Archive for the ‘Skepticism’ Category

Thoughts on Kim Jong-un’s Motivations Behind Wanting to Meet Trump

April 20, 2018 8 comments

With the corporate media fixating on non-issues such as Comey’s recent book, the Mueller fishing expedition, Stormy Daniels latest BS claims and the most hilarious photo of Michael Cohen, it is not easy for many people in USA to be aware of the world beyond their borders. Also, as they say, nobody has gone broke underestimating the intelligence of american public. With that in mind, let us talk about an apparently unusual recent development in the state of relations between DPRK and USA. In case you missed it, the most important words in that sentence are ‘apparently unusual’- for reasons you shall see later on in this post.

Now, I am sure that at least some of you must have wondered about what factors were behind the sudden improvement in state of relations between DPRK and ROK (South Korea) since just before the 2018 winter Olympics. Why have relations between these two countries experienced a significant positive shift since the beginning of this year? And what does any of this have to do with the recent diplomatic overtures DPRK is making towards USA?

As regular readers know, I have written more than a few articles in the past few months about DPRK, especially its ICBM and nuclear weapon program. One of the more recent articles written by me on that topic made an interesting claim about how ICBMS and Nukes finally got Kim Jong-un the international respect he (and his predecessors) have always wanted. In that post, I also pointed out that Kim Jong-un’s recent interest in dialogue with ROK and USA were actually quite predictable since he has, in the past, repeatedly talked about his desire for such talks after DPRK acquired nukes and reliable ICBMs.

In fact, the stance of DPRK on talks with South Korea and USA have been pretty consistent over the years. They have also been very clear about what they want from any such deal. To summarize, DPRK wants a guarantee of security and non-aggression from USA and South Korea in addition to lifting of all economic sanctions against them in exchange for any deal which requires them to freeze their nuclear and missile program. The funny thing is such a deal with DPRK was reached and almost implemented in 1994. But american hubris and delusions of omnipotence ended up sabotaging what was probably the best (and only) chance of DPRK giving up its nuclear weapons.

The failure of that deal under Clinton42 and being labelled as part of ‘the axis of evil’ by Bush43 did however teach DPRK an important lesson. They realized that any deal made with the USA without the means for to independently enforce it was not worth the paper on which it was written. That is why they decided to keep on developing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. Development of these weapon systems reached a new urgency once Kim Jong-un formally became the head of state and the results of that drive are plainly visible. To make a long story short, nuclear weapons and ICBMs are the means by which DPRK can enforce any agreements it makes with USA and South Korea.

But haven’t we all heard some noise about DPRK willing to denuclearize soon? Well.. you heard wrong. DPRK is just repeating what it has always said, which is that it willing to participate in talks about denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. The precise wording does change a bit every time they make that offer, however the general gist of their demands remains the same. In short, they will denuclearize only if guaranteed safety from future military attacks or invasion by USA or South Korea. The problem with that condition is that USA has proved to be a completely unreliable party to such agreements in the past, with DPRK and more recently with countries in the Middle-East.

It does not help that no country has renounced self-developed nuclear weapons once they have built more than a few of them. Nor does the american treatment of countries which did not have them (Iraq) or stopped developing them (Libya) inspire any confidence. So what is Kim Jong-un trying to achieve by meeting with Trump? Also, is this meeting really about Trump or USA? Some jingoistic idiots in USA think that Kim Jong-un expressing a desire to meet Trump is the result of “economic sanctions working”, “China finally getting tired of DPRK” or some other assorted masturbatory fantasy common among older white men. The reality, once again, is quite different.

The proposed meeting with Trump is largely about chipping away at the alliance between South Korea and USA. And here is why.. For starters, the ruling class in DPRK have a very good and objective understanding of how the establishment in USA works or does not work. They know that the deep state in USA is incapable of doing things other than more war, economic sanctions or attempting to rape the economies of other countries. They understand that any treaty with USA without independent means to enforce it is worthless. They also understand that anything short of dissolving the current system in DPRK will not be acceptable to the deep state in USA- and that is not going to happen.

They have figured out that different parts of the government in USA, such as the legislatures, can and will derail any agreement just because the D-grade actors within them like to “act tough” for the credulous idiots who voted for them. They are fully aware of the extent to which decisions made by legislators are controlled by corporate donors, especially from the military-industrial complex. In other words, DPRK understands that anything short of complete and utter capitulation by them is unacceptable to most cliques in the american government. But, they also know that many in South Korea are willing to sign an agreement with far more realistic terms.

So how do you drive a permanent wedge between South Korea and USA? Well.. you start by developing the capacity to reliably nuke large metropolitan areas in mainland USA. Acquisition of such a capacity by DPRK makes any serious conventional or nuclear assault on it by USA and South Korea basically impossible. It also makes significant american intervention in any armed conflict between DPRK and South Korea far less likely than before. But that by itself is not enough to drive a wedge between them, which is why you require the second part.

Then next step for driving a wedge between them requires DPRK to put forth conditions for an agreement whose terms are perfectly acceptable to South Korea but will never be accepted by USA (even if they initially appear to be willing). We should therefore see the latest diplomatic overtures by Kim Jong-un as part of a strategy where he offers basically everything necessary for South Korea to accept the agreement but with just enough sticking points to be rejected by USA. That way, Kim Jong-un appears as the stable and reasonable person willing to deal with other countries such as South Korea and USA look like some out-of-touch old white guy still living in the 1950s.

But why do such something like this, if it is almost certain to fail? After all, South Korea is unlikely to sign an agreement without the explicit approval of USA.. right? But here is the thing.. DPRK understands that and actually wants that outcome because of what such a public failure will lead to. While South Korea will not sign an agreement without explicit american consent at this moment, it might very well have to do within a couple of years. Face it.. DPRK with its nukes and ICBMs is going to magically disappear if you wait long enough and South Korea understands that only too well. They also know that some stupid miscalculation by USA (especially the Trump administration) in near future could get them nuked regardless of who started the conflict.

In summary, the long-term survival and strategic interests of South Korea are no longer in line with american policy towards that region. DPRK understands this inherent contradiction and is cleverly using it to split the close alliance between South Korea and USA. To them, the proposed meeting with Trump is therefore just an opportunity to decisively show South Koreans and the world that they are far more reasonable than USA. They also know that the sheer amount of vitriol against Trump by the deep state in USA will cancel out any reasonable move made by him in such a meeting.

What do you think? Comments?

Factors Determining Russian Response to Current Provocations by USA

April 13, 2018 4 comments

As most of you must have heard by now, clever idiots belonging to the deep state in USA, UK and maybe France want to “punish” the current Syrian government for allegedly using “chemical weapons” against civilians in some part of Ghouta. In addition to the timing of this alleged “attack” being highly suspicious, it is worthwhile to note that all “evidence” presented so far has come from an extremist Islamist group funded, armed and trained by the USA and UK. In fact there is good reason to believe that this particular “attack” was either stage-manged by UK, including the fact that this extremist group was on the payroll of certain Sunni gulf states with the tacit approval of UK and USA.

Then there is the multi-billion dollar question as to why the Syrian army would use a chemical weapon as ineffective as chlorine gas (and just once) in the conflict for Eastern Ghouta which it effectively won yesterday. Also, why is the allegedly “humanitarian” anglo-american west are so desperately willing to believe a group which openly believes in killing non-Sunni Muslims? And what about the continued support for Saudi Arabia by the “west” in its ongoing genocidal (and unsuccessful) war in Yemen. And let us not forget all the civilian deaths that occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan due to actions of the “humanitarian west”, though they ended up losing both wars.

Clearly, this reeks of extremely high levels of bullshit and solipsism on part of the west. But a more detailed discussion on that topic is best left for a future post. Instead we will focus on how Russia, which is helping the Syrian government and has a legitimate military presence within that country, would respond to any large-scale military attack by the anglo-american countries against Syria and its own troops stationed in that country. More importantly, is it possible to predict how bad things will get if the anglo-american west is stupid enough to do something along those lines.

To understand the factors which will determine Russia’s response to any half-assed military adventurism in Syria by the anglo-american west, it is worthwhile to start with a quick lesson in history.

1] Most of you must be aware of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. OK, it wasn’t so much a crisis over Soviet missiles in Cuba as it was the USA throwing a fit that USSR was doing to it what it had done to the USSR. More specifically, installing Soviet nuclear-tipped IRBMs in Cuba by Khrushchev was a response to USA installing similar IRBMs in Tukey. After much posturing, a back-channel agreement between USA and USSR was reached that resulted in USSR withdrawing its missiles from Cuba in exchange for USA doing the same for its missiles in Turkey in the next few months- and global nuclear war was averted. At least that is where most historians in the west seem to stop.

So why is this incident relevant to the current events in Syria? Well.. it comes down to public perception of who “won” in the Cuban Missile Crisis and the effect of that perception on internal party politics within USSR. To make a long story short, secrecy surrounding the back-channel deal made between Khrushchev and JFK made the former look like the loser even though he achieved almost everything he wanted. The public loss of face was a major factor behind Khrushchev’s ouster in 1964. All of his successors, up to Yeltsin, took great effort to make sure that they would never be publicly perceived as weak in face of USA. You can be certain that Putin knows his Russian history very well.

2] Part of the reason that the Cuban Missile Crisis ended the way it did was that USSR in the early-1960s possessed significantly fewer long-range nuclear weapons than USA. Remember that this was the era when ICBMS and nuclear submarines carrying SLBMs was brand new technology and most long-range nuclear strokes were supposed to carried out by large bombers like the B-52 and Tu-95. Also spy satellite technology was in its infancy. All those issues were fixed by the late 1960s and since then there has always been a rough parity of nuclear warheads and delivery systems between USA and USSR and now Russia.

But what does that mean for any Russian response to nay large-scale anglo-american military action in Syria? Well.. a lot. For one, Putin in 2018 is not constrained by the limitations experienced by Khrushchev in 1962 while dealing with USA. Also, unlike his predecessors he has real leverage over many NATO members since Russia is a major supplier of gas and oil to those countries. It helps that he has been quite successful at nudging Turkey out of the NATO alliance. The fact is that “sanctions” or no sanctions, many NATO countries need to purchase Russian oil and gas (in addition to some other commodities) to keep functioning.

3] And this brings us to the issue of the almost continuous low-grade economic and PR warfare that the decrepit anglo-american west has been trying to wage against Russia since at least 2012. As I have stated in previous posts, I have a theory that many elites (of all countries but especially the west) lack a theory of mind. In other words, they believe that people all over the world think and act the same way for the same reasons. That is why these sad idiots believe that economic sanctions against Russia or “oligarchs close to Putin” would make him more amenable to USA. The events of the last few years have not supported this belief- to put it mildly.

As I wrote in a previous post, the military capacity of Russia is far stronger than its GDP (as measured in USD) would suggest. In fact, I wrote a short series on why comparing incomes and GDP across countries in USD has no relation to reality. My point is that all the “oligarchs” in Russia derive that current status from closeness to political power. Unlike USA, its is political leaders who control rich people in countries such as Russia and China. Consequently, their policies are far more insulated from corporate profit margins than in USA and other western countries.

It helps that the very obvious and overt campaign to demonize, humiliate and hurt average Russians since 2008 by the anglo-american west has increased support for Putin. Many of them also remember how oligarchs supported by the west looted and raped Russia in the 1991-2000 era, under the guise of “economic reform and liberalization”. Then there is the even bigger issue of world trade and commerce being increasingly centered around Asia rather than the stagnant and decaying societies of North America and western Europe.

To summarize, Russia and Putin are in a much better position to respond in kind to any large-scale anglo-american military adventures in Syria than most people realize. They also figured out, some years ago, that the anglo-american west is not (and was never) interested in an equal relationship with Russia. My guess is that they will make sure that their inevitable response to such stupid adventurism is seen as a response rather than as adventurism. Also, they might respond to the anglo-american west in more than one part of the world.

What do you think? Comments?

The Single Biggest Mistake Trump Has Made Since His Inauguration

April 10, 2018 8 comments

Regular readers of this blog might remember that, almost a year ago, I had written a short series about the likelihood of Trump completing his term as President. Some might also remember an even older series about my thoughts on the likely trajectory of a Trump presidency. To make a long story short, I predicted that the Trump presidency would become a giant shit-show because of his excessive and continued dependence on establishment republicans and an obsession with portrayal by corporate media. As some of you might have noticed, many of these predictions came true. Trump, so far, has “governed” like a moderately retarded establishment republican.

The inability of democratic party to translate the general lack of enthusiasm about Trump and Republicans into anything beyond a few electoral successes says volumes about their incompetence and general lack of vision. Then again, they are a bunch of intellectually bankrupt wankers, who cannot talk about anything beyond “Russia”, “Putin” and “Collusion”. These idiots seem to believe that the majority of people in USA who today live in a constantly precarious financial situation actually give a shit about their amateurish theatrical productions.. I mean “investigations”. Ironically, their stupid “investigations” have done more to make Trump look sympathetic to his support base and many others than was otherwise possible.

Having said that, it is now obvious to even his main support base that Trump has screwed up royally. For starters, he been unable to keep any of his major campaign promises (reasonable or ludicrous) to any worthwhile extent. Then there is the whole other issue of how everything he has “achieved” till now is restricted to pro-corporate establishment republican bullshit that many of his strongest supporters hate with a passion. Some of you might say that this turn of events was to be expected since Trump was always a scam artist- and that is partially correct. However, that does not address a far bigger issue- namely, his future.

His single biggest mistake and failure, so far, has been his inability to govern as a successful usurper.

Let me explain that in a bit more detail. Trump, you see, fits into a category of leaders known as Usurpers. While that term is often used to de-legitimize the person targeted with that label, the reality is that usurpers are typically people who start as outsiders or peripheral members of the ruling elite. They then go on attain political power through some combination of dumb luck, political intrigue and general dissatisfaction with status quo. Well known examples of such people through history include Julius Caesar, Augustus, Genghis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, Napoleon, Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler and Mao.

Less well-known examples of usurpers include Caligula, Cesare Borgia, Catherine the Great, Hong Xiuquan and Chiang Kai-shek. So why do some usurpers end up as successful and famous, while others as examples of failure and mockery. The short answer is that it comes down to two things. Firstly, their ability to increase their support base among general population and secondly, their handling of leftover elites and power structures of the previous regime. Every successful, or almost successful, usurper in history was able to extend his or her support base beyond the one which brought them to power. Even people such as Hitler and Stalin had high levels of genuine public support when they were in power.

So how did these successful usurpers increase their levels of public support once they assumed power? The short answer is, by presiding over populist reforms and redistribution of wealth. Perhaps you have heard how Julius Cesar was able to extend his power and increase his popularity by promulgating and implementing a host of populist economic reforms after he first became dictator. Or how Augustus spend a lot of money on construction of public buildings and other stuff that was useful to the non-elites in population as well as creating jobs. Even less savory characters such as Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin and Mao made considerable effort to employ more people and redistribute wealth away from the previous group of elites.

And this brings us the second defining characteristic of all successful usurpers- they destroyed the previous elite class and replaced them with a new one. Of course, not everybody pulled a Stalin and summarily jailed, exiled or killed the previous elites or anybody associated with them. Some like Caesar, Augustus and Hitler gradually pushed all previous elites who did not agree with them out of positions where they could cause problems. Others like Napoleon had the advantage of starting with a clean slate because of preceding events. But make no mistake, every single usurper who succeeded and lived to tell the tale spent a lot of their energies destroying every member of the previous elite class who they did not trust.

Which brings us to Trump or, more precisely, how he has failed so far. To make a long story short, Trump has been unable to do the two most important things any usurper must do in order to succeed in the long-term. As many of you know, Trump has been unable or unwilling to implement genuine populist reforms which would extend this support base. To that end, everything he has done so far has enriched the already wealthy previous group of elites (who hate him anyway) while increasing the impoverishment of his supporters. But it gets worse.. Successful usurpers end up as successful because they do manage to change the status quo in a manner which makes them more popular.

So far, Trump has rubber-stamped every establishment policy and idea- however boneheaded it might have been. I would go so far as to say that most decisions made by him in office are almost identical to those made by Bush43 and Obama44. His most fatal mistake, however, has been his reluctance or inability to get rid of the previous elite class from positions of power. In spite of a higher than usual turnover in senior posts, he has been unable to replace enough rank-and-file type junior elites to actually consolidate his grip on power. It does not help that he has filled his administration with establishment republican types who hate him or people who are so unpopular and out of touch with reality that their unpopularity rubs onto him.

In conclusion, I think that there is very high chance that Trump will be remembered as an unsuccessful and incompetent usurper. The next one, might however, be far more competent.

What do you think? Comments?

Initial Thoughts on Novichok Agents, Sergei Skripal, Russia and UK: 2

April 6, 2018 2 comments

About two weeks ago, I wrote a post about the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his adult daughter by an organophosphate compound– allegedly by “russian agents” in UK. At that time, corporate MSM outlets in the west were busy concocting increasingly outrageous stories about that incident. As it turns out, pretty much every single story promoted by the MSM about that incident turned out to be unsubstantiated by evidence. For example: initial reports of twenty other people being accidentally exposed to that compound proved to be incorrect. The only other person allegedly exposed to that compound has since recovered and we still are not sure about how he got exposed to it in the first place.

More tellingly, none of the first responders and medical personnel got ill from handling Skripal and his daughter. Initially, British authorities had claimed that the poison was found in the car ventilation system, then they claimed it was on the door handle and now they are considering the possibility that it was in a gift brought over by his daughter from Russia. They also initially said that Skripal and his daughters had little to no chance of recovery and we now learn that his daughter is recovering and will leave the hospital soon. Today, we are told that Skripal will also make a ‘miraculous’ recovery.

In other words, the “official” narrative put forth by the British government about that incident has been unusually vague, ever-changing and too dependent on having uncritical belief in their honesty. Some of you might recall how similar and totally made up claims by British “intelligence” services at the core of’Iraq Dossier‘ were used by Tony Blair’s government to justify support for the failed american invasion of Iraq in 2003. There is also a strong parallel between this incident and the attempt by German intelligence agencies in 1994 (with approval by USA) to implicate the then Russian government in a fake plot to smuggle plutonium into the west.

To make matters even more peculiar, the British government still has not been able to provide evidence that it knows the identity or structure of the compound involved in that incident. As I wrote in my previous post, indirect identification of organophosphate compounds by their ability to inhibit cholinesterases and other related esterases is pretty straightforward. Definitive identification of the compound, though easy nowadays compared to 30 years ago, is substantially more complicated. Having said that, the apparent inability of multiple government labs in nearby British biological and chemical warfare laboratories at Porton Down to provide objective data to support their claims of identifying the compound is odd.

Based on the many peculiarities and oddities of this case in addition to the past history of those making the accusations, it is worthwhile considering another possibility. Maybe the British government, or some faction within its “deep state”, is behind the poison attack on Skripal and his daughter. False flag attacks to generate public sympathy for, or unity behind, a cause are not unknown. Similarly, there is a rich history in the “west” of using false flag attacks to demonize another country. It is also hard to ignore that the “deep state” in UK and USA is the biggest beneficiary of such an attack. Let me explain that point in some detail..

Skripal was an ex-Russian spy who betrayed his fellow officers in the KGB for purely financial reasons. You probably know that he was caught and tried in 2004 and imprisoned for a few years (2004-2010) in Russia before being part of a spy swap deal with UK and USA in 2010. If the government in Russia really wanted him dead, he would not have lived long enough to be part of the spy swap deal in 2010. Then there is the question of why this incident occurred days before the presidential election in Russia. Think about it.. how does such an incident benefit Putin in his reelection campaign? The simple fact is that it does not help him.

Such an incident does however provide the “deep state” in UK and USA with more ammo in their ineffectual campaign to demonize Putin. It is no secret that the USA and its old crippled prison-bitch aka UK are not adjusting well to the emerging world order- an order in which they stand to further lose whatever real or imagined global influence they possessed. It is no secret that the many recent global military misadventures by USA (and UK) such as the failed invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan have been humiliating and expensive failures. Their attempts to extend NATO right upto Russian borders and generally behave as if the world is still stuck in 2000 have not gone as planned.

The pathetic attempts by USA, UK and France (waning western powers) to interfere in other parts of the world such as Syria and part of Africa has been unsuccessful. Furthermore, their dream of turning Russia into some vassal state ruled by west-friendly oligarchs has been a miserable failure. It does not help that the financial crash of 2008 has exposed the many failures of western neoliberalism to their own domestic populations. It is no wonder, therefore, that average people in the west have in the recent past voted for concepts such as Brexit and people such as Trump and other fake right-wing populists. To make a long story short, the traditional elite in the west (especially the USA and UK) are feeling their power slip away irreversibly.

It is therefore not surprising that these mediocrities are trying to reboot the Cold War. The general thought process behind their actions is as follows.. The cold war was good for establishment elites as it allowed them to consolidate their power in western countries and suppress dissent and challenges to their undeserved power. Perhaps, rebooting the Cold War (they think) would let them use the same playbook and turn back the metaphorical clock. Of course, any objective person can see that this hare-brained scheme is going in failure since the underlying conditions across the world have changed a lot since the late 1980s.

Then again, establishment elite have never been the sharpest tools in the shed (link 1, link 2). I mean.. look at how they are reacting to Trump’s election in USA. Not a minute goes by when these idiots are not breathlessly talking about another leak from the “Mueller team”, another “new” link between Putin and Trump or some other similar absurdity. In fact, I have written more than one post about this in the past, including how this obsession is a symptom of a much deeper intellectual bankruptcy among establishment elites in USA.

All of this in addition to the “deep state” fondness for hare-brained schemes which look amazingly impressive on paper strongly suggest that the poisoning of Skripal and his daughter in UK was a false flag operation, which did not work out as originally planned.

What do you think? Comments?

Why Don’t Most Black People in USA Publicly Say Cops are Murderers?

April 1, 2018 30 comments

As I wrote in a previous post, smartphones have provided us far more proof of police murdering unarmed black people in USA than the existence of UFOs. Regular readers might also recall a short series about my thoughts on what the response to legalized murder of black men says about USA. To summarize it, legalized murder of black people by “law enforcement” is really just business as usual in USA. This peculiar state of affairs has (and always had) the support of a significant majority of white people in USA, for reasons that have nothing to with their own safety or comfort.

Of course, doing things based on conditions prevalent in previous eras tend to start failing once the underlying factors which allowed things to work in the past, undergo irreversible change. We no longer live in the pre-19th century era or the mid-20th century, even if some in USA would like to go back to those eras. Furthermore, the USA as a socio-economic system is no longer in the ascendant.. to put it mildly. There is also the issue of younger generations of black people in USA not being obsessed with acceptance by “white society” unlike their parent’s generation.

Some of you might wonder why I use the word ‘black’ rather than ‘African-American’. Well.. black people are the target of systemic racial discrimination in USA because they are perceived as such by the majority of ‘white’ people in USA. The fact that their ancestors were brought over from some part of Africa is, at best, a historical footnote. Also, a white guy born in South Africa who ends up living in USA is unlikely to ever be treated as shoddily as the average black person even though he would, technically, qualify as African-American.

And this brings me to an observation about the many frequent popular protests in response to even more frequent incidents of legalized murder of black people by police. By now, I am sure that all of you have seen many photos and videos of such marches and protests, not to mention the disturbing video recordings which caused each instance of such protests. So.. did you notice anything unusual about the signs carried by protesters or demands verbalized by them? Here is a clue.. the most commonly seen slogans seem to be very bland and rather vague. Examples: ‘black lives matter’, ‘don’t shoot’, ‘no justice no peace’, ‘we won’t be silenced’, ‘stop police brutality’ etc.

While these and similar slogans are perfectly reasonable, they do not address the real reason why all those marches and protests had to occur in the first place. Let me spell out the fucking obvious.. the fundamental reason why unarmed black people are routinely murdered by the police comes down to the simple, but unpleasant, fact that they are black. While there have been a few recent publicized instances of cops killing some “economically-challenged” white guys, let us not pretend that race is the single most important factor why unarmed black men are routinely murdered by the police in USA.

Did you notice that I just used the word ‘murder’ to describe the killing of unarmed black men by police but ‘killing’ to describe something similar if the victims were white men? Why is that so? And what is the difference between those two terms? Well.. for one ‘murder’ always implies a degree of premeditation and targeting by the perpetrator. In contrast to that, ‘killing’ does not imply premeditation. For example, if the actions of a drunk or fatigued driver result in the death of one or more person, its is classified as manslaughter or wrongful death rather than a murder since the perpetrator in such cases almost never deliberately targets the victims.

But is that really true in the case of police shooting and ‘killing’ unarmed black people in USA? Think about it.. how many white people have been ‘killed’ by the police because their cellphones were mistaken for handguns? How many white men were ‘killed’ running away unarmed from a police stop? How many white men were ‘killed’ because they disclosed they had a legally obtained concealed firearm? How many unarmed white men were ‘killed’ because the police officer in question felt threatened? I could go on and on.. but you see the trend, don’t you?

Now combine this trend with the well-known history of how black people have been subject to systemic and pervasive racial discrimination in USA. Any half-intelligent person with a decent level of objectivity would correctly connect the dots and conclude that the ‘killing’ of unarmed black men by police in USA is an official policy rather than a series of unconnected unfortunate events. The ‘killing’ of unarmed black people by police in USA is therefore murder, more specifically state-sanctioned murder.

So, why don’t most black people in USA openly say that cops are murderers? What do they have to lose by publicly pointing out the fucking obvious? Why do most signs at protest marches against murders by police always talk about abstract concepts like “justice” or “reform”. Isn’t the whole purpose of the “law and order” apparatus in USA to terrorize most people into allowing themselves to be exploited and enrich a very few, rather than provide anything approaching “justice”? Have you ever seen CEOs who ran large corporations into the ground being prosecuted for their actions? What about bankers who defrauded millions of people?

My theory about the reluctance of black people to publicly say that cops in USA are state-sanctioned murderers comes down to a couple of major points.

1] Too many of them (especially in older generations) still believe in concepts such as “gaining respectability and acceptance” from ‘whites’ in USA. The sad reality about that belief is that something which has not occurred over many decades is unlikely to happen in the near future. Tied to this problem is the fact that too many of them (especially in older generations) have bought into the idea that they are somehow to blame for how they are treated by ‘whites’.

Not enough of them ask questions such as how white men who kill innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan (and Vietnam in Cambodia in the past) are seen as good people while desperate black guys who rob a gas station or sell pot are considered to be dangerous criminals. Too many black people still see black guys who sell crack and heroin as criminals while ignoring all those white guys making billions each year by pushing prescription amphetamines and opioids.

2] At the risk of being even more controversial, it is fair to say that the effect of Christianity and its institutions on black people in USA has been largely negative. Religions with their focus on the “next life”, false “morality” and victim-blaming have always been the opiate of the masses. It is telling that black people are among the most devout followers of Christianity in USA. Moreover, their strong belief in Christianity is an important part of why so many in the older generation believe in bullshit concepts such as “respectability” and “acceptance” by whites.

There is also the problem of most black “leaders” still coming from he background of organized religion. It also does not help that most all them are scam artists who are too happy to play the house slave for monetary rewards. To put it another way, the religious convictions of black people and the type of people who end up becoming their “leaders” has a lot to do with why there has not been progress in the field of civil rights since the 1970s. It is also why the black community has been unable to respond to problems such as mass incarceration, continued systemic racial discrimination and frequent state-sanctioned murders of its members.

What do you think? Comments?

Using Children as a Front for Deceptive “Causes” is No Longer Viable

March 26, 2018 21 comments

By now, most of you have seen or read something about the new astroturfed campaign to ban guns known as “March for Our Lives”. Leaving aside a host of inconvenient facts such as school shootings are less common today than during the 1990s, most “gun deaths” in USA are suicides, many countries with strict gun control have a higher incidence of suicide than USA and so on, we are still left with the reality that there is co-ordinated campaign by democrats to use non-black children as a front to ban private ownership of guns in USA.

So what do I think about the chance for this campaign to succeed in achieving its objective? The very short version of my answer is that this campaign will fail in a spectacular fashion- especially if the corporate media attempts to keep on pushing it over the next few months. In fact, it might very likely end up costing democrats their potential victory and control of the house in the mid-term elections of 2018. The much longer version of my answer and explanations for my predictions can be found in the rest of this post.

So, let me start by pointing out something that is obvious but appears to have forgotten by most people. Using children as a front for advancing deceptive “causes” has ceased to be a successful electoral strategy in USA since the late-1990s. However, establishment democrats dependent on their highly paid and out-of-touch political “consultants” seem to believe that we are still in the 1990s. Even worse, they have not learned anything from recent history. You might recall that HRC campaign in 2016 ran an unbelievably large number of TV and internet ads which were some version of “Trump is a bad, bad man” and “Oh.. won’t somebody think about the children”.

We all know how that one ended.. and while many “pundits” and “experts” were shocked by the election results- it was clear to observers on the ground that the 2016 election was always far closer than “official polls” predicted. One might think that such a humiliating loss might have caused establishment democrats to go through a process of introspection and analysis. However it is hard to see problems when your paycheck or sinecure depends on pretending that there are no problems. Consequently, establishments democrats just doubled down on the “Trump is a bad, bad man” theme with the addition of “Russia hacked the election for Trump”.

As I have said in previous posts (link 1, link 2 and link 3), blaming Russia and “Putin” for why a candidate such as HRC lost to a reality show clown like Trump is a sign of intellectual bankruptcy and rapidly approaching irrelevance on the part of accusers. This is not to say that Trump is a competent president. As some of you might recall- after predicting his victory in the 2016 election, I wrote a short series about how he was almost certain to fuck up badly regardless of whether he tried to keep his election promises or not.

Now, let us turn to how all of this and more is linked to the futility of using children as fronts for pushing deceptive “causes” after the late 1990s. Which brings us the question.. why was using children as a front for pushing deceptive “causes” a workable strategy until the late-1990s? Also, why did it start losing effectiveness after that and become virtually useless by 2016?

To understand what I trying to explain you next, ask yourself the following question- would you kill and eat a dog or cat unless you were in some extreme circumstances? If not, why not? And how is killing and eating a dog or cat different from doing the same for pigs or goats- two animals that are as intelligent as dogs and cats. The simple answer to that question is that dogs and cats are widely kept as pets unlike pigs and goats. In other words, extensive familiarity with dogs and cats is what allows most people to humanize and care about them. Now apply the same logic to understand why most people USED to care about the future welfare of children as a group.

Long story short- it comes down to the fact that in previous eras, most people had their own children with whom they had better-than-decent relationships. Empathy and caring for children is not instinctual for most people, especially men. The flip side is that people without their own children or those who have little contact with them simply don’t have an deep-seated desire to care for them or their future prospects. While they may be perfectly competent baby-sitters or otherwise normal in their interactions with the children of other people, they do not have any real attachment to them.

Perhaps more importantly, they are unwilling to sacrifice something which matters to them with the vague expectation that it might “help the children”. With that in mind, think about how many 30- and 40-something men today have a biological offspring with whom they enjoy a good and strong relationship. More importantly, how many men in those and younger age groups have a reasonable expectation of having children with whom they will enjoy a good relationship. And now think about how much this has changed since the 1990s.

The same is true, to a lesser extent, for women. How many highly educated women have maybe just one child in their late-30s to show others that they are “normal”? How many either postpone it indefinitely or just choose to have none? To be clear, I am not pushing traditionalism or any similar bullshit ideology. My point is that the percentage of people with kids of their own is directly proportional to how many would give a flying fuck about some “cause” which might “help the children”. And that, you see, is why deceptive advertising campaigns based on “won’t somebody think of the children” have failed so miserably after the late-1990s.

What do you think? Comments?

Recap of Previous Posts on Futility of Attempts at “Gun Control” in USA

March 25, 2018 1 comment

As more regular readers of this blog know, I have written more than a few posts on why attempts to implement “gun control” in USA are doomed to failure in addition to being worse than useless. While I often link to 2-3 older posts in each newer one on that topic, I thought it was a good idea to create a more comprehensive link list for the major ones. Also, it is Sunday and I am trying to finish up another post on a related issue.

Mass Shootings Occur in USA Because It is a Third-World Country (from February 2018)

First world countries are defined by the quality of life enjoyed by their median resident, as are third world countries. For example- Japan, South Korea, France, Germany etc are seen as first world countries because of the high quality of life for their median residents. Living in such countries is characterized by things such as excellent universal healthcare, fairly stable and well-paying jobs for the majority of its residents, reasonably good formal and informal social safety nets and an overall lack of extremely poor and desperate people. In other words, life for the median resident in these countries is very good and even the less fortunate are doing better than treading water.

Now contrast this to the overall quality of life in countries such as Mexico, Brazil, India and yes.. USA. While these countries have no shortage of billionaires and lesser rich people with fabulous lifestyles- things are pretty shitty for their median residents. Most people in these countries have precarious jobs and livelihoods which often do not pay enough for the ever-increasing costs of sub-standard housing, healthcare and education. The government in these countries work solely for the benefit of the rich minority and does not provide adequate social goods such as healthcare, education, housing, sanitation or a usable social safety net.

On the Democratic Party’s Unfortunate Obsession with Gun Control (from August 2017)

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

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

On the Futility of Attempts at Gun Control in the USA (from July 2015)

And this brings us to the second issue- namely, that a significant minority of people do not perceive the current government system as being legitimate. But why does that matter? Don’t people in other developed countries have similar views about their governments? Well.. it does matter, because people in other developed countries do perceive their governments to be significantly more legitimate than people in the USA see their own. But why? What makes people in Japan, Germany or even the U.K feel that their government is legitimate? The simple answer is that the perceived legitimacy of a government is directly proportional to the consistency and effectiveness of its efforts to maintain the quality of life for the median citizen.

It is therefore no surprise that gun control measures seem to work in countries where the government directly or indirectly intervenes in favor of the median citizen. I should also point out countries with such government systems always had very low rates of deaths by individual acts of violence- especially in the post-WW2 era. In contrast to that, countries in which governments routinely and overtly abuse the majority to benefit the rich minority always had rather high rates of non-state sanctioned homicides. That is why certain countries such as Mexico, Brazil and South Africa have rather high rates of non-state sanctioned homicides despite highly restrictive gun ownership laws. My point is that the USA has always been more like Mexico, Brazil and South Africa than Japan, Germany or the U.K.

LIEbrals push for more gun control laws because they do not want to acknowledge that the USA has always been an affluent third-world country and that they have greatly benefited from this situation.

Non-Gun Mass Killings Will Become the Next New Trend (from August 2012)

It seems that we can hardly go a week without some quiet, lonely and otherwise law-abiding guy shooting up a few people. Such mass shootings have created an outcry among morons who think that guns kill people. There is however considerable evidence that killing lots of people without guns is actually quite easy, if the persons doing it is so determined. Moreover there are excellent contemporary examples, such as the ongoing drug wars in Mexico, that show the inefficacy of legal gun control in preventing people from acquiring guns.

Now I don’t know whether these weekly mass-shootings will become more frequent (likely) or deadlier (somewhat less likely), but that discussion is best saved for another post. But there is another and far more interesting trend that I predict will emerge regardless of whether lawmakers try to pass more restrictive laws about gun ownership. I have partially tackled this issue in a previous post. People who are unhappy with the system, and see no viable future, will increasingly kill others through means that are not gun or explosive linked.

Why (New) Gun Laws Won’t Prevent Mass Killings (also, from August 2012)

Attempts to control the legal ownership of guns are superficial “do something” acts which so not address the underlying causes of the malady. The reality is that there is really no way a failing society can stop such acts. Do you really think that people who have nothing to lose will follow laws and regulations? Do you think they won’t get firearms through extra-legal channels? Do you think a failing government can control the system? Do you think James Holmes would have done less damage with a couple dozen Molotov cocktails and a few matches in a crowded theater? Are you going to regulate gasoline usage next? The only way to effectively reduce the incidence of mass killings is through the creation of a socio-economic system which treats people with a basic level of human dignity.

But I don’t think that will happen. The whole modus operandi of the USA as a society has been to abuse, steal and murder others to get rich and impoverish those who survive. For a long time, they mostly did it to outsiders and minorities, but they eventually ran out of them as far as profit is concerned. That is when they turned to (and on) each other. While it looked fairly harmless in the beginning (early 1980s), things have got worse with each passing year. The reality is human beings, especially the so-called clever ones, are too short-sighted to appreciate the effects of their own actions.

What do you think? Comments?