Archive

Author Archive

David Benioff and Daniel Weiss Screwed HBO and Their Own Careers

May 19, 2019 4 comments

By now most of you might have heard that the long-running HBO series ‘Game of Thrones’ (GOT) ended in a manner that was highly unsatisfactory for most viewers and very predictable due to online spoilers posted over the last few weeks. While I have never been a fan of fictional worlds, from LOTR and Star Wars to Star Trek, I find them to be an interesting way of gauging the prevailing Zeitgeist. For example, most movies made and released during the 1980s were often unusually optimistic. Similarly, 1990s movies tried to become increasingly realistic- especially towards the end of that decade. Superhero movie and other escapist crap started becoming dominant after 9/11, and the past decade has seen an endless number of mindless reboots and poorly executed CGI-heavy crap. Art tends to mirror the era in which it is made.

So where does the 7th and 8th season of GOT fit into all of this? Well.. for starters, I never found that show to be particularly engaging. While its overall quality of cinematography, production values and CGI was very good- the story was rather insipid. See.. good production values and CGI do not make a good, memorable or influential movie- as we all know by watching the Hobbit Trilogy, every Star Wars movie released after 1980s, every Jurassic park movie other than the original etc. A movie with a good story and mediocre cinematography will always be far longer lived and influential than one which looks good but lacks a good story. Don’t believe me.. what are your memories about Avatar, the Hobbit Trilogy, the more recent reboots of Spiderman, Superman , Star Trek, Blade Runner etc.

Getting back to GOT, let me first tell you why I think it became successful in the first place. Here is a clue.. even though it was set in a fantasy medieval-style world, the characters thought and behaved in a manner identical to their 21st century viewers. In other words, GOT was just a slickly filmed version of a decent MMORPG. But what made the story of GOT fundamentally weak and insipid- even before the 7th and 8th seasons? To understand that, one has to go into what separates a good story from an insipid or bad one. The simple, if somewhat tasteless, answer is that all good stories are about fulfilling the wishes and desires of its audience while exhibiting reasonable internal consistency. That is why so many stories end with “they lived happily ever after”, “the good guys or girls won”, “good triumphs over evil” etc. Do you have any?

Stories based in nihilism, amorality, hopelessness etc are fundamentally weak even if the character development and writing quality is superb. While they may eventually end up being considered as “great” works by an effete elite, but such stories will never be truly popular. The book series that the show was based on was.. for the lack of better words.. meandering, unfocused and nihilistic. So why did it succeed, at least initially? The simple answer is that its screenplay was written to be even more relatable for a 21st century audience and the story was given a definite and pronounced arc. But the second, and more important, reason was its timing.

GOT came out in 2011, which happened to the perfect time for a show based in cosplay and neoliberal nihilism. As some of you remember cosplay became big in North American only after 2005, and the global financial crisis occurred in late 2008. But how can certain forms of escapism and a still ongoing socio-economic crisis make a TV show, containing allusions to both, so successful? Well.. tell me something, what did viewers discuss about after each episode was aired and what did they anticipate in the next one? In case you forgot, it was always about who was murdered, betrayed, tortured, mutilated in each episode and how sudden or unexpected it was. Isn’t this eerily like the lonely and precarious lives and careers of most people in North American and increasingly the “West”? You know.. the prevailing Zeitgeist.

Now that we have talked about why that show became popular in the first place, let us now focus on how and why David Benioff and Daniel Weiss (henceforth referred to as Dumb and Dumber) killed the proverbial goose which laid golden eggs.

1] While I would prefer to not say it, there is a strong connection between the ethno-religious identity of David Benioff and Daniel Weiss and how they screwed up this project. And no.. I am not accusing them of being unusually greedy or covetous. It comes down to the hubris of semi-competent people. Confused? See.. you might have noticed that a particular ethno-religious group is rather well represented in the entertainment industry. But why? Is it because they are competent or is it because of social connections. Well.. look at the consistently high rate of failures in that sector. Do you think that competent people who know what they doing could fail so often? Does your doctor or surgeon fail at those rates? Does the engineer who designs your car or helps build a bridge fail as often as those who make movies or TV shows?

The reality is that making movies, TV shows, music etc which are financially successful has little to do with technical competence and much more to do with accidentally stumbling on the Zeitgeist and also knowing the right people to fund your idea. In other words, dumb luck and social connections. But what happens once you succeed? This is where Hubris starts becoming an issue and liability. See.. most people, especially marginally clever ones, start deluding themselves into believing that they have some sort of Midas touch- because the alternative is too painful for them to accept. They start acting as if every stupid idea they ever had will lead to their next hit. More problematically, they start believing themselves to be far more competent than they are.

Dumb and Dumber are probably good showrunners with a decent ability to write screenplays based on existing material. Perhaps they also have a good team who does a pretty good job casting actors, hiring good technical help etc. But they are not good at writing original material. That is why the quality of that show started going doing after the 6th season. But why not after the 5th season- which is as far as the original book series went. Well.. it comes down to the lack of major plot development in the 6th season. Dumb and Dumber went on autopilot and it appeared to work, for a time. Things started to fall apart in 7th season because that is when they went past the point where the need for plot development started eclipsing their abilities. That is when the plot and story arc first started meandering and the tropes started to increasingly resemble those in mainstream movies and TV shows.

2] This is where HBO should have started putting its foot down, but they didn’t for two reasons. Firstly, the ratings were still reasonably good and product deterioration was not yet a PR disaster. The second reason, in my opinion, is that people from any given racial or ethno-religious group, will usually give a much wider berth to those they identify with than those they don’t. There is a reason why white cops will shoot and kill black men holding cell phones but will patiently and carefully arrest white men who have murdered more than a dozen people. In the entertainment industry, belonging to a certain ethno-religious group translates into being allowed to make far bigger mistakes than those who do not belong to said group. That is why Dumb and Dumber were never seriously challenged by HBO about the rapidly declining quality of their product.

Which led to ‘normalization of deviance’ aka progressive institutional failure. See.. under normal circumstances a series of tense discussions with HBO after the 7th season should have reined in their incompetence. But nothing like that ever happened and that is how they made the abortion known as Season 8. But why was it so much worse that the previous season? Once again, for two reasons. First, they went all Michael Bay to cover up the lack of even a mediocre underlying story. Have a look at the amount of CGI used in Season 8 versus any previous one. Excessive use of CGI = lack of compelling story or narrative. But it gets worse. They made the mistake, born of their incompetence as writers of original material, of using mainstream movie and TV tropes in a show which was based on not using them. To make matters even worse, they did not even bother to reconcile their new story arcs and character motivations with their previous seasons.

3] However, the single biggest mistake they made in season 8 was due to factors beyond their control. They missed the change in Zeitgeist since Nov 8, 2016. Prior to that date, letting an incompetent or barely competent white guy “win” in that show or even live at the end was not suicidal. However, doing so after that date has become highly problematic, for rather obvious reasons. As much as it pains me to say this, the only popular ending to that show would have required a woman (the most ruthless one) to “win” that throne. But Dumb and Dumber thought that they could get way with an ending in which the two most powerful and ruthless women characters were killed. Maybe Dumb and Dumber believed in their own bullshit to such a degree that they completely overlooked this major shift in the Zeitgeist.

In my opinion, this mistake (which few want to openly acknowledge) more than any other is going to be remembered as the most problematic. While I am not an SJW, I am also not stupid enough to ignore the change in tastes and expectations of other people. The fallout of Season 8 is going to be especially bad for HBO, given that it was recently acquired by the parasitic bean-counters at AT&T. Between being associated with such public failures, acquisition by AT&T and competition from Netflix- things don’t look bright for HBO. George R. R. Martin’s writing career is the second casualty of this fuck up. Regardless of what he has written before, he will be forever tainted by the failure of Season 8, unless he decides to publicly dissociate himself from the TV show.

The careers of Dumb and Dumber will also take a hit, though it may be a bit delayed. People who invests tons of money into making movies or TV shows usually don’t want to employ people who are seen as the principal reason for the humiliating demise of a profitable flagship franchise. Then again.. Dumb and Dumber might know the right people.

What do you think? Comments?

Anti-Abortion Movement is Destined to Lose and Become Irrelevant: 1

May 18, 2019 14 comments

A few months ago, I wrote a post about how the democratic party obsession with ‘gun control’ could cost them during the 2020 election cycle. It now seems that the republican party wants to one-up them by passing a series of hilariously bad anti-abortion laws in a few shithole.. I mean southern.. states. It has long been my belief that real differences between the democratic and republican party are largely restricted to socio-cultural issues such as gun and abortion rights. As many of you know, I have long held the position that trying to restrict or eliminate gun rights is not a winning strategy apart from 2-3 coastal states. We will now go into the many reasons why even attempting to pass laws which restrict the right to abortion is an even more stupid idea.

The temperance movement is an interesting, if peculiar, historical analogue to the modern anti-abortion movement. For those of you who aren’t interested in history, it was a big movement in the late 19th-early 20th century USA centered around banning the sale and consumption of alcohol. Its main promoters were male religious nutcases and proto-feminists (talk about weird alliances). Anyway, their campaign ultimately led to Prohibition in 1919 which led to a whole lot of unintended and highly counterproductive secondary consequences which then led to its subsequent repeal in 1933. So what did the decade (or so) of Prohibition lead to, other than the abject humiliation and almost total destruction of that movement. There is a reason why the only place most people have read about the Temperance movement is in history books.

Much of the night life we take for granted today is the result of the defiant public response to that futile and yes.. racist.. movement. Prior to Prohibition pushing public drinking underground for a decade, supposedly respectable women did not go to bars. The proliferation of speakeasies during prohibition changed drinking culture irreversibly and made it a cool activity which women started participating in rapidly increasing numbers. Also, previously most drinking establishments in USA served little other than a few popular types of beverages and greasy food. This changed after women started frequenting bars. Picking up women who weren’t prostitutes in a bar became possible only after bars became a cool place for women to visit. To make a long story short, it ended up normalizing and glamorizing drinking in ways previously considered impossible.

So let us now talk about why the modern anti-abortion movement is similar to the utterly failed and discredited temperance movement. The most obvious similarities between them are that they never enjoyed majority support and were dominated by loud zealots with racist/ nativist belief systems. But the similarities run far deeper. Both movements were fuelled by people who claimed to be solving some real world problem but were in fact about trying to control the lives of others and ruining their happiness. Have a look at the faces and read about personalities of people who pushed Prohibition. Did you notice a distinctive lack of physically attractive or intellectually gifted people among its ranks? Ever wonder why that was the case? Also, why didn’t most countries with similar levels of alcohol consumption never attempt Prohibition?

Now tell me something. Have you noticed that the anti-abortion types in USA are almost always obese older white men and post-menopausal white women living in ex-slavery southern states, old and fat black and Hispanic women and a small number of losers aka traditional conservative men? Some of you might counter my characterization by telling me about a couple of attractive young women who claim to be anti-abortion.. and you know what, I am sure they exist. However, it is undeniable that the anti-abortion movement derives most of its support from pudgy, sweaty, pre-diabetic, post-fertile men and women living in shithole.. I mean southern.. states. But why is that so? Why don’t you find anybody who looks half-attractive or has more than half a brain support the anti-abortion movement? And why is the anti-abortion movement so weak outside the heart of darkness.. I mean southern states? Also, why is it so weak outside USA?

The first obvious clue that the modern anti-abortion movement is doomed therefore comes from who supports it and who doesn’t. Let me put that in a different way, how many of you want to move to Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri etc? If not, why not? Well.. the simple answer is that flyover states (especially in the south) are dying. There are no well paying jobs with decent future prospects in those places. Also, those parts of the country also have rapidly deteriorating infrastructure and are generally shitty places to live in- at many levels. Historically, movements whose largest support base exists in declining and dying populations/ regions tend to end up as failures. Now compare the anti-abortion movement to the popularity of yoga studios among women- guess which is on an inexorable decline and which one is booming.

The second clue that the modern anti-abortion movement has no future comes from its very limited geographical spread. Let me explain.. how many developed or even developing countries outside USA have an anti-abortion movement of any significance. Why not? Well.. as I mentioned in a post from almost a year ago- the CONservative and reactionary elements within many nations (other than USA) got preferentially culled in WW1 and WW2. Let me rephrase that, only populations with unusually high levels of belief in traditional religions are capable of supporting the anti-abortion movement. Interest and belief in traditional religion has declined sharply over past two decades and this trend is even more marked in the younger generations. Ever met a non- or low-religious person who strongly supports the anti-abortion movement? Me neither..

Since we are at almost a thousand words, I will leave the remainder of my analysis for the next and hopefully last part of this short series. In case you are wondering, it will be about how the losers in anti-abortion movement lack the mental capacity to appreciate the magnitude of the multiple public relations disasters they are walking into. Then again, those idiots deserve it.

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?

Destroying King’s Landing using Drogon was the Most Rational Decision

May 13, 2019 9 comments

I wasn’t planning to write this post, but decided to do so after realizing that my central idea was pretty good and apparently uncommon. Most of you have heard about how Daenerys destroyed the entire city of King’s Landing with her Dragon in the penultimate episode of HBO’s Game of Thrones. While we could go into all the callbacks which foreshadowed this event, doing so would be a waste of time. Also, I am simply not that into D&D type fantasy stories. My knowledge about GOT comes mainly from watching short clips and summaries on YouTube and certain porn sites. Furthermore, it has always been my opinion that the Song of Ice and Fire series by George R. R. Martin is a sad attempt to copy the much better researched fictional universe of J. R. R. Tolkien, whose knowledge about the early medieval world was based in his lifelong scholarship.

Anyway.. without going further into why I believe Tolkien or Lovecraft to be far better writers than Martin, let us tackle the issue at hand- one which has taken up more space on the internet than whether Trump is stupid enough to start a war with Iran and Venezuela while involved in trade war with China and new cold-war with Russia. By now, most people on the internet seem to have made up their mind that Daenerys’s decision to nuke king’s Landing and kill tens or maybe hundreds of thousands using the Dragon and her armies was further evidence of her being a “mad queen” or something along those lines. I disagree! Given the fictional universe she inhabits, burning that city to the ground and killing most (if not all) of its inhabitants was probably one of the most pragmatic and rational decisions she ever made.

Here is why..

1] The GOT universe, unlike the LOTR universe, is not based on how real medieval European societies functioned, thought or saw the world around themselves. Scholars of actual medieval history have pointed out that RR Martin’s universe is too secular and what one might call “early modern” but without the technology associated with that period. Most people alive today cannot comprehend how important religious beliefs and faith were for people living during that era. Let me rephrase it, RR Martin’s version of the medieval world is highly secular, individualistic and.. for the lack of a better world.. neoliberal. Then again, RR Martin also thinks that a neoliberal such as Joe Biden would make a great president. RR Martin’s worship of secular neoliberalism plays a huge role in how his fictional universe “works” or doesn’t.

2] Now that we understand that the GOT universe is based in modern secular liberalism rather than traditional community-based ideologies, it is easy to see why there is basically no family loyalty or kinship in that series. This is also why everybody seems to be raping, torturing and killing anybody they can get their hands on- regardless of how such actions might affect their community reputation. So how does one behave in such an individualistic and modern society? For starters.. Daenerys would be incredibly stupid if she trusted any promises made by anybody in a position to potentially overthrow or murder her. To out it another way, if she wanted to rule Westeros from King’s landing, she pretty much has to exterminate every high-level official of the previous regime in that city and surrounding area. And this includes their family and children.

3] Her other competitors, the Stark family, is largely made up of ugly weirdos with serious blind-spots for treachery, a misplaced belief in their own moral superiority and exhibit a general lack of competence. Let us face it, even that crippled mystic guy hasn’t been able to do much other than make funny faces and mumble half-baked “prophecies”. Also, the general zeitgeist of that fictional universe is such that not getting rid of them after using them will almost certainly lead to some future betrayal or fatal misunderstanding. In fact, the death of all remaining members of that family in battle or soon afterwards would be the most desirable outcome. And ya.. I am talking about John Snow, Arya, Bran etc. Face it.. they are just future potential competitors and unlikely to change the system.

4] Most people in that city have known no ruling family other than the previous one. Under such conditions, retaining even the lower administration from the prior regime is risky- especially if you want to do some reforming. Although her ancestors built that city, Daenerys will always seen as a foreign ruler by the people of King’s Landing. But dead people cannot hate or plot against you. There is no real downside to wiping out every last inhabitant of the city, since they can be easily replaced by migration from neighbouring kingdoms. Furthermore, people from other kingdoms who will move in to rebuild the city and live there will have known no ruler of that city than Daenerys. This makes it far easier to start your new era on a positive note.

5] Nuking that city and reducing it to rubble allows Daenerys to rebuild the city from a clean slate. She can rebuild it to erase all signs of previous rulers and potential rivals. Most people who move in and rebuild the city will also be permanently indebted for providing them with a fresh start and will be far less likely to support rebellions than their predecessors. She can also pick and choose the ethnic balance of future city such that there will be enough minorities who dislike each other more than hate her. I know, this sounds cynical- but what were you expecting! She could also use the destruction of that city to extend the boundaries of its successor and modify it to increased trade and commerce, thus reducing the risk or rebellion even further.

6] In an individualistic, capitalist and neoliberal society (such as the one in RR Martin’s books), nobody will remember all those who were killed to create the new city- unless one can make a quick buck out of doing so. Don’t believe me.. look at how countries in North and South America treat their defeated and almost extinct indigenous people. Or take Australia, which used to classify its indigenous people as Fauna until the early 1970s. So ya.. nobody is going to miss all those dead people in King’s Landing. In fact, future generations of the new city might remember Daenerys as the founder of a glorious new empire or order and minimize all the morally dubious stuff she did to achieve that end. Don’t believe me? Read about the ‘Founding Fathers’ of USA.

In summary, nuking King’s landing using that dragon was probably the smartest and most rational thing Daenerys has ever done.

What do you think? Comments?

Conflict Between Right Wingers and Tech Monopolies Won’t End Well: 3

May 12, 2019 15 comments

A few months ago, I started a short series about why the conflict between right wingers and tech monopolies won’t end well. While the immediate reason for that series was the conspiracy by tech monopolies to deplatform Alex Jones, I knew that sooner or later there would be more instances of such high-handed behaviour by tech monopolies. As it happens, my allegedly pessimistic views on human beings and their pathetic institutions get validated almost every single time. Some of you might have heard that Roissy’s blog was recently banned. Apparently that particular blog was on WP, unlike self-hosted WP blogs who are constrained only by the availability of a willing DNS registrar and hosting provider. There are those, especially on the “left” who see this as some minor victory in the war against “hate speech”.. which is now basically whatever shrill SJWs do not want you to say in public. Others see it as good riddance since that blog had increasingly become full-bore racist and was frequented by even sadder racist nutcases.

Here is what I think about the whole situation and some of you won’t like to hear it. The right to free speech is about protecting the right to unpopular speech- even and especially if you do not agree with it. I am no fan of the racism, anti-semitism and nativism which increasingly filled up posts on that blog. Having said that, I support the right of Roissy to post crazy and repulsive stuff as long as it does not involve overtly illegal stuff (making specific threats towards specific people etc). In any case, people who post controversial stuff online are not making you go to their site or social media profile and read it. Some of you might think it odd that me, a non-white guy with a deep dislike for racism and other forms of bigotry and discrimination, would support the free speech rights of a blog that peddled many of those very things. Then again, I have read a bit more history than most of you to know that “public moralists” of all shades are power-hungry sociopaths who will not stop once the most objectionable people or stuff are gone.

Consider, for example, that the hilariously misnamed PATRIOT act passed after Sep 11, 2001 to combat “global terrorism” is now used almost exclusively in investigations of “drug trafficking” to target poor people of color. Or SWAT teams, first conceived to tackle rare instances of hostage taking, are now found in almost all larger police departments and usually used to murder non-violent (and usually non-white) citizens. Similarly, laws to deal with highly organised Italian mafia are now used to terrorize, murder and otherwise destroy the lives of poor and often completely innocent non-white people. You might also remember how the 1994 crime bill meant to combat fictitious urban “super-predators” ended up jailing and destroying the lives of millions of black men for “crimes” that would have been never prosecuted if they were suburban whites. My point is that all laws, rules and regulations meant to “protect” public morality, virtue and other non-tangible bullshit end up as tools of exploitation, profit and abuse for those pushing them.

It also my contention that the tech sector, especially tech monopolies are highly susceptible to behave in such a high-handed manner. Of course, the problem with behaving in such a manner is that the inevitable backlash will be especially brutal- and that previous term is not just a figure of speech. Let us first talk about why the information technology sector is unusually susceptible to high-handed and ultimately suicidal behaviour. See.. two types of persons are over-represented in information technology corporation- Aspies and SJWs. Yes, you hear that right- Aspies and SJWs. But why is that combination so problematic and ultimately suicidal? The simple and short answer is that both, Aspies and SJWs, do not posses a functional theory of mind– albeit for different reasons. Aspies, aka computer programmers aka software “engineers” are often seen as smart or intelligent people. The tragically funny part is that they are not.

The vast majority of computer programmers are closer to autistic savant artists and other autistic savants than people without such mental disabilities. While I am not denying their specific skills, a majority of people working in programming etc are what one might say.. suffering from a mild mentally disability. This is also why so many in that sector have libertarian economic leanings. I can appreciate this far better than most since I was a bit aspy as a kid but grew out if it. But most programmer and mathematically minded do not grow out it- largely because they lack the brain circuitry to appreciate what they do not possess- not unlike a child who was born blind or deaf. But why would this be a problem? After all, haven’t the founders of Google, FakeBook etc done very well- at least right now? A disability which lets you make a very nice salary in Silly Valley cannot be that bad.. right? The thing is.. keeping power is far harder than attaining it.

The next issue I am going to talk about will be obvious to most people, but may not register in the mind of tech Aspies. Have you noticed that information technology companies, out all types of corporations, treat their users and customers like shit? I am sure that most of you have come across tons of people complaining about FakeBook, Twatter, Google, Apple, Paypal etc. Did you notice the large tech monopolies missing from that list… Amazon, Netflix and to some extent Microsoft. But why is that so? The ‘so clever’ among you might say that this has something to do with you being the product for companies such as FakeBook and Google and the consumer for Amazon, Netflix and Microsoft. Others might say that this is because they can get away with it- and there is some truth to that. Let me posit a third option- connection or lack thereof to the physical world aka reality. And you will soon why I think that is the case.

Let me ask you another question- How many of you would walk into a some random bar, insult everybody you interacted with and try to start fights with them? Let us assume that you could somehow win the first few bar fights. Or consider randomly insulting people around you, for no good reason. Why won’t the vast majority of people behave in this manner, even if they could “win” the first few times. The simple, if tasteless, answer to that question is most people who are not Aspies understand real-world social dynamics. The majority of people understand that pissing off random people around yourself, for no good reason, carries a serious and rapidly increasing reputational cost. While it may not be much in the beginning, especially if you are rich, the many enmities you will make along the way will lead to your eventual downfall and demise. There is a reason that even Machiavelli advises rulers against mistreating their common subjects- lest it create fertile grounds for successful usurpers.

Even highly totalitarian, but somewhat successful, regimes such as those in the former eastern block understood that gross mistreatment of average people and frequently subjecting them to capricious power-crazy nutcases was fundamentally bad policy. This is also why the Chinese government actually cares about what its people want and think, in many cases far more so than USA. The problem with tech Aspies is that they can read history quite well but are mentally incapable of understanding it. In other words, they are unable to appreciate how their actions and behaviour make them hated and detested. As you will see in the next part of this series, this profound inability to read other people and their proximity to equally oblivious SJWs makes for a really bad combination, with potentially catastrophic results. In case you are wondering, the main reason Amazon, Netflix, Microsoft haven’t gone that far down this route has a lot to do with such behaviour having an immediate and marked negative effect on their business.

In the next part, I will write about how SJWs aka hyper-socialized sociopathic fakes and their involvement in the tech sector makes the effects of tech aspism far worse than it would have otherwise been. SJWs, academic leftists and post-modernists also lack a functional theory of mind- though for vastly different reasons than tech Aspies. As you see, the peculiar combination of tech aspism and SJWism induces way more backlash than either would have by itself.

What do you think? Comments?

Ben Shapiro Was Exposed as a Mediocre Fraud by a British Conservative

May 10, 2019 7 comments

Was going to post a short and quick piece on the recent deplatforming of Roissy by WordPress, but thought that the topic deserved more substantial treatment. I intend to write about it in next 2-3 days. So here is something else which I came across today, which is darkly comic for reasons that will soon be obvious. There is a good chance that most of you have some passing familiarity with an imp named Ben Shapiro. While it is tempting to poke fun at the level of insecurity Ben exhibits about his diminutive stature, I shall instead focus on how this pathetic imp got exposed as a mountebank by Andrew Neil, who happens to be a highly conservative British journalist.

Yes.. you heard that right. Ben Shapiro was exposed as a sad fraud by a CONservative. In case you want to see how little Ben got his ass handed to him, I had inserted links to a YouTube clip of that interview further down in this post. To quickly summarize, the loser who constantly pretends to be DESTROY others based on LOGIC and FACTS was woefully unprepared to defend his many nutty public positions such as Arabs being subhuman, non-Zionist Jews not being “real Jews” and women having no legal agency over their own bodies. While it would have been more desirable to have him exposed as a fraud and ‘snowflake by a progressive- it was far more entertaining to see that happen at the hands of an unimpeachable CONservative.

Some of you might have noticed that Ben Shapiro’s view on many social issues are very similar to those of Nazis and Fascists- which is.. well.. ironic. It was nice to see someone finally take him to task over them and expose him for being an intellectual lightweight with an especially thin skin. That it took a CONservative British journalist to finally DESTROY little Ben in such a manner does however tell you a lot about the sad state of American mainstream journalism. I mean.. some time ago, NYT wrote a puff piece about him in which he was depicted as some sort of philosophy wonk rather than a Koch-brother funded racist grifter. In summary, it is nice to see that little racist imp being DESTROYED by LOGIC and FACTS and exposed as a pathetic “snowflake”.

What do you think? Comments?

Trump Hastened Inexorable Demise of American Empire by a Decade: 1

May 9, 2019 8 comments

The world is full of idiots who keep chasing every new morsel of whatever passes for news, while almost deliberately ignoring larger trends at work- especially if the later contradict their existing mental model. While this intellectual deficiency is seen in all races, countries and eras of human history- it is especially prevalent in unstable and decaying societies who still mentally live in a previous (and often mythical) era. And yes.. I am talking about USA and its vassal states. The rest of this short series is about my contention that election of Trump and his presidency has sped up the inevitable demise of American Empire by at least a decade. However, it is important to note that he was not the first president to ‘preside’ over the inevitable demise of American Empire. That dubious honor goes to Richard Milhous Nixon.

Some of you might remember a few of my previous post (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4) about why USA has not won a real war against any semi-competent army or been able to successfully occupy any place beyond a few Latin-american countries since the end of WW2. Moreover the ability of USA to pull off successful coups (outside Latin-america) had dropped pretty dramatically since early 1960s. In retrospect, these should have been the first warning signs that American Empire came with an expiry date. At that time, almost nobody cared or believed this was the case because a long post-WW2 socio-economic boom, which in some parts lasted until mid-1990s, has ensured internal stability. Then again, everyone and their dog is smart, handsome or beautiful and invincible until winds of fortune start blowing in a different direction.

The full list of reasons why things started going bad for USA is rather long and beyond the scope of this post. Let us instead focus on a subset of those reasons, specifically how many decisions and actions of successive american governments has sped up this process- increasingly in an exponential manner. As late as the beginning of 21st century it appeared that the American Empire could go on (in some form) until the 2040s. However three events and their sequelae, which occurred almost 8 years apart, have drastically shortened the remainder of its potential life. It should be mentioned that such a fast decline is not uncommon- just think of where UK was in 1938 compared to where it ended up in 1948. Or the difference between USSR of 1982 and 1992. Declining empires are rather fragile and unable to withstand otherwise small setbacks.

The first of these major acts of self-inflicted stupidity came in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The invasion and occupation of Iraq (and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan) in the immediate aftermath of that attack was one the dumbest possible moves. While there are those who want to believe that those colossally expensive mistakes were some fancy 4D chess moves, the judgement of reality is far harsher. Both those failed and expensive occupations ended up exposing something which every smart bully dreads- their lack of actual capability and hidden vulnerabilities. As some of you know, smart bullies never push hard enough to get into real fights because it is hard to maintain the image of cool dominance once you get your ass kicked hard.

To make a long story short, the failed occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan showed the rest of world that USA did not have the capability to win long and drawn-out insurgencies, even if they possessed magnitudes more military hardware and other resources than the insurgents. While it may not seem like a big deal in 2019, the idea that USA could not win against rag-tag local militia in 2004 was a massive shock to the egos of many flag-waving idiots.. I mean patriotic Americans. Countries such as Iran, Syria and DPRK took an even more important lesson from those two american debacles, namely that USA was fundamentally incapable of successful occupation or fighting insurgencies. As you will see, this had a huge impact on our present.

The next major act of self-inflicted stupidity took the form the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, or more precisely its aftermath. Prior to that crisis, a significant percentage of the world believed that the financial system of USA and its vassal states was run by smart and competent people in a reasonably safe manner. As it turns oust, GFC 2008 quickly and thoroughly destroyed global belief in the “american way” of running financial systems. While this loss of faith was less evident and slower to manifest itself in USA and west European vassal states, the rest of the world got the message loud and clear. If you don’t believe me, just look at how countries such as China accelerated internal investment and creating its own consumer class after 2008.

Of course, GFC 2008 had a major cultural impact in USA and its vassal states. There is a reason why Brexit won in 2015, Trump won in 2016 and why almost everyone born after 1970 seems to be into socialism. That is also why right-wing populist parties suddenly started winning seats in multiple European countries. All of this, however, is best left for another post. Getting back to the issue at hand, how exactly did the election of Trump speed up the inevitable demise of american empire by a decade? Some of you (especially ‘centrists’ such as MikeCA) might attribute this to Trump being a buffoon and laughing stock of anybody in the world with more than half-a-brain. Mike also likely wants to believe that ‘The West Wing’ could someday become reality.

While almost nobody denies that Trump is an amphetamine-abusing buffoon and braggart, those qualities by themselves are simply not sufficient to speed up the decline of American empire by a decade. The reason why even the first two years of his presidency has “achieved” what none of his predecessors could, has a lot to do with something that LIEbrals and establishment democrats don’t like to talk about. Indeed, the very decisions and actions which are now greasing the tracks for inevitable demise of American Empire happen to be the only things which establishment democrats like about Trump. In case you are wondering, I am referring to his tendencies to act as if the world is still stuck in the mid 1990s or perhaps 1950s. To understand what I am talking about, let me ask a question- one that very few are asking.

What is up with Trump’s neocon-on-steroids policy towards countries such as Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia and China etc. What sort of idiot will enter into so many different conflicts at once? This is even more peculiar given his desire to “win” or at least appear to be “winning”. Let me rephrase that question- what is going through Trump’s mind to make him believe that he can antagonize so many different nations (including one with same number of nuclear weapons of USA and another with the world’s largest economy in real terms) and appear to “win”? Or ask yourself why Obama44 or Bush43 (especially the later) decided against getting involved in the sheer number and types of conflicts that the orange buffoon has gotten himself into?

The simple answer to that question is Bush43 experienced the fundamental weakness of american imperial power in a very personal manner, after his misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan ended as incredibly expensive defeats. While the village idiot from Texas was gung-ho about american power until late 2004, the stench of failure became too strong to ignore. That is why necons lost favor in the last two years of his presidency. But by then, the damage was already done and he is the reason why people voted for a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama in 2008. Obama44 being somewhat smarter than Bush43 chose to not get involved in any big dustups around the world because he cared about his legacy, especially as it relates to lucrative lecture and book deals after his presidency. On the bright side, this ensured a relatively uneventful presidency.

Trump, as I have mentioned in previous posts is street smart, but very poor at strategic thinking. It does not help that he lacks the ability to think through problems systematically and to put it bluntly- likes to get high on his own supply of MAGA. Having assorted delusional idiots with no skin in the game such as Pompeo, Bolton etc does not help the situation. To make a long story short, it is very likely that the numerous conflicts Trump has entered into over past two years are going to backfire on his presidency in a synergistic manner. He seems unable to accept the hard limitations of an inexorably diminishing American Empire. Trump does not understand that American Empire is like an old ex-Boxer who thinks he can enter into a street brawl and win against multiple far nimbler and competent younger opponents, just because he is rich.

In the next part, I will tell you my thoughts on how this darkly comic attempt by Trump (and his flunkies) to enter into multiple brawls against nimbler and often equally powerful opponents might end- and what connection the outcomes might have with on the speed of diminution for American Empire.

What do you think? Comments?