Archive

Archive for the ‘Skepticism’ Category

An Interesting YouTube Channel about Homeless People in USA

August 16, 2018 Leave a comment

As many of you know, I have long held the belief that the relatively high levels of homelessness seen in the ‘West’, but especially in USA, tell us a lot about human nature and an almost childish belief in socio-economic systems such as capitalism. The simple fact that a nation state can spend over 700 billion dollars a year on “defense”, somehow have many tens of billions more to spend on absurd security theater such as mass incarceration and then pretend that it has no money for an adequate social safety net, says a lot about it and most of the people who inhabit it.

A small part of me is encouraged to see that white people who once had “normal” livelihoods (and probably sang the praises of capitalism and individualism) are increasingly represented in the chronically homeless and almost homeless. There is something to be said about people finally having to pay the price for believing in ideologies and institutions that were never meant to benefit them. Between this trend and kids of white baby boomers being stuck with horrendous student debt and precarious low-paying jobs, we can see that the proverbial chickens are coming home to roost for all those idiots who once believed that were on the verge of becoming rich.

YouTube Channel: Invisible People.

And here are a couple of clips.

Clip #1

Clip #2

What do you think? Comments?

Do Establishment Democrat FanBoys, Such as MikeCA, Have a ‘Plan B’?

August 15, 2018 5 comments

I have noticed that a few commentators, especially MikeCA, seem to just love the establishment- especially its democratic party version. From defending the “right” of cops to murder innocent black men, defending the darkly comic “RussiaGate” as gospel truth (too many to link), defending the latest idiocy of foreign “policy” establishment in USA (too many to link) and worshiping the newest brain-fart emanating from the mouth of failed “credentialed” elite in USA.

So here are a few questions, all of which center around the title of this post.

1] Do democratic party establishment worshipers such as MikeCA have a ‘Plan B’ if the Mueller investigation cannot show any direct collusion or serious illegal behavior between Trump and “Putin” or “Russia”? Do they have any ‘Plan B’ for the inevitable backlash, both from republicans and over-enthusiastic partisan democrats, when they realize that it was all a big failed farce?

2] Do establishment democratic party worshipers such as MikeCA have a ‘Plan B’ if the they do not win back the house in November 2018 mid-terms? Alternatively, what if the margin of victory (seats) is in single digit range and therefore functionally useless to start impeaching Trump? Are you going to keep on shouting “Russia, Russia” or “Putin, Putin” for next two years?

3] Do establishment democratic party worshipers such as MikeCA have any plan to deal with the eventuality that Trump will outlast and survive any ongoing investigation or future ones to run as the republican candidate in 2020? Do you have any other lines than “Trump is a bad.. bad man” or “Trump! Putin! Russia!”? Can people like you even think about such eventualities?

4] Do establishment democratic party worshipers such as MikeCA have a ‘Plan B’ if they lose in 2018 and 2020? And don’t tell me that it cannot happen. The democratic party lost over 1,000 state-level seats, control of most state legislatures and most governorships since 2008. So far, they have not shown the ability to consistently win against republican opponents who are not racist idiots chasing 12-13 year old girls.

So.. MikeCA, do you and others like yourself have a well-thought out ‘Plan B’ that does not depend on magical thinking for even a single one of these contingencies? And I am deliberately ignoring even more problematic issues such as possible wars with Iran, DPRK, Russia or a disastrous trade war with China.

What do you think? Comments?

Freedom of Speech Matters, Even if the Provocateur is Alex Jones: 2

August 13, 2018 6 comments

As mentioned in the previous post of this series, laws to protect free speech are really about protecting unpopular speech. For a long time, organisations such as the ACLU understood that standing up for highly unpopular speech was necessary to prevent the creation of legal precedent to suppress other forms of free speech. Of course, that was before the ACLU was influenced and infiltrated by SJWs– and yes, I am aware of the irony my linking to a piece on a LIEbertarian rag such as ‘Reason’. But the point still stands- organisations which once stood up for the right to free speech, especially its unpopular forms, are now trying to justify their unwillingness to fully support obnoxious characters such as Alex Jones.

But why are so few willing to support Alex Jones? Sure.. the guy is an obnoxious character whose style of acting makes William Shatner seem restrained. But so are many other people, both public figures and private citizens. I mean.. there is no law against being a loud obnoxious asshole with a penchant for hammy acting. Nor is hawking “dietary supplements” of dubious efficacy a crime in USA- thanks to all that wonderful lobbyist-paid legislation passed in mid-1990s. In other words, Alex Jones is not any worse a human being than many YouTube celebrities I can think of right now. And let us be honest- the “conspiracy theories” he is purveying are no more sane or insane than what you see on TV shows such as Ancient Aliens, in its 13th or 14th season now.

So why have so many LIEbral idiots and presstitutes.. I mean “objective credentialed journalists” gotten their panties in a bunch over a character whose bullshit and scams are as American as they come. And why do they keep on repeating some nonsense about how his online presence is somehow hurtful to the mental and physical well-being of “normal folk”. Are they suggesting that people who peddle crazy shit and hilarious lies should not be allowed a public forum? Because if that is their central argument for deplatforming Alex Jones, they themselves are guilty of far greater crimes with infinitely higher real-world body counts than anything he is even remotely capable of pulling off. And they have doing it for a long.. long time.

Some of you might be aware that public support for wars as old as the Spanish-American War of 1898 was largely created by lies published by state-supported journalists of the day. The same can be said of WW1 and WW2. But since none of us are old enough to remember that, let us start something closer to out time- namely, the role of these “credentialed objective journalist” in pushing the Vietnam war to an ignorant and racist public in its early years. To make a long story short, the vast majority of american journalists (print, radio and TV) kept on selling the war to the american public until the 1968 Tet Offensive made it just too hard to ignore reality.

But until then these CONartists.. I mean “honest objective journalists” had no problem reprinting press releases from the american government as news and publishing pretty much any other bullshit in order to demonstrate their loyalty to the system. It might come as a shock to some people now, but there was once a time when Americans volunteered for the Vietnam war- partly under the assumption that they were going to win it, based on the lies and bullshit spewed out by mainstream journalists of that era. Of course, things got real once it became hard to hide the increasing number of body bags and crippled soldiers coming back to USA.

So should all the journalists of that era who willingly and enthusiastically lied for the american government be held responsible for the unnecessary loss of life on the American and Vietnamese side? How many of those who wrote glowing articles about American intervention in Vietnam prior to the Tet offensive lost their jobs because of knowingly publishing lies and bullshit? What about NONE! But why stop there.. Remember the lies published by those “objective professional journalists” to help convince the american public of the need for first Gulf War in 1991? Or what about enthusiastically spreading lies about presence of WMDs in Iraq to justify the failed occupation of Iraq in 2003. Did any journalist lose their job over publishing government-sanctioned lies? Heck.. many of them still write in NYT, WP and appear on cable news.

If you support deplatforming Alex Jones because of some negligible real-life harm people who listen to his shows may have done, how can you justify the continued ability of those who cheerlead disastrous wars such the Vietnam War, Afghanistan War and Iraq Occupation to still have careers in journalism? Aren’t american journalist responsible for tens of thousands of american soldiers who got killed or crippled by those senseless conflicts? What about the millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians who died during Vietnam war? What about hundreds of thousands who died due to conditions created by war in Afghanistan and failed Iraq Occupation?

If you believe that some mentally unstable idiot who listed to Alex Jones show and then went with a semi-auto rifle to a Pizzeria in DC is sufficient for Alex Jones to be deplatformed, how can you justify the continued ability of the vast majority of journalist in USA who work for corporate news outlets to still have a job? If you think Alex Jones allegedly doxing parents of kids who were killed in the Sandy Hook school shooting is bad enough for him to be deplatformed, what do you think about all those mainstream journalists whose carelessness over the years has resulted in torture, imprisonment and death of their sources? Face it.. “credentialed objective journalists” who work for corporate news outlets in USA have been responsible for crimes that are thousands of times more horrendous than anything Alex Jones is accused of.

What do you think? Comments?

Freedom of Speech Matters, Even if the Provocateur is Alex Jones: 1

August 10, 2018 11 comments

As I briefly talked about in my previous post on this topic, the willingness of large monopolistic corporations to cut off essential services to an unpopular person without due process is highly problematic. Some of you might say that people like Alex Jones, who are cheerleaders of an ideology which hold private and corporate power to be supreme, deserve to be screwed by the very system they worship. And, Yes.. it is darkly funny and ironic that a prominent cheerleader for libertarianism got run over by large corporations acting as surrogate government agencies.

Some of those who commented to my previous post put forth excuses such as.. “they are private corporations”, “he was doing illegal things”, “Google, FaceBook and Apple are not monopolies” and “Free Speech protection does not apply to private corporations” etc. I for one find the sudden love among LIEbrals for private corporations, private property rights, insights into laws about monopolies and free speech rather amusing. Wasn’t it barely two weeks ago when LIEbrals were loudly professing to believe in exactly the opposite of what they are claiming this week?

Then again, establishment LIEbrals have been enthusiastically kissing the ground which Mueller and his fellow NeoCons walk on for almost a years now. They act as if the failed and highly expensive occupation of Iraq never occurred. They pretend that all these newfound icons did not lie through their teeth about the presence of WMDs in Iraq, how american soldiers would be greeted as liberators, how the occupation would cost less than 60 billion USD etc. And don’t forget all those ‘mainstream’ media outlets pimping fake intelligence in 2002 and early- 2003.

My point is that there is something very wrong and short-sighted about cheering on a bunch of wannabe tyrants just because they are persecuting some unpopular person first. And this raises the even bigger issue of why protection of free speech is so important. Let me begin this part by saying that we have laws to protect free speech because it is implicitly understood that free speech is often unpopular speech. Nobody is going to persecute you if you shout “USA, USA” at some game or “thank some veteran for his or her service”. Protection of free speech is, therefore, exclusively about protecting unpopular speech.

Free speech is about calling an asshole an asshole. It is about openly criticizing unjust institutions and systems. It is about organizing and protesting against injustice and unfair treatment. It is about expressing viewpoints contrary to the popular narrative. It is about expressing a dissenting viewpoint in as colorful a manner as you choose. Free speech, especially unpopular speech, provides a feedback mechanism for society to find out and address problems, both temporary and systemic- if it chooses to do so. As you will soon see, there is a good reason behind my decision to put a photo of Alex Jones alongside MLK, Malcolm X and Larry Flynt in the attached graphic.

I am sure that a few of you might be scandalized by my decision to compare the current travails of Alex Jones to such historical and notable figures such as MLK and Malcolm X. That comparison is however far more accurate than many of you would want to admit. For starters, the biggest controversies surrounding MLK and Malcolm X during their lifetimes centered around what they said and the causes they openly supported. Let me remind you that Jim Crow laws, overt “legal” discrimination against blacks and generally treating them as less-than-human was the accepted way of doing things in USA as late as the mid-1960s. In other words, their speech was unpopular speech.

Now ask yourself, have you heard of any instance of either MLK or Malcolm X being denied phone connections by the Bell monopoly of that era, because of their unpopular views? I am sure many whites would have loved to see that happen, but it did not. But why not? Well.. there were laws and regulations that prevented monopolies such as Bell from denying service to people without due legal process. Long story short, they could not deny telephone connections to anyone who paid their bills on time and did not intentionally damage their rented equipment.

The same was true for gas, electricity and water utility companies. Similarly, it was quite hard for major public venues (even at that time) to deny them space for holding large meetings. Compare that to the situation today. Do you think FaceBook would have let groups which openly protested “existing laws” exist on their platform? Would YouTube keep hosting videos in which someone like MLK encouraged his supporters to break “existing laws” even when those laws were clearly unjust. Let me remind you that majority of whites in 1960s were against civil rights and racial equality.

To put it another way, even somebody like MLK would have been deplatformed by internet and communication monopolies such Google, FaceBook and Apple if they had existed at that time. Let us now talk about Malcolm X, or more specifically what he said in his more well-known speeches. Do you think he would be able to remain of social media platforms such as FaceBook, YouTube etc after his famous ‘The Ballot or the bullet‘ speech? Ever considered that a lot of what he said in his other speeches would have gotten him multiple strikes for “hate speech”.

Or what about Larry Flynt, whose first famous conflict with the establishment was over his decision to publish spread nudes of women in the 1970s. And yes, I know they were very hairy- because it was the 1970s. Was the telephone company able cut his connection because they disagreed with the ‘morality’ of his business decisions? What about the press who printed his magazines? Moving on a bit further, do you remember how he got himself into that famous supreme court case. In case you don’t, he used his magazine to incessantly troll religious and conservative frauds such as Jerry Falwell. He won the case and they made a film about it later.

The point I am trying to make is the laws to defend Free Speech are really about defending Unpopular Speech. There is a reason why the standard for what constitutes Free Speech is set such that it is not easy to suppress it with spurious claims of libel and slander- especially if you are a public figure. To be clear, this does not mean you can libel and slander people in a malicious manner. In fact, I know people who received satisfactory settlements against certain well-known news outlets who had libeled and slandered their good name.

If Alex Jones libeled and slandered people or actually incited violence against specific individuals, he should be sued by the affected individuals and the case should be tried before an independent judge and jury and under conditions where his legal counsel can cross-examine the plaintiffs and their witnesses. In other words, even somebody like Alex Jones deserves the benefit of due legal process. His fate should not be decided behind closed doors and on the whims of some petty and unaccountable tyrants employed by internet monopolies such as Google, FaceBook and Apple.

In the next part of this hopefully short series, I will talk about why corporate media outlets peopled with supposedly “professional” and “objective” journalists are a far bigger hazard to public well-being than an alcoholic clown continuously screaming at the camera and hawking nutritional supplements.

What do you think? Comments?

Quick Thoughts on Deplatforming of Alex Jones by Internet Monopolies

August 6, 2018 10 comments

Over the past few days, but especially today, I noticed that many “liberals” on the internet show us their collective orgasm-face as internet corporate monopolies such as YouTube, FaceBook and Apple progressively deplatformed the Alex Jones show. It was darkly comic to watch one allegedly “liberal” commentator after the other enthusiastically defend corporate monopolies while spouting all the shitty arguments made by “libertarians” regarding corporate rights. Though I have nothing but contempt for CONservatives, I am no fan of establishment-worshiping LIEbrals either.

While I have no love for Alex Jones or his show, the idea that monopolistic corporations can cut off essential services to their users without any worthwhile legal recourse is highly problematic. Sure.. Alex Jones is a greedy shithead, but a society which cheers on as large corporations mistreat their customers based on some highly subjective moral standard is even more fucked up. Think about it.. how many of the idiots cheering those monopolies today would feel the same if their electric utility cut them off based on what they read, saw or who they associated with.

Then again, these are the same idiots who believe that removing guns from hands of average people while doing nothing about progressive militarization of police in USA is a great idea. They also think that unreliable “renewable energy” can magically displace conventional power plants and how forcing everyone to be vegetarian is a fantastic idea. And then they wonder why all their SJW-driven, “celebrity”-promoted and “ivy-league” endorsed beliefs result them in losing the 2016 election against a reality show clown. But who cares about reality outside their bubbles..

Anyway, I will make one prediction about the most likely result of this enthusiastic support for corporate monopolistic power suppressing free (if tasteless) speech. To make a long story short, the precedent they are cheering today is guaranteed to come back and bite them in the ass soon- most likely before 2020. They are not going to be able to keep basking in the glow of this “success” for long- not unlike Gollum after he finally got his hands on the ‘One Ring’ inside Mount Doom.

What do you think? Comments?

Why Trump Supporters Want to Believe Fanciful Bullshit such as QAnon

August 4, 2018 5 comments

In the previous few weeks, I am sure that those of you who spend too much time on the internet might have come across something known as QAnon. To make a long story short, QAnon is a collection of conspiracy theories named after the eponymous online handle first associated with it, which claims to have internal knowledge of an ongoing counter-coup lead by “true patriots” against the “deep state” and “liberal” Hollywood and corporate media types. In other words, they are just spewing the same bullshit that alt-right types such as Mike Cernovich aka Sterno and Alex Jones have been tweeting and shouting in online video clips for the last two years.

So why did I decide to write a post about QAnon today even though I first came across it a few months ago. For starters, it is a remarkably unoriginal and comically tragic conspiracy theory- for reasons that I will soon describe in more detail. But secondly, and more importantly, it is of little consequence other than its entertainment value- like watching a mentally retarded guy trying to pick up some hot girl. One should not really enjoy watching such stuff because of principles concerning basic human decency, but it is just so damn entertaining. So, that is why I have kept an eye on the latest twists and turns in this tragically comic farce.

Now, let us talk about why I described this farce as a ‘remarkably unoriginal and comically tragic conspiracy theory’. And Yes.. I decided to write about it today since I was too bored to finish an intellectually stimulating article. Having said that, let me ask you a simple question: What does the type of belief displayed by believers in QAnon remind you of? Where else have you come across a bunch of gullible losers believing that a top-secret bunch of benevolent and powerful beings secretly planning to overthrow the current ‘unjust’ system and expose ‘morally’ corrupt elite which will result in a new reign of the ‘righteous’? What does it remind you of?

What about any religion based in Apocalypticism.. you know, like Christianity? If you replace “true patriots” with”god and angels”, “unjust current system run by morally corrupt elite” with “corrupt global system run by Antichrist”, “exposure and arrest” with “the final battle” and “new reign of the true patriots”with “kingdom of heaven”.. you get a pretty familiar narrative. That is also why the almost exclusively white CONservative losers who support Trump are so willing to believe in this tragically comic bullshit which has the same overall narrative as the other big crap they believe in.. or claim to believe. I hope you are starting to see what I am talking about.

So what kind of person believes in Apocalypticism? The simple, but unpleasant, answer is a loser.. in more ways than one. And do not, for a moment, think that I have a better opinion of secular apocalyptic cults such as global warming- now been rebranded as anthropogenic climate change. People who believe in apocalypticism are, almost exclusively, either currently without control over their future or have no agency in their own lives or are rapidly losing whatever control and personal agency they once used to have. Now think of the type of people who are most enthusiastic about Trump becoming president. Does any of this ring a bell?

Long story short, the most ardent Trump supporters are socially CONservative whites of mediocre intellectual capacity who once had stable and well-paying blue-collar livelihoods but are now either already living the precarious existence which was once restricted to non-whites or are well on that path. You might have heard terms such as “economic anxiety” and “economic populism” thrown around my corporate media types during and after the 2016 election. And yes, the more ardent Trump voters and supporters are losers- in more ways than one. And you know what.. I would be sympathetic, if so many weren’t also full of beliefs such as white supremacy.

But let us not get carried away by the idea that only Trump supporters are gullible idiots. I am sure more than a few of you remember Louise Mensch. Remember how her hilariously nutty claims about double-secret investigations against the Trump administration were catnip to the ‘I’m With Her’ types. Remember how she peddled her bullshit in allegedly “respectable” national newspapers and talk shows? But why go that far back? Just have a look at the late-night TV talk show hosts such as Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher, Trevor Noah etc. When was the last time they did not devote at least 15 minutes of every show talking about the “Mueller Investigation”, “Russia”, “Putin”, “Collusion” etc?

I mean.. can you say (with a straight face) that people who believe that “QAnon is real” are bigger dumbfucks than those who endlessly prattle about “Putin”, “Russia”, “Collusion” and the “Mueller Investigation”? How is belief in one delusion superior to belief in another? At this stage, I am willing to say that people who believe in grey aliens performing rectal probes of random people in flyover country sound more sane than those who support QAnon or the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy. Seriously, why have so many people taken crazy pills? This is nuts..

What do you think? Comments?

Some Thoughts on the Best Way to Destroy Pathological Ideologies: 4

August 1, 2018 11 comments

In the previous post of this series, I made the point that pathological ideologies and their willing vectors never give up doing what they are doing unless the vast majority of them they are dead. I had made a similar point in a short series written almost five years ago (link 1, link 2). My point was that genocides committed during course of WW2 required a significant minority of people to be enthusiastic followers of whichever ideology they claimed to believe or practise.

With that in mind, let us consider a few thought experiments to understand the necessity of vectors for success or failure of pathological ideologies. On another note, please read the entirety of this post before commenting on it..

Thought Experiment # 1: Consider the artificially caused Irish Famine of 1845-1849. More specifically, let us consider whether the vast majority of deaths during those years were caused by a genuine lack of food or a system of governance which saw and treated most of the Irish as little better than stray animals. There are many villains in this story, some more well-known that others. Nowadays, many people rightly blame the laws passed by the British government in decades prior to that incident as well as their lack of response in response to human suffering. But were they the only villains, and more importantly- who enforced their laws in Ireland?

Well.. the unpleasant part of that famine and many others in the same era was the role played by local landed gentry and law enforcement personal in enforcing laws and regulations which caused the famine. Holding only the British government responsible for that famine gives a pass to all the Irish landlords, merchants, petty bureaucrats and law-enforcement types who made tons of money during the famine while their country men and women were starving around them. The Irish famine would not have been possible without the active and enthusiastic collaboration of many local CONservative-minded rich and petit bourgeois types who worked hard to make it so.

Now comes the ‘thought experiment’ part.. Imagine that the willing collaborators and their families kept on dying of an untreatable disease with extremely high mortality- which for an odd reason affected them almost exclusively. Imagine that the disease in question killed off over 50% of the collaborators and their families within a year. Now ask yourself, how long could the British government of that era keep on replacing all their faithful dead servants, if the new ones kept experiencing the same high rates of mortality? And why would even the most greedy and sociopathic types want to accept a job that came with almost certain death within a year.

Thought Experiment # 2: Consider Late Victorian Holocausts, especially in India. These are a series of famines which killed anywhere between 30-60 million people in the second half of the 19th century- and does not include tens of millions who died in similar artificial famines in the same countries between 1775-1850. These numbers, among many others, provide an interesting counterpoint to claims about death by famine under state communism in the first half (or so) of 20th century. If you believe that state communism caused the Ukrainian famine of 1930s and Chinese famine of early 1960s, one also has to accept that capitalism caused an equivalent of deaths in the 19th century.

But this post is not about whether capitalism caused these famines (it most certainly did) or whether racism played a major role in how events unfolded (shockers.. it did), but about who was responsible for causing the tens of millions of deaths. Once again, we can certainly blame the British government of that era, but doing so tells us only a small part of how things went down. Here is why.. you see, there were never more than 100 k British stationed in any part or the whole of India at any time from 1775-1947. In fact, there were less than 30 k people from the British Isles in India in most years. So, how can you entirely blame such large-scale events on presence of an absolute minority who never accounted for more than 1 in 500 individuals?

And once again, the answer to this apparent ‘mystery’ is that British had a huge number of local collaborators who were willing and enthusiastic about working for a system which was responsible for the death of millions of people who looked like them. Today, we often forget that policies which caused these famines also made many Indian merchant families rich beyond your wildest imaginations. Many Indians still do not want to face the unpleasant fact that the Indian army, police, local administrators etc which carried out the genocidal mandates for British colonial types were almost exclusively local and Indian. In other words, it was basically what happened during the great Irish famine but on a much larger scale and over multiple time periods.

Now let us perform a similar ‘though experiment’. Imagine a situation where willing Indian collaborators and their families kept on dying of untreatable disease with rates of mortality such that entire batches or recruits for various colonial institutions dropped dead within a year. Now ask yourself again, how long could the British government of that era keep on replacing faithful dead servants, if the new ones kept experiencing the same greatly enhanced rates of mortality? Also, would it be possible for them to be able to continue recruitment if the recruits knew they would be dead within a year? And would they be able to govern India without local collaborators?

The point I am trying to make in both thought experiments is that external state sponsored events such the Great Irish famine and large Indian famines were only possible only because a small but significant minority of local people were willing and enthusiastic about working for obviously pathological ideologies. Furthermore, timely removal of this small but significant minority from the realms of living would have effectively terminated those mass tragedies and prevented the untimely deaths of many millions of innocent people. The real question then is, what level of excessive mortality among a behavioral minority who are enthusiastic participants in a genocide is acceptable in order to prevent deaths of many times that number of innocent people.

In the next part of this series, I will use some more thought experiments to explain this concept in more detail.

What do you think? Comments?