Archive

Archive for the ‘Current Affairs’ Category

Some Thoughts on How a War Between Iran and ‘USA’ Might Unfold

June 24, 2019 5 comments

In a fresh round of escalation today, the orange buffoon unveiled another bunch of meaningless “sanctions” against Iran. While it is still not certain that the buffoon-in-chief is delusional enough to actually start a war with Iran, pressure from people who have promised him tons of money etc after his term is over (such as that idiot in SA and his equivalent in UAE), pleadings of Zionists (including his son-in-law) in combination with chicken-hawks such as Bolt-on and Pompous-Idiot is likely to result in a war with Iran in the near future. While it is far more desirable, for everyone, that such a war does not start in the first place- it increasingly looks like we will get there, one way or the other. Notice that I said ‘war’ rather than ‘conflict’, ‘skirmish’. You will soon see why.

But before we go there, a quick geography and history lesson. Iran isn’t a small country. It has about 1/5th the area of lower 48 and about 1/4th the population of USA. To make matters more interesting, it is one the only three long-standing nation states in Middle-East, the others being Turkey and Egypt. There has been a Persian state of some sort covering most of modern-day Iran for over 2,500 years. Compare that to modern cockatrice states such as Iraq, SA, other Gulf Sunni emirates and even modern-day Syria. Did I mention that Persians and are not Arabs. Oh.. and also Iran was able to withstand the 8-year war with Iraq (and all states which supported the former) during the 1980s. Also unlike arab neighboring countries they make almost every single weapon system they use. Sounds a bit like DPRK, doesn’t it?

So let us start with the predictions..

1] Iran is not going to wait for Trump to change his mind or finish his presidential term. It will keep ratcheting up the tension, because they have nothing to gain by playing the waiting game. Expect more mysterious fires, explosions and mishaps at petroleum and petrochemical facilities in SA and other gulf Sunni emirates. They understand that west-European countries are spineless decaying entities who will not openly defy the also terminally declining USA. The best way to separate west-Europeans and other american catamites from USA is to cut off the former from being able access all middle-eastern oil. Iranians fully expect the USA to attack it, sooner than later- and they want prefer it sooner than later.

2] The ideal situation, as far as Iran is concerned, is for USA to attack it without significant preparation (troops on ground) and not expect a serious response. But once they do attack Iran, expect it to systematically target and destroy Saudi and UAE ports, oil storage installations, pipelines, desalination plants, brine-pumping plants etc. Iran wants to cause enough damage to shut down the oil output of those countries for at least a few months. And they have enough cruise and ballistic missiles with the requisite range and accuracy to pull that off. To be clear, I expect them to primarily use anti-shipping missiles (boat and land launched) to target structures on or near the shore. Have a look at a map of the area and compare it to the range of various short and medium range missiles possessed by Iran, in abundance.

3] To make matters more interesting, they will also send large number of irregular soldiers and militias into Iraq and Afghanistan to attack american military facilities, but also civilians and spread chaos in those countries. Expect Iranian irregulars to conduct a lot of bombings of oil infrastructure, assassinations of local american-stooges and create general mayhem in those countries. They might go especially hard on the Kurds parts of Iraq (who they see as american collaborators) and engineer a refugee crisis. The motives here are two-fold. Disrupt oil production and export from Iraq. Secondly, greatly increase the size and complexity of battlefield for USA.

4] Doing 2 and 3, almost simultaneously is possible for Iran and achieves a few synergistic objectives. Wrecking petroleum production and transport facilities all across the middle-east quickly cuts the world’s supply of crude oil etc by about 30-40%. More importantly it delivers an especially nasty blow to west-European countries, Japan, South Korea, India and other wannabe american catamites. Do you think countries like France, Germany, Japan and India can keep running properly if 60-80% of their oil supplies just disappear for at least a few months? Furthermore, USA is now faced with the prospect of fighting locals and militias in at least three countries in addition to dealing with a massive exodus of expat workers from those countries and more refugees from Iraq. And it gets even better.

5] Imagine what will happen to global trade, commerce and the stock market of many countries if such a large percentage of oil supply suddenly vanishes and the price for remaining supplies go up by 400-800 %? Oh.. and you cannot normalize the supply unless Iran is defeated (very hard, if not outright impossible) or peace is reestablished in that region. Do you think Trump and the Zionists will remain popular in USA if oil cost 20-30 bucks per gallon? Some of you might say- doesn’t USA have enough military might to prevent this outcome? Won’t they be able to blow Iranian boats out of the water or something like that? Well.. have a look at distances involved. Iran could do most of this by using nothing more fancy than civilian vehicles to transport most of the troops and missiles necessary.

6] It goes without saying that such a large-scale but unconventional attack across neighboring countries would cause mass panic and result in the abrupt departure of many ruling families- in addition to yet another refugee crisis. The perceived inability of USA to protect the interests of their local stooges will further damage whatever residual credibility it still has in that region. To summarize, given available options and capabilities, Iran is likely to rapidly exacerbate war with USA, by going after its oil-producing client states in that region.

What do you think? Comments?

Why Risk of Autism is Such a Strong Driver for Anti-Vaxxer Movement

June 22, 2019 9 comments

As regular readers know, I have written posts about why the modern anti-vaccination movement exists in the first place. It seems that most people, especially those indulge in gratuitous virtue display on social-media, want to attribute it all to parental ignorance, gullibility or stupidity. These dummies are intent on doing so even though the socio-economic and educational profile of those involved in the movement clearly suggests that is not the case. As I mentioned in my previous posts, the anti-vaccination movement is one outcome of a medical system driven by profits.. and let us not pretend that physicians are altruistic people solely driven by a burning need to help others. Also, let us stop pretending that the medical profession still retains the kind of public trust it used to enjoy 2-4 decades ago. It doesn’t and for good reason.

A few months ago, I started writing a short series on why persecution of anti-vaxxers will backfire on believers of scientism. While I intend to, hopefully soon, write more parts for that series- I am going to digress a bit in this post and talk about the twin concerns which seem to be driving the modern anti-vaccination movement. Ana as you will soon see, there is a specific reason behind my decision to not roll this post into the second part of that series. A couple of days ago, I came across a long-form journalism piece in Jezebel (of all places) about the anti-vaxxer movement. In that piece, and in responses to it on social media sites, I noticed a pattern which many (including the author of that piece) were unable or unwilling to notice. To make a long story short, many hip and trendy virtue posers seems to be oblivious to why the risk of autism and auto-immune illnesses is such a potent driver behind the anti-vaxxer movement- especially in USA.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that vaccines causes autism. What I am talking about is much more nuanced and it is recommended that you read the post completely before commenting. So let us begin by talking about Autism or more precisely the history of that diagnosis. In previous eras, children and adults who display symptoms or behavior which are today considered to be part of Autism Spectrum Disorder were considered as “retarded”, “special”,”different,”feeble-minded”, “quirky” etc depending on the nature and degree of their condition. For almost all of human history, such kids and adults were generally treated with varying degrees of compassion and patience. It also helped that prior to age of capitalism, extended social safety nets were able to accommodate and take care of such people. Large-scale institutionalization of such people began only after the mid-1800s and even then only in the allegedly civilized “west”.

My point is that, for almost all of human history, people with what we today lump under the label of autism were not seen as ill or suffering from a disease. They were merely seen as a bit to somewhat different from normal people. I cannot resist the irony of pointing out that people from previous eras actually had a far more humane outlook towards people with such conditions. So how did the label of ASD and rapid increase in its reported incidence come about? Well.. after 1960s, it became basically impossible in the west to institutionalize people with mental conditions or psychiatric diseases. However, unlike serious depression or schizophrenia etc, what we today classify under rubric of ASD wasn’t an illnesses in the traditional sense of that word. To put it another way, there is no consistent neuro-chemical or neuro-anatomical abnormality in everyone (or most people) diagnosed with ASD. Also, you cannot treat it with drugs- at least consistently.

So why does any of this matter? Well.. see, once you classify something as a disease, it has to have a cause. In other words, people started trying to find the cause of what we today know as ASD only after it was reclassified as a disease. It certainly did not help that ASD covers a range of conditions from borderline aspyness to full-blown inability to learn and interact with people. To make another long story short, we still have not been able to develop a robust hypothesis for why some people end up being diagnosed with ASD. While there is is clearly a hereditary competent to these conditions, only 15-20 % of the siblings (at most) of such people also display signs of ASD. In other words, even your hair or eye color exhibits far greater levels of inheritability than ASD. The subtext here is that ASD appears to more developmental than inherited.

Let us now talk about the incidence of diagnosed ASD in the west, specifically USA. According to the CDC, 1 in 59 kids end up being diagnosed with ASD. We can easily round up that number to 1 in 50 or 2%. To make matters worse, about 14% of kids have special educational requirements with almost a third of that being due to learning disabilities. Which is a nice way of saying that about 5% or 1 in 20 kids have learning disabilities severe enough to require intervention and special attention. Did I mention that most people who have children nowadays have only one or two. Are you now starting to see why people are so concerned about anything which might raise the risk of their getting ASD? But it gets worse, much worse, in USA.

Unlike all other developed countries with some form of universal healthcare and long-term illness/ disability support system- USA has nothing even remotely approaching universal healthcare let lone a social safety net for chronically ill or disabled people. To make yet another long (and sordid) story short, the considerable and artificially inflated expenses of caring for a child with moderate to severe ASD can ruin even solidly middle-class families. It is therefore not surprising that parents in USA (and other “western” countries with mediocre profit-driven healthcare systems) are especially vigilant about anything which might potentially increase their child’s risk of developing ASD. It does not help that the rapid increase in ASD coincided with the expansion of childhood vaccination schedule to Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Chickenpox etc.

It also does not help that usually transient neurological disorders are known to be associated with whole-cell pertussis vaccine. Are you beginning to understand why the anti-vaxxer movement has kept gaining strength, especially in USA? But.. but.. some of you might say “what about the common good” or “maintaining herd immunity”? My answer is as follows: you cannot expect people to care about the greater good of a society which, in turn, ignores (or worse, monetizes) the suffering of disabled or chronically-ill people. Does society in USA make sure that caring for a child with ASD does not pauperize his or her parents? If it doesn’t, don’t expect the affected parents or others around them to play ball. Pretending that their concerns are not genuine or they are stupid is also not likely to get them on your side.

One more thing, pretending that measles or chickenpox are life-threatening in otherwise healthy and incompetent children is not a smart idea and likely to reduce your credibility even further. While both illnesses can put a very small percentage of affected children in the hospital, death or permanent disability from either disease is pretty rare- easily less than 1 in 500 and usually far lower. More importantly, a lot of anti-vaxxer parents (especially in USA) would rather take their chances with a 1 in 500 to 1 in 4000 chance of death than feel guilty about their child developing Autism or learning disorders (2-5%) around the same time as being vaccinated. This is doubly so if they know anybody with a child who first started showing signs of ASD around the same time they were being vaccinated.

Yes.. I know that the first signs of ASD often appear at about the same time as kids getting their routine vaccinations- even if they are not getting vaccinated. But I am not a parent, nor have I been ever at risk of becoming bankrupt caring for a child with ASD. If you ever want to reach these people, you will have to start understanding that their risk assessments are as rational as your own. Bullying, mocking or patronizing them is just going to ensure that some greedy charlatans are going to take advantage of their vulnerability. Then again, most ardent pro-vaxxers are just in it for the virtue display and feeling superior. Here is a novel idea.. make sure that everyone has comprehensive universal healthcare and people with disabilities and chronic illness are well cared for and not exploited for financial gains.

What do you think? Comments?

What the Lasting Hate for OJ Simpson Says about White Americans

June 19, 2019 5 comments

A couple of days ago, I came across some tweets and YouTube videos about how OJ Simpson had started posting again on his dormant Twitter account. For people younger than 25, OJ went from being a successful football player in the 1970s to an actor and public personality in the 1980s and early 1990s. The most relevant part of his career and fame was that it occurred at a time when there were few famous black people. But the real reason he ended up becoming a pop-culture icon has to do with him being accused and acquitted of the murder of his estranged wife and then boyfriend. And ya.. I know he lost the wrongful death Civil Trial, but it does not matter because the losers who sued him cannot touch his NFL pension. He was later arrested and sentenced for a most peculiar trumped up robbery charge in Nevada. The most relevant point of that episode is that he has been released almost two years ago and seems to be enjoying his retirement.

So what does the entire OJ saga have to do with racism in USA? Well.. a whole fucking lot! One would even argue that the lasting hate which OJ seems to elicit in white people has nothing to do with what he was accused and everything to do with his race. Before we go there, let me clear about something- ya, I think he murdered his estranged white wife and her then boytoy. And you know something else.. he was found innocent by a jury of his peers and duly acquitted of those charges in the criminal case against him. As most of you might remember, in the aftermath of that verdict almost every single black person proclaimed his innocence while every white person said he was guilty. But have you ever wondered, did all those black people really think he was innocent? The short answer is that they did not care if he was guilty. But why not?

To understand the ‘why’ we have to go back a bit in history, more specifically to the so-called “crack epidemic”, resultant gang wars and drive for mass incarceration of blacks by whites in the 1980s and 1990s. But what caused the “crack epidemic” in the first place? Firstly, the 1970s saw the first wave of outsourcing of manufacturing, which for a number of reasons disproportionately hurt black people and neighborhoods. Long story short, this resulted in a large increase in unemployment and rates of poverty in those communities. Second, the CIA decided to make a shitload of money by copying the success of various cocaine smuggling operations and using people living in those now impoverished neighborhoods to sell a more easily absorbed form of that drug. Some might remember that a journalist known as Gary Webb exposed it in 1996.

Anyway.. to make another long story short, all of this resulted in a large increase in gang-related violence in inner cities which then caused suburban dickless wonders to demand politicians get all tough on crime. This was the impetus for all those laws passed during that period which resulted in the extraordinary levels of mass incarceration we see today in USA– a country which imprisons more people (both as a percentage and number) than China or Russia. But how is any of this linked to the OJ Simpson saga? To better understand why almost all black people said he was not guilty, we have to first understand what happened in black communities across the country between 1984 and 1994. The cliff notes version is that white panic about “crack epidemic” caused a huge increase in policing of inner cities, brutalization of often innocent or marginally involved black people, police murdering tons of black people (this was before the age of smartphone cameras) and lots of other shit which finally started the collapse of black respectability politics.

Some of you might also remember the LA riots of 1992. While the beating of Rodney King and subsequent acquittal of all cops involved was immediate cause of those riots, the real reasons are a bit deeper. Here is another person you might want to know about- Daryl Gates. The short version is that this guy, since the mid-1980s was responsible for unprecedented militarization of the LAPD to the point where it was seen as an occupying army by black people living in that city. The most important result of this decade long oppression of black people in the LA area was that they stopped caring about maintaining the veneer of respectability. And that white piece of shit was not alone, as there were many others like him all over the country. The net result was that a majority of blacks under a certain age stopped caring about respectability politics.

But how is this change linked to what black people thought about OJ? The answer is that they had seen so many white assholes in uniforms get away with real murder that they simply did not care if an angry black celebrity killed a couple of people. Yes.. it is that straightforward. The reason why white losers kept harping about OJ is a bit more interesting. See.. a few years ago, I had written a couple of posts about how even truly fucked up people (like Nazis) need to believe that they are good and just human beings. A lot of whites in USA are kinda similar, if substantially less photogenic in appearance. The charade of believing OJ Simpson being guilty and talking about his victims has nothing to do with any genuine concern for them. Instead, it has everything to do with trying to justify continued abuse and oppression of black people.

Think of it as the modern version of how white people tried to steal African land in the 19th century by justifying their actions as civilizing those “inferior heathen savages” aka the “white man’s burden”. Did I mention how they got kicked out of that continent by the early-1970s. Here is another way to look at it.. How many old white losers who talk about the “guilt” of OJ also talk about all those “fine patriotic white men” who killed god-knows-how-many civilians in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc? And ya, they still lost all those wars. How many of those dying losers acknowledge that policing in USA has always been about abusing, terrorizing and murdering non-white people rather maintaining general social safety. They don’t seem to acknowledge that black people are human, but are somehow surprised when that favor is partially returned.

Now you know why so many white peoples (specially older ones) still hate OJ Simpson and keep harping about his alleged criminality but simultaneously ignore any news or evidence that people who look like them have done worse things. Isn’t selective ignorance wonderful.

What do you think? Comments?

Democrat Attempts to Impeach Trump Will Help Him Get Re-Elected

June 18, 2019 4 comments

Today, I came across a couple of news items that increase the likelihood of Trump winning the 2020 presidential election. The first was a ‘leaked’ poll which allegedly showed that more than a few democrats could defeat Trump. The second was a speech by Biden in which he used this poll to promise that he would beat Trump, not only in mid-western states which Hillary lost in 2016 but also, in others such as Georgia, Texas and South Carolina. So why do I think that these two apparently positive bits of news for democrats are harbingers of a likely Trump victory in 2020? Well.. because I remember 2016, or more precisely how polls done as late at October of that year strongly suggested Hillary would won states such as Georgia and South Carolina. We all know how that turned out. But why do I think 2020 could be like 2016?

Let me start by restating the obvious. Establishment democrats haven’t learnt anything from their defeat in the 2016 election. Even worse, they seem to to have interpreted their meager gains in the 2018 election as evidence of an electorate which now hates Trump, rather than a reaction to his comically inept attempts at destroying Obamacare in addition to being unable to deliver on his election promises about reversing outsourcing etc. They seem to believe that promising a return to “norms”, throwing a bit more money at Obamacare and making some noises about education and job training will guarantee a win in 2020. In other words, they are still desperately clinging to the idea that Trump is an aberration and things will magically go back to the way ‘they used to be’ before the fateful midnight of November 8, 2016.

As many of you know, I do not think Trump is an aberration (link 1, link 2). In fact, I blame the deliberate failure of the previous neoliberal grifter-in-chief aka Obama to deliver real substantive reform in aftermath of 2008 global financial crisis as the most important reason for rise of Trump. Think about it.. would a character like that orange buffoon have gotten any traction in national politics, let alone won the presidency against all odds, if the majority of people still had any faith in the establishment and institutions of this country? Trump is therefore best understood as the crazy clown who appeared viable to a majority only because the vision and choices offered by the establishment were rotten. Some of you might remember that Hillary’s unfavorability ratings during the 2016 electoral season were often higher than Trump.

Now let us talk about how the establishment democrat obsession with Trump getting impeached will likely help him to win the 2020 election. As many of you know, establishment democrats and their supporters in media, hollywood etc spent about two years hallucinating about a future where the “Mueller Report” would magically implicate Trump in some high crime that would lead to his immediate impeachment and arrest. Well.. the report has been out for almost two months and it was unable to find evidence that Trump or his gang of idiots colluded with Russia or indeed “obstructed” justice in a manner which would stand in a court of law. The report, on which establishment democrats and public LIEbrals put so much hope, turned out to be damp squib. Of course, this did not change the narrative of establishment democrats and their MSM cronies.

To make matters worse, partisan democrat voters (who are over-represented in primaries) have become even more convinced and vocal about the need to impeach Trump despite the lack of evidence that he is anything more than a greedy and lecherous troll who used to be real-estate developer. We are now seeing a rapidly increasing amount of pressure on Pelosi and other democrat leaders to ‘do something’ and impeach Trump, or at least start the pre-impeachment investigation. While the wheels on that shitshow have not started moving yet, it is becoming increasingly likely that we will see some action on that front by the end of this year. But why is demanding the impeachment of Trump, or even starting the pre-impeachment farce.. I mean ‘investigation’.. such a bad idea? What could go wrong?

Well.. how about the fact that a non-stop barrage of intentional negative reporting by MSM on Trump has not moved his poll numbers much- either way. Such reporting has, if anything, destroyed whatever residual credibility they used to have prior to his election. It is telling that the MSM has remained focused on “collusion”. “Putin” and “Russia” (and now “obstruction of justice”) while ignoring all the other shady and outright illegal stuff which Trump had done- and it is one long list. From making up false valuations for his properties to either get loans or dodge taxes, promoting his DC hotel to earn extra income from foreign countries, having a son-in-law with really shady business dealings, being bought off by MBS and that guy who currently rules UAE to bend all sorts of rules for them and a whole lot more.

My point is that Trump has done enough shady and illegal things to get himself impeached and locked up- but colluding with Russia and Putin is not one of them. It is therefore incredibly stupid for democrats to focus on the one crime of which he is not guilty. Then again, they may be doing so because they are out of ideas and live in a “ivy-league” bubble full of other disconnected and incompetent elites. Either way, these dumbfucks don’t seem to understand or care that the vast majority of voters are far more concerned about whether they can afford whatever passes for healthcare in USA, have a job that pays and is stable enough to keep them going for the next year, whether they can ever afford a half-decent house or car etc. Only a section of primary voters (mostly baby-boomers) give a fuck about the whole Russia-Putin fairytale.

Unfortunately, these accursed boomers are over-represented in democratic primaries. We can therefore expect all the presidential candidates to make increasingly shrill and comic promises about impeaching Trump for “collusion” and “obstruction of justice”- in spite of there being no legally sound evidence for either. This stupid competition to out-hawk each other on this issue is going to eclipse the discussion of other more relevant issues. Eventually, we will reach a point when the public platform for most democratic candidates is centered around Trump- whether it is impeaching him, repeatedly telling us that “he is a bad bad man” and invoking the “norms fairy” aka how things will go back to normal once he is gone. While this might win somebody the primary, it is unlikely to ensure a high turnout in the general election.. like 2016.

More problematically, accusing Trump of the one or two crimes he did not commit (while ignoring the many others he did) makes him look like the victim of an establishment conspiracy. It is not secret than the MSM has no credibility beyond partisan democrats and a few affluent republicans. Harping on fictional crimes, without strong corroborative evidence, is going to further alienate their non-partisan audience and allow Trump to successfully spin his persecution by the MSM as martyrdom. Between this and selecting an establishment hack with little popular support beyond partisan democrats (Biden, McKinsey Buttboy, Harris, Warren), it seems increasingly likely that 2020 will be a replay of the 2016 shitshow- albeit on a much bigger scale.

What do you think? Comments?

How and Why China Has Succeeded Where USSR Failed

June 13, 2019 11 comments

A few days, I started writing a post about why China will defeat USA in any long-term trade or ‘cold’ war. However, it quickly became obvious that many concepts in that post had not been well explained in previous ones. I then realized that an older draft post (abandoned over a year ago) contained enough elements for a prequel post. Readers should, therefore, see this post as a partial explanation for why the challenge posed by China to the terminally-ill american empire is fundamentally different from anything the later has encountered in the past, and indeed beyond what the anglo- mind is capable of imagining. As you will see in a future post, there is a reason why I chose to say that it is beyond the comprehension of “western” minds.

Let us now get back to the topic of this post, namely why China succeeded in spades at what the erstwhile USSR failed. USA, since its inception, has faced only two semi-credible threats, the first being Japan during WW2. However, as any person with a half-decent map and some basic stats about the two countries in 1940 can figure out, the manufacturing base of USA at that time was about 10 times larger than Japan. Moreover it’s land area was about 1/20th of contiguous (lower 48) USA and hence had far fewer natural resources. And ya, I am aware that Japan had occupied Korea and some parts of China- but it was never a close fight. Even Isoroku Yamamoto (of Pearl Harbor attack fame) was quite open about USA being the inevitable winner if the war lasted over one year. In other words, neither pre-WW2 nor post-WW2 Japan was ever a real threat to USA.

USSR, on the other hand, was land and resource rich (about twice the area of lower 48). While its population was a bit less than USA, especially in the immediate aftermath of WW2, it rivaled and often surpassed USA in areas ranging from high technology to the manufacturing and deployment of large numbers of diverse weapon systems. Furthermore, it was able to build its own sphere of influence in eastern Europe after WW2. So why did a country with more natural resources than USA, about the same population (in aftermath of WW2), tons of very smart scientists and military tacticians finally implode in 1991. Many Americans attribute it to all sorts of solipsistic bullshit, ranging from “socialism”, “Reagan”, “Afghanistan” to even more ludicrous ones such as “race” and “people yearning for human rights”.

In my opinion, the real reasons why USSR finally collapsed in 1991, but China just kept going and went on to become the world’s largest economy in real terms about a decade ago has to do with reasons which the vast majority of Americans are either unwilling or incapable of understanding. So let us start listing them, though not necessarily in order of importance.

1] China had both the size and population advantage. While is has about half the area of USSR, China is a bit larger than the lower 48 of USA. Moreover, unlike USSR (or Russia) it’s population has been at least 3-4 times larger than post-ww2 USA. Possessing a large enough landmass and population translates into a very respectable amount of natural resources and enough people to properly exploit those resources. With the exception of oil and a handful other minerals, China is large and populous enough to be internally self-sufficient. It also helps that most of China is neither too hot nor cold and the only limiting factor for human habitation is availability of water in its western half. But that is no different from the South-Western quadrant of USA being either a desert of semi-arid region. In other words, China is more than the equivalent of USA in Asia.

2] Issues surrounding race and culture. One of the most infrequently talked about, but important reason, why USSR seemed like a follower to the “West” and generally susceptible to its influences has to do with how most people in that country (and in Russia today) saw themselves. For a number of historical reasons, Russians have always seen themselves as white and western, perhaps a bit distinct from the “western” mainstream- but still white and western nonetheless. In my opinion, this inability to create a distinct cultural identity led to many other pathologies and bad decisions which shall be partially enumerated later in the post. Chinese, for obvious reasons, did not have that option and neither were they interested in being white (at least most of them).

3] Many of you might have noticed that post-1980 China seems to have stable and good to OK relations with a very diverse range of nation states all over the world. Contrast this to USSR, whose relations with countries in Africa and Latin America were colored with racial paternalism- though not as bad as USA. But why was that so? Well.. USSR (and Russia today) unfortunately bought into the whole white racial supremacy bullshit- which is ironic since we all know what Hitler thought of Slavic people. To be clear, I am not implying that Chinese people are not racist- just far more pragmatic and not so obsessed with race.

4] One of the other visible differences between China of erstwhile USSR concern administration. It is no secret that China, and east-asian countries in general, seem to have this bureaucracy thing figured out far better than the west. The most relevant differences between the two, in this area, concern how responsibility is delegated. More specifically, east-asian bureaucrats have far more latitude and autonomy to get things done- as long as they didn’t fuck up too badly and embarrass the central government. This translates into a far more robust, flexible and innovative system run by fairly competent people with skin in the game. There is a reason why China achieved in 20-30 years what took many other nations over a century.

5] Pragmatic and flexible ideology. Unlike USSR, China (except between late 50s-late 60s) was never obsessed with ideological purity. They just tried to solve problems facing them in the most optimal manner, given their resources and ability. That is why, for example, China was fine with people becoming rich after 1980s. They, correctly, saw the influence of capitalists on governance rather than its mere presence as the real problem. One of the reasons why things went so bad in Russia between 1991 and 2000 was that the system was run by capitalists at the expense of everybody else. China, on the other hand, focused on curtailing the political power of capitalists rather than making sure nobody got rich. We can all see who got it right.

6] China never really bought into western ideas of money, finance and “austerity”. Many of you heard about how material conditions for average citizens in USSR weren’t that good and quality of consumer goods were bad. But why was that so? Why couldn’t USSR spend enough to ensure that the quality of life for its citizens was good. Well.. it comes down to how they saw money and finance in general. Long story short, they bought in the “western” idea of money as a limited resource over which the government has little to no control. China simply decided to go down the MMT route, before it was even a thing. That is why China never seemed to be short of money to build new cities, apartment blocks, roads, airports, high-speed railways, factories, shopping malls, universities, research institutes etc. It is profoundly ironic that an allegedly communist country displays the best practical understanding of economics.

7] China understands censorship far better than USSR and the supposedly “free West”. One of the other realities of life in USSR, as told to me by former inhabitants, was that open humor and mockery of the establishment was not a good idea. Contrast this with how the Chinese system works, where polite criticism of the government (especially as far its ability to solve problems) is not especially problematic. While making off-color jokes about the government on the internet might get you temporarily banned or a visit from the authorities, very few end up in prison for being loud on social media. Also, unlike USSR, the Chinese government is not interested in regulating the private lives of its citizens beyond what is necessary to keep up external appearances. But by far the best censorship of dissent involves making sure that people have enough jobs, opportunities to make more money, reasonably good and affordable consumer goods and no persistent shortage of essentials.

And now I can write up the rest of that post about why China will prevail over USA in any long-term trade or ‘cold’ war.

What do you think? Comments?

SJWs and ‘Activists’ will Likely Destroy Gains Made by LGB Movement

June 10, 2019 9 comments

As some of you might remember, I have written a couple of posts (link 1, link 2) about how the contemporary transgender movement is creating the conditions for its eventual demise. It is also increasingly clear that much of the external support for this movement is linked to the need for virtue display by some other people. It also bolsters pre-existing CONservative stereotypes about men and women. In this post, I am going to make the case that SJWs and Professional ‘activists’ are very likely to end up alienating the vast majority of people and thus destroy many (if not all) of the historical gains made by gays, lesbians etc. To better understand what I am getting at, let us first talk about the two major categories of minorities.

All minorities fall into one of two broad categories: biologically unlimited and biologically limited. For example- racial or ethic groups who are currently classified as minorities in USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand can become the dominant demographic group in those countries. And the way things are going, we will see that change within our lifetime. My point is that belonging to a race or ethnicity which is currently a minority in a given geographical area does nor preclude that group from eventually becoming the new majority. Groups whose minority status is based on race, ethnicity and religion are examples of biologically unlimited minorities. This is, however, not true for all types of minorities for reasons that will soon be obvious.

In contrast to groups mentioned in previous paragraph, certain minorities are biologically limited and can never become the demographically dominant group in countries they currently inhabit. For example, there is good evidence that (regardless of race, ethnicity, culture or historical era) the percentage of men and women who prefer sexual partners of same sex doesn’t cross ten percent. It is basically impossible for a stable or growing population in any country to become majority homosexual. The same is true for other all other sexual minorities. To put it another way, sexual minorities are also biologically limited minorities. But why is this insight relevant to the topic of this post? And how does it influence what the minority can get away with?

The simple answer is that biologically unlimited minorities can afford to be far more brazen in imposing their will on the rest, especially once they become a large enough minority. They have far more leeway to make mistakes and overreach in their goal of ultimate domination, especially if they are a large enough ascendant minority in a country where the erstwhile majority is in terminal demographic decline. Those options are, however, not available to biologically limited minorities since their percentage in the population will never exceed a few percentage points. To make a long story short, the rights of biologically limited minorities are perpetually contingent upon maintaining the goodwill of majority. The key word in previous sentence is ‘goodwill’.

In a previous post, I noted that the rapid success of movement for equal rights for gays and lesbians was largely due to the issue being framed as an extension of legal equality to historically marginalized and persecuted classes. Their struggle for legal equality was never framed as gays and lesbians being a holier-tha-thou class of righteous and intrinsically superior people who were beyond criticism. And this brings us to the past few years. Many of you might have noticed a recent increase in the number of losers who pretend to be “woke” and see “micro-aggression” in almost interaction they have with other people. You might have also noticed that a small but vocal minority within those sexual minorities trying to claim a special exalted status linked to their alleged intrinsic moral superiority over all those ‘cis’ peasants.

Some may not like my characterization of “woke” sexual ultra-minorities as nothing more than grifters trying to use currently existing public goodwill towards gays and lesbians to elevate their social status and validate their delusions of grandeur. I would welcome alternate explanations for this phenomena which are rational and consistent with observable reality. My point is that the spread of this particular way of thinking among the population most closely resembles quasi-religious cults who promise special status to true believers. It is therefore not surprising that people in the entertainment industry have embraced the “woke” cult. After all, similar older cults such as Scientology or those centered around a plethora of now-discredited eastern spiritualists simply don’t carry the prestige they used to in the past.

But there is one crucial difference between previous cults popular among the effete and declining western “elite” and this one. See.. older cults understood the limitations of their scam and never tried to become mainstream. In fact, many tried to be as secretive as possible. The cult of white “wokeness” (and yes, it is mostly white) is stupid enough to try to enforce its way of thinking on the rest of society. But what harm can come from using hilarious pronouns to humor a few mentally-unusual people? Well.. two major reasons.

First, their demand for special treatment does not stop at hilarious pronouns and gender-neutral washrooms. Read a bit about the controversy surrounding trans athletes (who were born male) competing in female events. Demanding that all biological women accept trans ‘women’ as women is an excellent way to antagonize half the population. Also, do you think biological women will ever accept trans ‘women’ as real women? And why would they? What is in it for them? To make matters worse, a small part of the medical profession is beginning to see this movement as an opportunity to make more money. That is why we are seeing an increasing push to medicalize any behavior in children that appears to be “non-gender conforming”. Do you really think that this is not going to create a rapidly increasing and massive backlash?

Then there is the issue of how SJWs and other professional ‘activists’ who are the public face of “wokeness” behave towards rest of population. The thing is.. getting away with being constantly rude, dismissive and generally abusive towards others requires real power and, even then, is often unsustainable. The current crop of idiots.. I mean activists.. is completely reliant on a few large spineless corporations and existing public goodwill towards gays and lesbians. The real question is- how long will their twin pillars of power hold? More specifically, do you really think that the currently favorable outlook of general population towards gays and lesbians will withstand their association (in the public mind) with these shrill “woke” losers? Corporations, being especially unpopular since 2008, will drop them once it starts hurting their bottom line- directly or indirectly. In other words, their twin pillars of power are made of sand, not concrete.

Perhaps the most unfortunate legacy of this “woke” activism for sexual ultra-minorities is its potential (and almost certain) negative effects on achievements by gay and lesbian movements. A good analogy is how all Germans today often have to answer for actions of Third Reich, even if most of their ancestors were not involved in the atrocities and genocides under that regime. There is no shortage of religious nutcases who would love to use the public dislike and contempt for “woke” SJWS and activists in rolling back many of the rights and protections gained by gays and lesbians over multiple decades- and that would be most unfortunate given all the sacrifices and effort to reach the world of today.

What do you think? Comments?

Conflict Between Right Wingers and Tech Monopolies Won’t End Well: 4

June 5, 2019 4 comments

In the previous post of this series, I wrote about how the large number of aspies.. also known as programmers etc.. in the tech industry will be one of the main reason for its coming downfall. To quickly summarize, most programmers are poor at reading other people- especially as it concerns transgressing boundaries that no sane person would dare cross without expecting blowback. As a result, these mentally disabled people (just being honest here) will often make and stick to really bad decisions, you know.. the type which will get them removed from the gene pool. Euphemism aside, this is an issue that is especially relevant in the rapidly declining west due to market share of tech monopolies such as Google, FakeBook etc. See.. monopolies make the effects of stupid decisions that much worse, creating conditions for a quicker and far harsher blowback.

In that post, I also briefly mentioned SJWs- specifically, how they too lacked a theory of mind, but for far different reasons than aspies.. I mean programmers. But why is the nexus of aspies and SJWs in tech monopolies so problematic and ultimately suicidal for those corporations. It comes down to how these two groups of losers make each other mistakes that much worse. So let us talk about that dynamic. Large tech corporations seem to hire people with SJW mindsets for administrative jobs at a much higher frequency than other corporations. Part of the reason for this phenomena has to do with them being located in coastal California and heavily urbanized parts of the east coast etc. But the more important reason, in my opinion, is that tech monopolies want to present a public image of being trendy,”with it”, “woke” and morally “superior”.

It also helps that they have not suffered any serious or sustained blowback to acting like high-handed assholes.. yet. And that is likely to change, far faster than most want to believe. Many forget that just a decade ago, the state of internet (as far as it concerns tech monopolies) was quite different from what we see today. And let us be honest about something else, the public image of tech monopolies and that sector in general has taken a pretty severe beating in the past five years. There is a reason why cable shows such as ‘Silicon Valley‘ have become popular and increasingly caustic in their depictions of that sector. A decade ago, many people worshiped techies and wholeheartedly supported that sector. Today, I am willing to bet that, over 50% of americans will pay money to watch them be burned in a public square.

But why does this fast and large shift in public attitudes towards tech monoplies matter? After all, who really liked Standard Oil, Bell Telephone Company, pre-1950s Movie Studies and IBM during their heyday. In case you didn’t catch it, there is a reason I chose the names of those erstwhile monopolies and oligopolies. Is anybody today saddened by their breakup or downfall subsequent to anti-trust actions by previous governments? My point is that the public perception of any corporation, even one that is effectively a monopoly, is ultimately the single biggest determinant of its future survival. Tech monopolies have made far more enemies in past decade than many other monopolies did over multiple decades. But why and what does it have to do with SJWs?

To understand what I am getting at, let me ask you a few short questions. Which corporation will be hated more, one which charges you a bit too much for some services (any old-fashioned local bank) or one which unilaterally screws you over with no recourse (Paypal)? Which one will be hated more, an old-fashioned record label or movie studio run by greedy people belonging of a certain ethno-religious (insert name..) or corporations that fill a similar niche today but will shut you down and screw you over at the metaphorical drop of a hat because you offended some stupid piece of shit (YouTube, FakeBook)? I could list more examples, but you get the point. The later types of corporations elicit far more revulsion and hatred than the former. But why?

Well.. for two reasons. Firstly, internet monopolies do not follow due legal process or even bother to carefully justify their actions. Human beings remember slights and insults far better than “rationalist” idiots want to accept. Secondly, many less reputable corporations of yesteryear were not monopolies and one could easily find competitors eager to work with another new customer or partner. Also, as mentioned in a previous post, monoplies such as Standard Oil, Bell Telephone Company and IBM were always more than willing to sell their products and services to whoever could pay- irrespective of whether they agreed with their worldview or not. It was all about making money and getting repeat business, nothing more.

Now let us go back to SJWs or more precisely, how they will be the death of internet monopolies- in more ways than one. Ever wondered why corporations in previous eras seemed to lack SJWs, or why corporations in some sectors still have no SJWs within their ranks? It comes down to corporate structure, specifically how it has changed over past four decades. Prior to 1980, almost every person in management and administration rose to their current positions from within that corporation or from another similar one. In other words, they were loyal to the corporations they worked for and it was rewarded with job or career security. However the neoliberal “revolution” changed that and the management and administrative staff of corporation were increasingly external hires who saw each job as a temporary stepping stone towards an independent career- which never works for most of them in the end.

But what does this have to do with SJW-ism and “woke” capitalism? Well.. think of it this way, what does a person who does not expect to stay at a corporation for the rest of their life care about? The simple answer is- finding their next and hopefully better job. But what value does somebody, who likely has never worked in a corporation similar to the one in which they are seeking a job, offer to their new employer? Only two things, impressive-sounding educational “credentials” and manufactured public image. This why, for example, a mediocre candidate getting an MBA from an ivy-league school translates into a great job offer while an intelligent one from a “second rate” state university languishes in obscurity.

And this often ties in with a carefully curated public image aka people indulging in grandiose acts of “virtue” display or anything else that is seen as fashionable. It is all about showing off, lying and bullshitting. Earlier, I mentioned that SJWs lack a theory of mind, albeit for different reasons than aspies. Well.. here is the reason. SJWs are all about careerism supported by ever more ridiculous displays of fake “virtue”. If being “woke” and “tone policing” did not exist, they would support and promote anything that appeared fashionable. Heck, if enough idiots educated at ivy-leagues thought that Nazism was hip, they would go full Nazi.

In other words, being “woke” and “politically correct” is fashionable for the same reason polyester suits were fashionable in 1970s or those weird padded suits were big in 1980s. It is all about constantly giving off the appearance of being “hip”,”current” and “with it”. But surely, they cannot be that stupid? Are they so out of touch with reality? Guess what.. they are, and hanging out in their own social bubbles merely reinforces their belief system- if you can call it that. But more importantly, they have so far been insulated from the consequences of their behavior and actions. I, however, predict that it will soon change and they will increasingly have to face the wrath of people abused by them in past- for reasons that have to with probability.

In the next part of this series, I will lay out the many statistical reasons why SJWS and their corporate enablers will soon face an extremely nasty and likely violent backlash. And ya.. their doom is linked to probabilities generated via their own actions and behavior.

What do you think? Comments?