Archive

Archive for the ‘Philosophy sans Sophistry’ Category

Some Thoughts on Mueller Report and Trump Derangement Syndrome

April 21, 2019 4 comments

Over past couple of days, I managed to read some more of the Mueller Report and to be honest.. it isn’t that exciting, otherwise would have finished it by now. Having said that, it doesn’t contain any evidence of “collusion” or conspiracy between the Orange Buffoon or members of his 2016 campaign team with ‘Russia’ or Putin’. The contents of that report, if anything, further validates my belief of Trump being the real-life version of the George Bluth Sr. character from Arrested Development. Similarities between many members of fictional Bluth family and Trump clan have been pointed out by others in the past. Also, building a wall between Mexico and USA was one of the central story arcs in the 4th season of that show in 2013.

The report merely confirms Trump being somebody with street-smarts but otherwise incapable of thinking strategically or systematically. And this makes him like almost every other rich guy who got there through some combination of having rich parents and being at the right place at right time. The very idea that such an intellectually mediocre but egotistical lecher could participate in any complex conspiracy is as absurd as somebody with serious brain damage caused by playing american football going on to become a famous mathematician. That he actually took the Mueller investigation and RussiaGate seriously enough to utter “This is the end of my presidency, I’m fucked” to people around him (in spite of being innocent) tells you far more about his state of mind than his ability to do anything beyond pay hush money to his mistresses.

Some of you might say that Trump is too stupid to understand that he is being manipulated by ‘Putin’ or ‘Russia’. Fair enough.. now tell me which of his actions towards Russia are irrefutable proof of him being a ‘Puppet of Putin’? In case you can find a few minor ones, do also tell me how you reconcile all those other major hostile actions taken by his administration against Russia with Trump being a ‘Russian Stooge’. While you are at it, also tell me how Trump’s behavior towards Kim Jong-un is a sign of the later having “kompromat” on the former. My point is that there is no evidence for Trump’s policy towards Russia being any less hawkish than that of his predecessor. To put it another way, Trump is basically a boilerplate republican president with poor impulse control and especially brazen, stupid and incompetent advisers.

Which brings me to the topic of Trump Derangement Syndrome, also know as Orange Man Bad. As I have noted in a few previous posts, hating Trump is a very popular form of performance art among celebrities, corporate media types, establishment democrats, other deep state types and basically anyone who wants to be recognized as “woke”. Of course, they will never explain why they used to be super chummy with Trump before he ran for the presidency in 2015. Or.. why exactly Trump’s policies are so much worse than those of Obama44 or Bush43? Then again, I do not expect such delusional and incompetent losers to have the mental ability to answer such introspective questions. So let me help you understand the real reason behind their irrational hatred for Trump aka Trump Derangement Syndrome aka Orange Man Bad.

In an older post, I pointed out that Trump’s approval numbers (which were always low) have not suffered from the 24/7 barrage of negative news against him unleashed by the corporate media and establishment. Why not and what does it have to do with Trump Derangement Syndrome. Even the gain of legislative seats in the 2018 elections by democrats was largely due to popular anger directed at Trump’s missteps on healthcare and inability to stop outsourcing rather than his persona. So what is happening? Why has the near constant assault by establishment types and their media flunkies on his personality had basically no effect on his approval ratings? part of the answer to that question lies in the nature of contemporary american elites and how they are perceived by the rest of society- especially after 2008.

As I have mentioned in numerous prior posts, the elites of most societies throughout human history have risen to power via some combination of blind luck and parasitism. In other words, they are not actually competent at fulfilling the duties of the societal positions they occupy. Under conditions of economic growth and general societal well-being, it is possible for cover their gross inadequacies, largely because they don’t have to do anything beyond acting competent- the key word being ‘acting’. That is why a lot of the declared 2020 democratic candidates resemble used-car salesmen and D-list actors. This however stops working and becomes counterproductive when the society in question goes into prolonged or terminal socio-economic decline. USA as a nation has been in obvious terminal decline since 2008- at least for the 99%.

Trump winning the presidency is a very visible reminder to the establishment elite that the old status quo is fragile and likely over. Sure.. the guy is a piece of shit, but let us not pretend that he is a bigger disaster than his predecessors such as Bush43 and Obama44. If you don’t believe me, just look at how easily establishment democarts were to forgive Bush43 for his role in the failed and incredibly expensive occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan- not to mention all the other shit that went on during his presidency. Or look at how they celebrate Obama44 for everything he promised voters but did not deliver- from ending foreign wars, passing something approaching universal healthcare, holding financial institutions accountable, slowing down job outsourcing, improving racial relations and a whole host of other things he could have done.

Those who display Trump Derangement Syndrome are like those idiots who want to return to some mythical golden era or period- you know, the one which never existed. To make maters worse, condemning Trump and publicly wanting his presidency to end in some shameful way has become part of the sacrament for anybody who wants to maintain their relevance among the elites or hope to join their ranks. That is why people as diverse as Rachel Maddow, Laurence Tribe, almost every Hollywood or Music celebrity, rich voters living in certain coastal zip codes and establishment Democrats (and Republicans) in addition to many “national security officials” were (and still are) so invested in the Mueller Report. It is also why they are now busy spinning the lackluster findings and moving the goal posts- with almost every single passing hour.

See.. the thing is, western elites lack the reality-based ruling mandate of their Chinese or Russian counterparts. For the past 30-40 years, their claim to rule has been largely based on looking good, competent, intelligent, sophisticated and clever. This is why establishment democrats still worship Clinton42 and Obama44 and their republican counterparts have made a cult out of professing reverence for Reagan40. That is why they push candidates such as Kamala Harris, Beta O’Rourke and that Pete Buttguy. Trump’s election in 2016 was a massive public relation disaster for them because it showed that even an egotistical lecher with the attentions span of a mildly-retarded dog could still perform the “most important job in the world”. The Trump Derangement Syndrome is therefore largely driven by their hate for him after he inadvertently exposed their incompetence, impotency and rapidly declining relevance.

What do you think? Comments?

Some More Thoughts about Recent Arrest of Julian Assange in London

April 15, 2019 9 comments

In the previous post on this topic, I wrote about how exposure of information by Wikileaks (and others inspired by it) has permanently damaged the only remaining ruling mandate for elites in western countries. In case you are wondering, that was Assange’s goal from the very beginning- and he has succeeded. If you don’t believe my take on what he has achieved, let me remind you about how things were in 2008. At that time, most people still thought Bush43’s presidency was an anomaly and everything would return back to how it was in the 1990s. They also believed that Obama would become the next FDR and reign in financialism. Did I mention the hilarious part where almost everyone believed that internet monopolies such as Google, FakeBook, Amazon etc were the greatest thing since sliced bread and could do no wrong. Simpler times indeed..

Then many seemingly unexpected things started to occur in quick succession. First, there was the global financial crisis which began in late 2008, which lead to multi-trillion dollar bailouts for ‘too-big-to-fail’ financial institutions and corporations. Of course, everybody else (aka the 99 %) got screwed and Obama turned out be the black version of Reagan rather than FDR. It slowly became obvious that the 1990s were never going to come back. And then it got worse as entire sectors of the economy got hollowed out- at an even faster pace than before. More problematically, almost all of the new jobs created since then have been precarious and poorly paid. My point is that, it is hard to understand the full impact of Wikileaks unless you first appreciate the socio-economic-political climate into which it was born.

I first wrote about Wikileaks a long time ago (link 1 and link 2) and my initial assessments about it proved to be correct. Not surprisingly, the MSM attitude towards Wikileaks and Assange has not changed since 2010. At that time, I also made another comment about Assange which turned out to be far more prescient than I initially realized. Since 2010, the many archives of documents released by Wikileaks and Snowden have had a profound impact on how people in the west perceive their own governments and civic institutions. Today nobody pretends that the NSA doesn’t exist or that USA-based internet monopolies such as Google, FakeBook, Amazon etc are anything other than commercial arms of the (rapidly failing) american empire. In 2008, you would have been considered delusional for publicly stating that almost all journalism in USA is elite stenography, even after their almost unanimous support for the failed occupation of Iraq in 2003.

We also cannot ignore what happened in the rest of the world during that period and the impact of Wikileaks on public discourse in those countries. Let me remind you that Wikileaks is by far the single biggest reason USA was not able to keep a significant military presence in Iraq after 2009. Its revelations also did an incredible amount of permanent damage to public image of western countries in other parts of the world. After they were made public, very few people in countries such as China, Russia etc could keep pretending that the american system of governance and institutions was any less repressive and problematic than their own. These leaks have also sped up the process of making the internet and communications (in general) more decentralized and much less USA- or west-centric. In short, Wikileaks achieved a decent percentage of its original objectives- so far. And ya.. it did contribute to the defeat of HRC in 2016.

As you also know, the declining vassal states of Sweden and UK cooked up a stupid and highly counterproductive scheme to arrest Assange and extradite him to USA since 2010. In my opinion, this stupid scheme was stupid and short-sighted. Then again, elites throughout human history have never shown themselves to be good at long-term and strategic thinking. And this type of malfunction is intrinsic to large hierarchical and impersonal social systems- as I have also written about in previous posts such as this one. Here is another one which explains how these systemic shortcomings play out in other large systems. To put it another way, the whole idea of trapping Assange within that embassy for 7 years was an incredibly stupid idea. But why, specifically, was it so dumb? Well.. because it made him into a larger-than-life (almost religious) figure while simultaneously shredding the public credibility of western countries.

The thing is.. people universally understand that a person trying to persecute somebody for their personal beliefs is an acknowledgement of your own weakness. For example, if some obviously mentally-ill guy across the street kept shouting that you were the anti-christ, people around you would either ignore it or find it amusing. Nobody would believe the guy making those claims. Now imagine if you responded to those claims by trying to get the guy, making them, killed. People would rightly think that those claims were actually correct and that you were indeed the anti-christ. This dynamic is part of the reason why scandals which would sink conventional politicians, many times over, have no worthwhile effect on Trump’s popularity. He simply does not care enough about them to give a conventional explanation or response.

If the elites in USA, UK and Sweden etc had any ability to think beyond the short-term, they would have handled the Assange situation very differently. Firstly, they would have realized and accepted that somebody like Assange and Wikileaks was as inevitable in the internet age as Martin Luther and Protestantism were in the aftermath of movable-type printing being invented- or the ‘One’ arising in the Matrix. And yes.. I also wrote a post about this issue in that past. Secondly, the most optimal way to handle somebody like Assange was to watchfully ignore him- thereby denying him martyrhood. Sure.. he would keep leaking document archives and causing some problems. But guess what.. he ended doing that stuff anyway.

Persecuting Assange made the USA, UK, Sweden etc look just as repressive and incompetent as the countries and regimes they claim to be superior to. Or as I call it, scoring repeated self-goals. But why does it matter? Well.. because, as I mentioned in the previous post, the ruling mandate of elites in west is derived from abstract ideas such as being perceived as honest, democratic, competent, meritocratic etc. This is in sharp contrast to a nation like China, where the elites derive their legitimacy from providing real, concrete and measurable improvements in physical quality of life for their citizens. This is also why persecuting somebody like Assange is far more damaging to western-style governmental systems than imprisoning a dissident is to China.

Will write more on this as events unfold..

What do you think? Comments?

Some Initial Thoughts about Today’s Arrest of Julian Assange in London

April 11, 2019 14 comments

As some might have heard earlier today, Julian Assange (founder of Wikileaks) was arrested by the local police in London. It is noteworthy that this development was expected for a few weeks, if not months, largely due to the badly-want-to-be-real-white puppet president of Ecuador, Lenín Moreno, wanting to fellate the “real-white” neocon idiots in the Trump administration. And yes.. the racial dynamics I am describing here is real and the principal reason why most latin american countries have been unstable shitholes in spite of having immense natural resources. But enough about the pathetic psyche of almost-real-white latin americans, because they do not matter. I will, however, make one prediction. The future of Latin america will be far more Asian (and otherwise non-Hispanic) than most of you can imagine.

Without going into a ton of history about how and why Wikileaks came into existence, let me provide a link to the seminal 2006 essay in which Assange explained the need for Wikileaks. The very short version is that effective state oppression requires conspirators.. aka the government functionaries and employees.. to be being able to communicate with a high degree of confidence and secrecy. Once those conditions can no longer be met, the ability of a government or large corporation to oppress and abuse people keeps becomes progressively weaker. And things have worked exactly as Assange predicted- much to the consternation of the increasingly elderly and decrepit western elite. Do I need to refresh your memory about how much of the unexpected political developments in past decade have been due to Wikileaks.

And he has influenced others, such as Snowden. To summarize, publication of a huge number of “official secrets” by Wikileaks made it impossible for USA to keep a large force In Iraq after 2009, exposed tons of shady stuff done by american government and its private contractors, helped keep Hillary out of the White House in 2001 and released tons of stuff about problematic behavior of various 3 letter agencies. If you combine the results of Wikileaks and Snowden archives, Assange has done more to permanently damage the image and power of undeserving public and private institutions in the west than anybody else in living memory. Also, there is a reason why Wikileaks has far more effect on western countries than say.. on China or Russia.

But why is that so? While people like MikeCA will regurgitate some stuff about how USA and the ‘West’ are more open, free and democratic societies, but the reality is quite different. The thing is.. institutions in Western societies derive public legitimacy by pretending to be good, fair, objective, honest etc. In contrast, governments and institutions in Russia and China don’t pretend that their mandate is derived from moral superiority or similar bullshit. If tomorrow, Wikileaks published definitive evidence that Putin was worth many billions, had multiple concubines and OKed murders of many journalists- almost nobody in that country would care or be surprised. His ruling mandate, you see, is derived from his ability to reverse many of the abominations and depredations of the Yeltsin era. He is not pretending to the moral center or conscience of his country- unlike his western counterparts. And most people in Russia are fine with that.

Similarly, the Chinese Communist Party does not derive its ruling mandate by claiming to be a vaguely-defined force for moral good. Sure.. they might say that bullshit once in a while- but only brain-damaged people believe that crap. Instead, the CCP derives its mandate from what it has done to improve the quality of lives for average Chinese people. And it had done a whole fucking lot! Just search for photographs of the same area in China from the 1980s and today, and you cannot deny that they have achieved more in the past 30-40 years than the West achieved in over 200. Moreover, they did all of this without importing slaves from other countries or indulging in European-style colonization- making it even more impressive. A few revelations about large-scale corruption or questionable behavior by a few would have no effect on their mandate.

In sharp contrast to that, the ruling mandate of governments in Western countries (especially after WW2) is derived from pretending to be democratically elected institutions who work for bettering lives of their average citizens in addition to being full of morally upright and honest people. As we all know, this is a big pile of crap and has been widely seen as such- even in the past. But very few people used to call out their bullshit for the first 2-3 decades after WW2, as there was an amazing amount of economic growth and improvement in quality of life for the average person in those countries. This however started to change towards end of 1970s, and the standard of life for your average person in West has not improved much since then.

But what does any of this have to do with the impact of Wikileaks on Western countries. Well.. for starters, the published revelations show a system riddled with dishonesty, graft, lies, brutality and everything else which western governments (and corporations) publicly pretend they are not. But why does it matter, when Russians and Chinese do not seem to care about similar behavior by their governments? Well.. because the rapidly aging, incestuous and incompetent Western elite of the 21st century simply do not have any other justification for their continued rule. They put all their eggs in the one basket which is now falling apart. And that is the real reason why the decrepit western elite, especially in anglo countries, are so scared of Assange and Wikileaks.

Will write more about this topic as events unfold..

What do you think? Comments?

Democratic Zeal for ‘Gun Control’ and ‘Mueller Report’ Has Same Root

April 9, 2019 3 comments

In previous posts, I have written about the obsession of democratic party with gun control, why it is doomed and futile in addition to being an important factor in them possibly losing the 2020 election. A couple of years ago, I started to notice similarities between obsession of establishment democrat with ‘Gun Control’ and the ‘Mueller Investigation’- which recently concluded to produce the ‘Mueller Report’. There are, of course, some obvious similarities between the two, such as the very high degree of overlap between strong supporters and peddlers of ‘Gun Control’ and the Mueller Investigation’. But the similarities between those who support and promote these two causes run far deeper and are deeply linked to their worldview.

Let me begin by pointing out the demographic similarities between those who support and peddle both causes. Their supporters are almost always from certain parts of coastal USA or aspiring to move there, often come from or are associated with families who made their money via legalized corruption and scams, were “credentialed” at a few “respectable” educational institutions, have first or second order connections with the now dying mass media and corporate entertainment sectors, tout themselves as social progressives but are (in reality) strong supporters of continued economic immiseration of all those ‘other people’ via neoliberalism. A certain ethno-religious minority is also represented at high levels in supporters of both causes. But why would support for ‘Gun Control’ and ‘Mueller Investigation’ co-localize with “woke” neoliberalism?

The answer is a bit complicated and requires us to first understand why ‘Gun Control’ in USA only became a thing after the 1970s. As I wrote in a previous post, the obsession of democratic party and moderate republicans with gun control is strongly associated with their upper ranks being filled by “credentialed” professional class types. Have you noticed the correlation between rigid social class structure and support for gun control in modern nation states? Ever wondered why dying nations with a rigid social class system such as UK, Japan, Mexico, South Korea and Brazil have much stricter gun laws than less socially stratified countries such as Lebanon, Finland, Switzerland and yes.. USA. The observant among you might have noticed that Mexico and Brazil have far higher rates of homicide by guns than countries with far more permissive laws. Also, South Korea and Japan have significantly higher rates of successful suicide than USA, in spite of civilian gun ownership being essentially illegal in those countries.

But what does any of this have to do with support for ‘Gun Control’ and the ‘Mueller Investigation’ in USA having the same root. The short answer is- a whole fucking lot! Have you noticed that a lot of people who were praying for Trump to be found guilty of “collusion with Russia and Putin” happened to live in coastal California, New York and DC? Isn’t it odd that this same group of “famous credentialed” people who rose to their current socio-economic status due to “meritocracy” happen to also be strong proponents of ‘Gun Control’? And why would they be concentrated in California, New York, DC, Massachusetts and New Jersey. Also, why is the ‘Gun Control’ movement much weaker in other coastal states such as Florida, the two Carolinas, Louisiana or even Maine? What is the real difference between coastal states such as NY, CA, MA and FL, SC, NC, LA and ME? And ya, I know DC is not a state.

Did you notice that degree of economic inequality in a given state correlates rather well with the number and extent of ‘Gun Control’ laws passed and enforced in it. Yes.. that is correct. Economic inequality rather than absolute wealth or poverty of a state correlates far better with its effete elites pushing for ultimately ineffective ‘Gun Control’. And there is one more interesting tidbit about ‘Gun Control’ in USA, namely that almost all initial attempts to pass modern ‘Gun Control’ laws were made by old money WASPs living in certain parts of coastal USA. The ethno-religious minority often associated with ‘Gun Control’ in contemporary USA did not get into that game until the 1970s and 1980s, which is oddly enough when they overtook old money WASPs as elites.

But what does this to do with support for the ‘Mueller Investigation’ and why were a majority of establishment elites in USA so incensed by Trump winning the 2016 election. While we can all agree that orange buffoon is a pathetic human being, what makes him worse than any previous person elected to that office? Think about it.. Nixon was responsible for millions of deaths in Vietnam, Las and Cambodia and he still lost the Vietnam War. Carter was a sad wimp whose term saw the rise of neoliberalism. Reagan presided over beginning of american de-industrialization. Bush41 and Clinton42 were responsible for a lot of deaths in Iraq during the 1990s. Clinton42 also oversaw financial deregulation, rise of mass incarceration and many other neoliberal policies. Bush43 oversaw beginning of the end for American empire by getting involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama44 got us involved in many unnecessary conflicts in Africa and bailed out the 1% while fucking over everybody else in 2009.. so like a black Clinton42 or Reagan40.

My point is that a lot of people elected to the presidency in living memory have been disastrous fuckups- at least for the majority of those who voted for them. In that respect, Trump is no worse than Obama, Clinton or the two Bushes. So why are establishment elites getting their panties in a knot over the orange buffoon. Haven’t most of his policies and actions, thus far, been faithful to standard Republican-style neoliberal bullshit? Tax cuts for the rich, continuous increasing the military budget, bellicose behavior on the international stage, hiring racists and religious zealots- you know, the works. But for not starting a new major war or two, the Trump presidency is remarkably close to that of Bush43. And yet, establishment types never went after that retarded loser.. I mean Bush43.. like they did to Trump. But why is that so?

Well.. it comes down to a few simple facts about the composition of elites in USA and to be fair, elites throughout human history. The thing is.. elites almost never reach their position because they are hard workers, honest, intelligent, competent or any of the other bullshit things they like others to believe about themselves. Almost every single person who became an elite achieved that by being born to the right set of parents or being at the right place at the right time aka luck. In other words, the became elites by getting lucky. So how do they try to maintain their position? Well.. by trying to con other people that they became rich and powerful because they were deserving, somehow special, super-intelligent, chosen by god etc.

So how does this play out in the real world? Once again.. that depends on circumstances beyond human control. Non-elites will tolerate and even trust elites as long as things are generally getting better. That is why average British people looked up to their elites between the early 1800s and end of WW1, and is also why the aftermath of WW2 saw large changes in the role of hereditary elite in that society. The same is true for american society where the power of WASPs declined once it became obvious by the 1960s that they were nowhere as competent and smart as they portrayed themselves. Did you notice a trend? If not, let me spell it out for you. The ability of elites to remain in their positions is totally dependent on all those ‘other people’ willing to go along with the charade. This is also why elite replacement is often abrupt and almost total.

Now let us talk about the post-1960s elites of USA. As some of you might have guessed, it does include a rather large number of people from a certain ethno-religious minority. But there is much more to this story than that fact. See.. unlike pre-1960 era elites, their post-1960s era equivalents are different, and not just as far as their skin color and last names are concerned. Let me put it this way.. unlike their older equivalents, they are a much more atomized group. It is far easier to fall out of being an elite today (for most) than it was as late as the 1950s. So how does one maintain their social position in such a precarious and competitive marketplace.

For starters- they can marry among themselves, attend the same schools and universities, hang out with the same groups of people and build networks of mutual patronage. But all of this is no longer enough. They have to do something else.. something at which they suck. Today’s elites have to cosplay as hard-working, supremely competent and well spoken geniuses. That is a huge problem- because they have none of the qualities they pretend to possess. The only way they can partially achieve that goal is via institutional capture and trying to remove any threats to the status quo. This is why these new elites are so obsessed with ‘Gun Control’, censoring ‘Hate Speech’, promoting “woke” neoliberal ideology etc. The world however keeps evolving and what these idiots though would last forever does not. Even worse, events such as Brexit in 2015 and the election of Trump in 2016 demonstrate their utter impotence.

And that, you see, is the underlying connection between establishment democratic zeal for ‘Gun Control’ and the ‘Mueller Investigation’. Real world events have exposed them to be stupid, greedy, short-sighted, incompetent and impotent. However they lack the willingness, let alone ability, to change their modus operandi. They simply double down on the only things and pathways they have ever known. This is also why so many establishment democrats pretended (even to themselves) that Trump could be impeached by evidence uncovered by the ‘Mueller Investigation’. That is also why they delude themselves into believing that voter support for ‘Gun Control’ is far stronger than it is, or how they imagine that all those new voters are going to vote for ‘Gun Control’. Some of you might think they can change, however everything we know about the behavior of elites throughout human history suggest otherwise. There is a reason why the phenomena of almost total elite replacement exists.. you know.

What do you think? Comments?

Inclusive One Party Systems Outperform Democratic Counterparts : 1

April 7, 2019 3 comments

In a previous series about post-1945 divergence in outcomes between India and China, I made the point that China is today the world’s largest industrial power while India is a stunted dwarf which cannot even project its power into small neighboring countries. This divergence has much to do with fundamental differences in the type of elites and systems of governance in those two countries. India ended up with a bunch of spineless and incompetent elites who were ashamed of being Indian and constantly sucked up to white guys in expensive suits. Chinese elites, unlike their Indian counterparts, did not hate themselves for being non-white and understood that their fortunes were intrinsically linked to those of their fellow countrymen. In other words, they cared about their own country- even if they did so for pragmatically selfish reasons.

But the much larger difference between these nations comes down to their respective systems of governance. Indian elites retained the super abusive and exploitative colonial administrative system they “inherited” at the time of independence. In contrast, their Chinese counterparts went on quite the house-cleaning spree after 1949. While you may, or may not, agree about the large number of bureaucratic eggs broken by the Chinese elites during the first 30 years after regaining independence, the end product is clearly superior to its Indian counterpart. But why is that so? Is it because the Chinese have a long history of bureaucracy, racial and cultural homogeneity or are the real reasons more straightforward- if rather unpleasant to accept.

In the rest of this post, I will show you how the superior performance of the Chinese system is intimately linked to its design, rather than quality of its employees. So let us begin by asking a few simple questions: Why is the Chinese administrative system far less dysfunctional than its Indian counterpart? Do they have smarter employees or more natural resources at their disposal? Or.. is it something else? Now let me flip that question around. Why is the Indian administrative system so incompetent, short-sighted and generally incapable of getting stuff done. While some idiots might want to assign blame to everything from race, “IQ”, lack of cultural homogeneity or other bullshit explanations- the real reasons behind the Indian system’s poor performance are rather obvious and surprisingly basic- starting with lack of accountability.

Anyone who has ever interacted with the administrative system in India at any length will be aware that there is basically no accountability for its employees. They can cause endless disasters and suffering through their incompetence and stupidity without any of it having real negative effects on their job security. At most, they will be disciplined by being transferred (for a couple of years) to some undesirable locale or position. More importantly, since advancement in the system is determined by age and colonial-era rules rather than performance, there is little incentive for them to learn from their mistakes or change for the better. But why is this still the case in 2019? Why did Indian political leaders never try to reform this shitty system since 1947?

Well.. there are many reasons why Indian political elites kept the manifestly bad administrative system which they “inherited”. As I wrote in previous posts, they never cared about the plight of their fellow countrymen because they saw themselves as brown versions of their erstwhile colonial white masters. But there is another and perhaps more important reason- India went down the path of becoming a parliamentary multi-party democracy. But what is the connection between becoming a multi-party democracy and administrative dysfunction? It comes to the number of competing power centers. In India, and almost every other democracy, the executive branch of power is in direct competition with the bureaucracy. But why is that problematic? After all, don’t “famous public intellectuals” constantly tell us that separation of powers is a good thing?

Though separation of powers might sounds good in theory, its real world performance is sketchy- at best. Some of you might counter this by pointing out regimes led by strongmen, dictators and other types of totalitarian leaders do poorly in the long term and I agree with that observation. There is however another model for totalitarianism- one based in a single political entity which allows for some diversity of people and views. While this might sound like something out of ‘1984’ by Orwell, the real world performance of many east-Asian countries suggests otherwise. China.. you see.. is not the only single-party country in east-Asia. For most of it modern history (1868-1947 and 1955 onward) Japan has been effectively a single-party system. The same is true for South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia.

There is, therefore, no evidence for single broad-based political party system in power for decades having any worthwhile negative influence on the social and economic well-being of average citizens of said country. In fact, the converse appears to be true- especially when you compare them to India. But didn’t India have something similar under its first prime-minister (Jawaharlal Nehru) from 1947 to 1964? Why didn’t things work out nicely under him , as they did in those other Asian countries? Well.. for two reasons. Firstly, his tenure as the undisputed prime-minister of India quickly became a personality cult and he did not groom anybody other than his daughter to take over after his death. Secondly, all those other Asian leaders used their long tenures to destroy the previous colonial administrative systems.

Nehru and his successors were only interested in maintaining power in addition to appearing deferential and respectable to the ‘whites’. They did almost nothing to upgrade or reform the administrative system, let alone break it down and remake it serve Indians. Nothing was done to eliminate all those pesky multiple competing centers of power and bureaucratic fiefdoms. Almost no new unitary institutions with real power were created by him or his successors. In other words, they retained the same system and mindset which was previously used to exploit and impoverish India during the era of British colonialism- and it shows, to this day. After his death in 1964, things went from bad to worse and the rise of regional parties, formed due to inability of his national party to deliver on promises, made a bad situation worse.. much worse.

And this how you end up an administrative system full of essentially sinecured employees with zero accountability, no motivation or appetite for any improvement or the ability to think outside the box. That is why India still uses a criminal code written about 150 years ago which often irrelevant to the contemporary world. That is also why Indian cities look like poorly laid-out and crowded hovels. That is also why India was so late and inefficient at building power plants or even using its large coal resources. That is why cities in China look and function in ways which would shame their western counterparts- while those in India, sorta function. That is also why cities, towns and villages in India have far more uncollected garbage, sewage and filth than their counterparts in Vietnam or Indonesia. This is why the public health system in India sucks.

In the next part of this (hopefully short) series, I will talk about why the problem of multiple power centers did not seem to affect western countries from mid 1800s till the 1970s. Here is a hint: the “west” was largely non-democratic during that period and colonial exploitation of other people + post-WW2 growth provided enough surplus resources to paper over deficiencies.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Peculiar Connection between Systemic Racism and Feminism: 2

April 2, 2019 13 comments

In the previous post of this series, I wrote about how feminism started and thrives in countries with a strong previous legacy of pedestalling white women due to a desire for maintaining racial purity- which is another way of saying that feminism (as we know it today) has always been strongly associated with, and grown out of, colonialism and racism. I first noticed this connection almost two decades ago due to an interesting combination of circumstances. As some readers might know, that is when I moved here to do graduate school. Anyway.. since scientific research is a multi-national endeavor, I quickly noticed an interesting pattern namely, that the willingness of a guy to debase himself for women was not universal- even among white men.

For example- it was unusual to see men of eastern European or Mediterranean origins fawning over women (even attractive ones) at anywhere near the levels displayed by ‘local’ men for borderline ugly women. And let us be clear about something, science does not attract ‘alpha’ men- but even there the difference between those from Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries vs rest of Europe and the World was very obvious. I also noticed something else which, at first, was peculiar. Local men in these now-declining Anglo-Saxon (A-S) countries do not ascribe agency to women, or do so in an unusual manner. Now, let me explain that sentence in some detail. See.. men from most countries around the world see women as being capable of making their own decisions- whether those turn out to be good, bad, sad or just plain stupid.

However men from A-S counties are desperate to rationalize any bad, sad or stupid decision made by a woman as not her decision. These men always ascribe external agency to a woman’s bad decisions while always invoking her own agency to explain the good ones. In other words, every stupid, bad and self-destructive decision made by a white woman is not her fault, while every OK decision is proof of her competence. Some of you might say that this is further proof of feminism brainwashing those men. I, however, disagree. The whole trope of “women are always right and never responsible for bad decisions” has a much longer history in A-S countries than feminism. In fact, the idea that white women (but not black or brown women) are not responsible for their bad decisions can be found in English literature as far back as mid 1800s, decades before feminism was even a thing. In other words, it preceded feminism.

Don’t believe me? Read a few novel, novellas and short stories from that period- especially those which also contain non-white female characters. You will quickly see that white women are always portrayed as pure, kind and good while non-white women are shown as evil, conniving and animalistic. Contrast this to the depiction of women in the mythology and folklore of other cultures. Were women depicted as always good in ancient Greek or Roman mythology, folklore or literature? What about Chinese, Japanese or Korean mythology and folklore? What about Indian or middle-eastern mythology and folklore? Heck.. even continental European folklore and stories, such as the Brothers Grimm collection did not depict women as inherently good. My point is that most cultures throughout human history never saw women as inherently pure, good, faultless etc. But after early 1800s this became the default view in A-S and later Scandinavian countries.

But what does this have to do with the world of 2019- at least as it exists in A-S countries? Well.. let me ask you another set of questions- would laws favoring women in divorce and child-custody etc exist without a large number of white men stupid enough to willingly believe and support hilarious myths such as the inherent “purity”, “goodness”, “desirability” etc of white women? Would all that talk about how women make less than men and deserve affirmative action exist without a large percentage of white men (in those countries) willing to believe in the myth of white women being inherently deserving and virtuous? And why is the myth that all men are sexual deviants with an interest in children almost exclusive to A-S and Scandinavian countries.

Conversely, why are men from other parts of the world far more willing to acknowledge that gold-digging and other forms of parasitic behavior is common among women? Why are they also far more willing to acknowledge that women can be as screwed up in the head as men- and often more so. Why are they far less inclined to obsessively seek female approval for their behavior and decisions? Are you starting to see a trend? In case you aren’t, let me spell it out for you- a lot of the behavioral patterns displayed by white men in A-S and Scandinavian countries are older than feminism, though they do arise from the same toxic pond of colonialism and racism. It is these patterns which enabled and supported the rise of feminism in those countries.

A lot of behavior displayed by men in these countries, traditionally ascribed to evolutionary psychology bullshit such as eggs being more expensive than sperm, is in reality largely restricted to those countries. The thing is.. outside of these countries, the world is a very different place. This is not say that other countries do not have legal equality of the sexes. Indeed, one can argue than east-European communist countries had far more real sexual equality than A-S countries. However this equality never led to university departments of women studies, atrocious divorce and child-custody laws, hordes of SJWs, constant empty talk of “empowerment” and men being seen as innate sexual predators. Any you why.. because those countries did not have the pre-existing legacy of colonialism-derived racism.

In the next part of this series, I will write about why most white men in A-S and Scandinavian countries still willingly and diligently keep polishing the turd of white women supremacy aka feminism.

What do you think? Comments?

Era of Creativity in American Music, Cinema , Television etc is Over: 1

March 31, 2019 10 comments

Regular readers might be aware of an older post in which I wrote about why the past decade of mainstream movie-making in USA has been full of sequels and reboots rather anything vaguely original. The short version is as follows: the uncritical worship of financialism is behind this and many other (and much larger) systemic problems seen in USA today, from brick-and-mortar retailers dropping like flies to Boeing making some truly atrocious design choices for its 737-Max series. And yes.. ‘late capitalism’ and ‘financialism’ are interchangeable terms- in most contexts. I also wrote another post about how the downstream effects of late capitalism explain the proliferation of ‘superhero’ movies we have seen over the past decade. But how is any of this connected to the title of this post? For starters.. the general lack of creativity we have seen in american music, movies, television, streaming services, video games etc over past ~ 15 years is just another symptom of the same underlying problem.

But before we talk about that problem, let us first spend some time to properly define the issues involved. For example- How does one define creativity and how long did the ‘golden era’ last? Do music sale numbers, box office receipts etc matter and do they affect how we define creativity? So let us begin by discussing all of this and more by using real life examples. That way, I can explain the issues involved in very clear and straightforward terms. Given my greater interest in the visual arts, I will first focus on cinema, television, specialty cable shows and streaming outlets in this part. Here is a good question to start this discussion- Was there ever a ‘golden age’ of american cinema? The answer to that question, while affirmative, is a bit complicated. See.. most people are trained to think that the ‘golden age’ of american cinema was between 1927 and the mid-1950s, when TV started to become the more widespread form of audio-visual entertainment.

I think differently. While cinema was the dominant form of audio-visual entertainment in that era- it was not the ‘golden age’ by any stretch of imagination. The quality and originality of the movies in that era left much to be desired- and that is a huge understatement. While a small part of the blame can be assigned to technology, most of it was a result of how the whole system was run. See.. Hollywood studios were the worst thing that happened to Hollywood- because they were run by losers who cared only about the bottom line and exerting their egos over creative people. That is why movies from that era are so bland, insipid, and unmemorable. Sure.. they made money- but that was largely a consequence to there being no other competing audio-visual media. Also cinema theaters were among the first public places to be air-conditioned. The true golden age of american cinema began after the studio system fell apart in the 1950s and the Hays “moral” code became increasingly irrelevant throughout the 1960s.

The golden age started sometime in the early- to mid- 1960s. And there is something else, which facilitated this era. Today, we think of Hollywood movies as being internationally popular. This was, however, not the case for many decades. Many large European countries had flourishing local film industries for many decades before and, in some case, even after WW2. The Italian, Spanish, German and Russian film industries has tons of very talented directors, producers, actors and the financial means to make and distribute their products. So why did all these other players slowly decline after the 1950s and 1960s. Well.. in the case of film industry in Russia, Germany and other East-European countries, the rise of state communism and promotion of extremely bland control-freaks into position of power resulted in complex regimes of unofficial censorship. People with non-standard worldviews were either silenced or learned to keep quiet.

Let me put it this way.. the majority of memorable and influential movies you can think of simply could not be made in those countries after the early 1960s. Do you think they would have allowed their people to make movies such as Jaws, Star Wars Trilogy, ET, Back to the Future Trilogy, first two Godfather movies, Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Blade Runner, The Matrix, the first Jurassic Park, a couple of the original Indiana Jones etc? But why stop there.. what about the first two or three Police Academy movies, all those teen sex comedies from the 80s and 90s, spoofs with Leslie Nielsen or by Mel Brooks and many.. many more transgressive comedies. My point is that the quality of even mainstream Hollywood movies was pretty good (compared to rest of the world) between the late 1960s and early 2000s. But why was Hollywood able to make and market some pretty amazing movies in those three and a half decades- while the rest of the world kept making the same types of movies they had been making since the 1950s?

Some of you might invoke reasons such as american exceptionalism or Hollywood being run by a certain religio-ethic group. The reality is rather different and it all comes down to a combination of two or three factors that were unique to Hollywood. Firstly, after the late-1960s there wasn’t anywhere near the level of direct and indirect creative censorship as compared to other countries. For example- films in former east-Germany and Russia had to pass multiple rounds of scrutiny by people employed specifically to enforce ideological purity. Or take the case of India, where films that did not adhere to the standard Bollywood format had no chance of getting funded and filmed, let alone distributed. In sharp contrast to that, one could make and raise money for all sorts of crazy sounding ideas (some of which later became cultural landmarks) without the fear of being labelled as a dangerous subversive or a perma-failure in Hollywood.

Then there is the effect of 3-4 decades of post-WW2 opportunity for non-rich or non-connected people to get into the film industry. See.. one of the big differences between the american movie industry and the its equivalents in the rest of the world was that the former let people who were not rich or connected into the movie industry- especially behind the camera. Just look up the biographical details of most iconic movie director, producer, special effects guy etc between the late 1960s and early 2000s and you will see that they did not come from a family who was already established in the industry. but why does this matter? Well.. people who rise to their position by coming out the ‘right’ cunt are usually not the most competent or capable candidates for any given job. In my opinion, this was probably the most importance difference between Hollywood and its equivalents in other countries.

The third reason is linked to how success and failure was treated in Hollywood as compared to its foreign counterparts. Which is really a fancy way of saying that frequent failure was considered an unavoidable part of making movies. A few moderate failures or even a couple of nasty ones was not an automatic death sentence or cause of perpetual ostracism in Hollywood- as long as you had a decent record of success or demonstrable competence. To be clear, I am not saying that the american film industry was some great meritocracy full of fourth and fifth chances or kind altruistic people. But it was significantly better than its counterparts in other countries as long as you were white. It was this combination of factors which allowed the extraordinary three and a half decades ‘golden age’ of Hollywood- from 1968 to 2003. But why did it end at 2003? Let me put it this way, truly significant movies made after 2003 are few and widely spaced.

In the next part, I will go into some detail about why 2003 is the best cut-off point for Hollywood making truly amazing and creative movies. As you will see, it has much more to do with new business models based in financialism, managerialism and other bullshit ideas that are also destroying other industrial sectors in USA. You will also see how similar the demise in this sector is to concurrent demise of others such as pharmaceutical research, physical retail outlets and many more. I will also show you what outcomes these financial and managerial types are targeting and how that explains the demise of creativity. You will also see why these losers were in the back-seat during ‘golden age’ but are now firmly in driver’s seat of this dying car.

What do you think? Comments?