences for their actions. Also, USA lost the wars of Occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan just like it lost in Vietnam. Guess somebody made tons of money selling weapons for all those conflicts..

What do you think? Comments?

Some Thoughts on the Future Career Trajectories of Trump’s Progeny

November 11, 2018 11 comments

As many of you know, establishment presstitutes.. I mean journalists.. love to spend many hours every day dissecting each stupid tweet and inane utterance made by Trump. I am also not the first to point out that covering the shitshow known as the Trump presidency has been profitable for establishment media outlets. This type of reactive pseudo-journalism has, however, led them to ignore far more important fuckups made by orange clown administration such as its continuing support for Saudi/UAE-funded genocide in Yemen, continued involvement in the 17-year old lost war in Afghanistan, long-term consequences of ongoing trade war with China etc.

Of course, focusing on real and consequential issues has never been the strength of mainstream media types who would rather cover what some manufactured “celebrity” said, did or fucked on that day. Either that or some ‘human-interest’ story about some cute animal being rescued or another useless act of charity for some physically or mentally challenged person. My point is that establishment or mainstream media is nothing more than a bunch of incompetent and incestuous sycophants who owe their current positions to being born to wealthy parents. You cannot really expect them to come up material that is not bullshit, distraction, group-think or propaganda.

Having said that, let us now turn our attention to the topic of this post which, as the title says, is educated speculation about the future career trajectories of Trump’s progeny. To make things easier, let us restrict ourselves to his five acknowledged children: Donald Jr., Ivanka, Eric, Tiffany and Barron. Yes.. I am aware of claims that Trump allegedly has a child or two other than those mentioned in the previous sentence. However, being an unacknowledged bastard child of Trump does carry even a tiny fraction of the liability of being one of those five. But why should being an acknowledged child of Trump carry any liability in the first place?

I mean.. don’t most children of ex-presidents (at least in living memory) end up leading very materially comfortable, if often rather uneventful, lives. When was the last time you heard news about the children of Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Jimmy Carter or Reagan. Even those with public careers such as children of JFK, Bush43 etc are not especially hated or detested. But let us be honest about something- no president in living memory was so deeply hated and reviled by a large part of the establishment as Trump- such is curious, since he has so far behaved just like another republican president but without the so-called “polish”.

In any case, his unpopularity with the establishment is not the only reason for his progeny to be uniquely susceptible to future retaliation from the deep state. For one, adult children of previous presidents have traditionally maintained a considerable distance from the office of presidency and its powers. Secondly, their professions or vocations were seldom dependent on continued political patronage. For at least three of Trump’s children (Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric), this is not the case because they are intimately associated in the public mind with Trump’s presidency and engaged in a line of work (real estate development) which requires continued political patronage.

Let us first quickly talk about the two (Tiffany, Baron) who have minimal public association with the toxic public image of Trump. As far as most people and the establishment is concerned, Tiffany Trump is a Trump only by virtue of him being her biological father. It is well known that she has spent minimal time with him growing up and is seen more as the daughter of Marla Maples than of Trump. Furthermore, she has little connection with her father’s businesses. She is therefore least likely to suffer any negative consequences for being one of his children. The establishment and deep state also does not see her as a threat or standard-bearer for Trump.

The next least affected progeny (Baron) is.. to put it politely.. a bit “special”. It is not exactly a secret that Baron displays many behavioral features associated with autism even though he appears to have a reasonably high level of functioning. His young age and obvious disability does however make him seem harmless and even elicit vaguely sympathy from people- even if his father is Trump and mother is basically the botoxed version of Marie Antoinette. Unless he does something rash, stupid or highly criminal in the future- he will be minimally affected by being a progeny of Trump. However unlike Tiffany, his future is still tied to his father and mother.

Eric Trump is the first of Trump’s progeny whose livelihood will almost certainly be damaged by that association. Some of you might think that all his future problems are going to be somehow connected to the Mueller investigation. I think otherwise. The Trump business model for developing real estate is somewhat different from those of most other developers. The brand is almost as (if not more) important than the actual product- even more so in overseas projects. Moreover, the type of real estate projects they are involved in require considerable local political patronage. It is fair to say that he and his siblings are not unlikely to have much local political patronage for future projects in most urban parts of USA- and other countries by 2020.

Then there is Ivanaka, or the one Trump would fuck if she was not his daughter. It is likely that her future will far bleaker than most imagine because she is the one most associated with him. While outwardly the least controversial, certain decisions made by her husband during the 2016 campaign are almost certain to haunt her. But there is more, much more. See.. in spite of her recent public efforts to distance herself from him, she is still widely seen as a close confidant of Trump. To put it another way, a lot of the anger (popular and establishment) towards Trump will negatively affect her future endeavors- especially after 2020. Also, Jared Kushner might soon serve some time behind bars, just like his father.

And this brings us to the caricature known as Donald Jr. For starters, he might also have to serve time behind bars because of the Mueller investigation. But that is only the beginning. As many of you know, his association with alt-right figures makes him unusually difficult to rehabilitate. Also, he has pissed off more people than anyone in that family other than his father. It does not help that he is seen as heir apparent to Trump’s business. Long story short- it is very likely that he will selected for special treatment, for many years to come, by the establishment class. Then again, who does not like a good ‘reality’ show.

What do you think? Comments?

How TransGender Ideology Will Most Likely Lose Public Support

September 3, 2018 24 comments

In a previous post on this topic, I made the point that TransGenderism (as currently promoted) is almost certain to experience a disastrous and expensive blowback. The reasoning behind my prediction can be summarized as follows: TransGenderism, as promoted today, is going to result in a lot of litigation within the next decade as many of those who underwent medical or surgical gender reassignment as children, adolescents or young adults will sue those who mutilated them without consent or realize that they were promised something not even remotely close to reality.

It is hard to escape the feeling that a very significant percentage of adolescents and young adults undergoing such procedures appear to believe that becoming transgender will provide an almost magical solution to their mental issues- from serious depression, existential dread, living under late capitalism etc. Promotion of transgenderism by corporate media, some parts of academia etc is a perfect example of neoliberalism in action. Think about it.. there is much money to be made selling therapy, expensive surgery and lifelong drugs to people who want to be transgender.

This brings me to the part where I start discussing how the ideology of transgenderism will start to lose public support. To be clear, this part precedes the one where those who promote it start having to pay tons of money to all the innocent people they victimized and become permanently disreputable in public eyes. Readers might have noticed that elite rags.. I mean ‘magazines of repute’ such as The Economist and The Atlantic have, in past few months, started to question the narrative that promoting transgenderism among children and adolescents is “right” thing to do.

In my opinion, this push-back from elite neoliberal rags is probably the smallest component of a much larger trend. Indeed, many other parties who have harbored negative views on this topic.

1] Biological straight women, irrespective or race, have never been big fans of transgenderism. For starters, they rightly see trans “women” as imposters who are trying to get the privileges which come with being a woman without suffering most of the downside of being born as one. They, also, do not like any extra competition- especially from biological men pretending to be biological women. Changing the body of a Toyota Corolla (even an up-engined one) does not make it a Porsche 911 nor does changing the styling of an SUV make it a Econobox car.

Biological straight men, irrespective of race, are also not big fans of transgenderism- not only because of the imposter problem but also because they have little interest in having sex with transgender “women”. Furthermore, they are not happy with the amount of attention devoted to transgender issues, while their own and much bigger problems (chronic underemployment, punitive sexual environment etc) are openly ignored. Many see transgenders as attention seekers with mental issues and no amount of SJW propaganda will change that viewpoint.

2] Even the so-called allies of transgenderism, such as Gay men and Lesbian women, are not big fans of that ideology. Sure.. there are a few attention seeking activist types among them who pretend they are in the same boat as transgenders- but most don’t, and here is why. It is no secret that a significant percentage of gay men tends towards the feminine side while a similar percentage of lesbians tend towards the masculine side. However the vast majority of gay men and lesbian women are fine with their biological gender and is an important part of their identity.

Transgenderism, therefore, creates a philosophical inconsistency for gay men and lesbian women since it (once again) makes their same-sex sexuality a conscious choice rather than something inborn. And let us be honest, the gay and lesbian rights movement has spent decades reversing the popular notion that their alternative sexuality was a choice rather than something they were born with and I, for one, believe that sexual orientation is inborn. But there is an even bigger problem and massive conflict of interest..

People realize they are gay or lesbian because they are attracted to others of the same sex as they grow up. But what if a bunch of “psychologists” and “experts” supported by the corporate media tried to tell that being attracted to somebody of your own sex meant you were the “wrong” sex? And this is not just a theoretical question since gay men and lesbian women in Iran are forced to undergo sex change operations so they become the “right gender”. Don’t you think the perverse incentives of late capitalism and SJW-ism might create a similar situation in USA?

3] The extensive wall-to-wall positive coverage of transgenderism by corporate media at a time when half the people (with jobs) in USA make less than 30k/ year, most live paycheck to paycheck, a majority have less than one thousand dollars in savings and are one semi-serious illness away from bankruptcy does not bode well for the future of that ideology. Similarly, repeatedly celebrating the alleged “bravery” of some attention-seeker of no consequence on traditional and social media is slowly but surely alienating the general public from that cause.

Do you remember how Trump won the 2016 republican presidential nomination in spite of insulting and trash-talking establishment icons such as John McCain, George W Bush and his sad-sack brother Jeb? Ever wonder why he was able to win the general election despite his atrocious sexual history with women? Could it because his unfiltered and plebian talking points sounded more authentic to voters than other republicans or HRC? Maybe that is also why his approval rating among republican voters is still so high in spite of an almost two-year long incessant campaign by establishment media to mobilize public opinion against him.

My point is that trying to force a deeply problematic viewpoint, on something as central to human identity as gender, down the throats of an unwilling public is almost certain to make an increasing number of them swing the other way. Furthermore, they will do so regardless of what some made-up consensus by “experts” and “institutions” says- especially since the public has lost faith in both since 2008.

What do you think? Comment?

On the Jingoistic Delusions of Arstechnica Fanboys about SpaceX: 1

July 11, 2018 8 comments

As regular readers know, my longer posts are usually about large-scale trends, systemic issues and other ‘meta’ phenomena. This one is about something far more specific and kinda obscure. However, as you will see, it does eventually connect with a few meta- trends. So what is it about, anyway? Well.. I am going to cast the harsh light of reality onto absurd and delusional fanboy-ism displayed by “journalists” at technology oriented websites (especially ArsTechnica) towards SpaceX and Elon Musk.

In case you require a quick refresher, here are a couple of links to my previous posts on SpaceX (link 1, link 2). Also, as many of you know, my cynicism about Elon Musk is largely due to the outrageous claims mabe by him about future of his enterprises as well as his P.T. Barnum-esque PR efforts. As I have said before, the dreams of endless profits, market monopolization and “disruption” which he is selling to rubes are also darkly funny. But enough about him, let us talk about his fanboys (paid or otherwise) in american “journalism”.

To understand what I am talking about, have a look at some of the fanboy-type articles posted on ArsTechnica about SpaceX. While I am no stranger to the concept of “journalists” promoting and pimping whatever product or ideology their corporate masters require of them, the sheer amount and degree of magical thinking, fake positivity and informercial-level promotion of SpaceX by alleged “journalists” working at ArsTechnica is reminiscent of supermarket tabloids (the ones only old people seem to read nowadays).

Some of this “journalistic” booster-ism is extreme enough to become unintentional parody (example 1, example 2). The articles which pissed me off, and were the reason for writing this post, concern their willingness to lie about the space programs of other countries- often displaying no understanding of the geo-political and historical considerations underlying the funding of national space programs. While ArsTechnica “journalists” (metaphorically) sucking Elon Musk’s dick might be “normal”, lying and making up bullshit to massage the delusions of its more jingoistic readers is a bit too much.

A few recent articles such as ones about the “inevitable collapse” of the Russian space program and its future prospects are particularly illustrative of what passes for “journalism at ArsTechnica. Let us first talk about their “journalistic” posts about the Proton launcher- which for many years was a cheap, if inherently problematic, commercial launcher. For example- if you read this piece of propagandist bullshit without knowing enough of the background, you might be led to believe that there was something newly wrong with the Proton launcher system. Unfortunately for the presstitutes at ArsTechnica, the reality is quite different. On a side note, feel free to browse some of their other recycled jingoistic posts which pass for “journalism” at ArsTechnica.

The Proton launcher family was always the red-headed stepchild of Russian space program. To make a long story short- the fact that it used hypergolic fuels and was promoted by Vladimir Chelomei, made it particular unpopular with Sergei Korolev and his faithful proteges. In fact, it would never have been developed if Korolev had not died in 1968. Well.. he died unexpectedly and Chelomei ensured that it got developed. And yes, it had tons of teething problems and failures in its early years. Eventually they were able to make it work reliably. But there is more..

The two main reasons USSR did not develop a RP-1/LOX equivalent of the Proton was because the later was cheap to manufacture and quite reliable after 1972. So there was no point in spending more money to develop, test and validate yet another new launcher system which was not significantly better or cheaper than the Proton. It also helped that the launch sites used by the Proton were situated in regions where an occasional catastrophic failure was not a big deal. Why fix something that is not broken?

Anyway.. after the dissolution of USSR and commercialization of space launch facilities by Russia, it became a fairly popular launcher because it was reliable enough and cheaper than equivalent Ariane launchers. FYI- Commercial launches by Boeing and others in USA had been almost dead since mid-1980s because of their exorbitant prices. So Russia just kept on cranking out more launchers inspite of many looming problems, especially Kazakhstan’s increasing reluctance to let them keep using the Baikonur launch site.

To make matters worse, they made the decision to transition from Proton to Angara launchers without first properly developing and validating the later system. To make a long story short, poor management (and graft) by those in charge of the Angara program in combination with mismanagement (and graft) of those in charge of the now deprecated Proton program predictably caused issues with reliability and costs of the later. Furthermore, Chinese rockets were already competing with the Proton for low-end of the launch market. The entry of SpaceX in the launch market merely sped up the process.

To quickly summarize this part, the Proton launcher family is Russia’s equivalent of the Titan III rocket family. In other words, good and important enough to last far beyond when it was meant to be replaced, but always fundamentally problematic. To claim that issues relating to half-hearted attempts at winding down its production and replacing it with Angara are somehow different from similar delays and screw-ups experienced by USA while transitioning from Delta-2 and Titan III to Delta-4 and Atlas-5 is intellectually dishonest.

And this brings me to another bullshit story being peddled by the presstitues at Arstechnica. As I briefly mentioned earlier, they are trying to push the claim that Russia somehow lacks the money and will to keep funding its space program. I see this one as an index example of how many jingoistic americans are incapable of thinking in addition to being severely deficient in their knowledge of history. The development and funding of pace launch systems, you see, have always been primarily about strategic prerogatives- not “free market” bullshit.

The development of space launchers by USSR (now Russia), USA, EU, China and India is largely driven by considerations such as maintaining and developing technological capabilities, employing their own people, developing related industrial sectors and nationalistic pride. I cannot think of any space program which has consistently turned a “profit”. And for good reason.. capability in projects and programs related to national security and strategic capability is far more valuable that any arbitrary monetary value.

To put it another way, no large country with any degree of strategic independence is going to shut down its space program and outsource it to SpaceX. And they all have far deeper pockets and infinitely more staying power that SpaceX. It is also worth mentioning that almost everything developed by Russian space program in the past has been about strategic considerations and national pride. I should also mention that in the 1990s, many “respectable” western news outlets were full of endless stories about how Russia would lose ability to make nuclear weapons, ICBMs, nuclear submarines, would be invaded from east by China etc.

So what happened since then in the real world? Well.. it turns out that it was USA which got involved in and lost wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Syria. It was USA that got de-industrialized through “free trade agreements” and now has serious problems fielding reliable next-generation military aircraft and aircraft carriers. It is people in USA who keep on getting screwed over by rapidly rising costs in the education, health and housing sector. It is USA that is now experiencing record low fertility rates in native-born women and a rapidly increasing number of deaths from drug overdoses, alcoholism and deferred medical care. It is cops in USA who now behave like their power-crazed versions in other countries were supposed to behave.

To put it another way, it is the USA (not the rest of the world) which is now in terminal decline. And this brings us to the issue of who is the real audience for this laughable propaganda and fanboy-ism from american technology “journalism”. Spoiler: It is meant for an American (and perhaps British) audience, who might be delusional and desperate enough to believe that ‘their team is still winning’. The thing is.. most people in countries which matter haven’t believed in anything coming from western (mostly american) “news” outlets for over a couple of decades- at the very least.

In the next post of this short series, I will focus on how “journalists” at ArsTechnica and other american “news” outlets write about other countries.

What do you think? Comments?