Archive

Posts Tagged ‘differences’

How and Why China Has Succeeded Where USSR Failed

June 13, 2019 11 comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think? Comments?

Inclusive One Party Systems Outperform Democratic Counterparts : 1

April 7, 2019 5 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 Difference in Outcomes for China and India in Post-1945 Era: 3

February 16, 2019 11 comments

In the previous part of this series, I wrote about how post-1949 Chinese leadership put in a lot of effort to improve the conditions of its people, even if their motivations were not purely altrusitic. Then again, the same is true of every government which has every existed in human history and the present. In sharp contrast, the Indian leadershit has remained mired in their self-chosen role as darker white sahibs carrying the “white mans burden” and lording over an allegedly hopeless bunch of subhumans. One commentator in the previous post of this series made a comment to the effect that it sounded like how things work in south and central american countries- where an incompetent whiter elite (with the assistance of dying white countries) mismanage and lord over less whiter people, who they see as less than human. Yep.. that is about right.

In the previous post, I also wrote about how the Chinese leadership took a pragmatic approach to improving literacy through a variety of reforms and programs. They also built, and in some cases rebuilt, institutions and bureaucracies to function for them and their people. Sure.. they had to break a few hundred thousand eggs to achieve that- but you cannot deny that the results are quite impressive and functional. More importantly, these institutions now either do what they are meant to do, or do not interfere in what other institutions are doing. In other words, the Chinese leadership was able to build and maintain a unitary and coordinated governmental system with a pretty decent level of accountability. And all this within first three decades after 1949. So why were they able to achieve something which their Indian counterparts thought to be impossible.

Conventional explanations for this, usually put forth by allegedly “credentialed” white idiots, try to paint this as some sort of exception or aberration. However that is not the case, as some version of this had been previously implemented in Japan and the Koreas. For example, modernization of Japan starting in Meiji era and its rebuilding after WW2 was achieved by implementing a watered-down version of what China started doing after 1949. The same is true of South Korea after the early 1960s. You might have noticed that all these examples have something else common to them- other than being east-asian. Ready.. they were, or are, mostly single-party systems.. yes, even Japan. But didn’t India also have effectively have a single party system for first 2-3 decades after 1947? Yes, they did and the Congress party won most elections as the state and federal level for 2-3 decades after “independence”. So why did it work in east-Asia but not in India?

Which brings us to the part about accountability- for elected officials as well as bureaucrats. As I mentioned in previous parts of this series, almost every single Indian politician and elected official came from families who collaborated with the British colonizers of India. They had risen to their positions without facing any real challenge, struggle or conflict. Most had no real skills beyond regurgitating what they learned in British universities and they saw themselves as darker whites rather than Indians. As I said in previous part, they believed anything some white guy in an expensive suit would tell them. The Indian bureaucracy was no better and filled with sad excuses for human beings who enjoyed abusing and screwing over their own people by using rules and regulations written up for that purpose by their erstwhile colonial masters.

Long story short, both the political class and bureaucracy of India was made up of incompetent losers who saw themselves as lesser whites rather than Indians. And there is one more thing.. the bureaucracy and political system continued to exist as two independent and antagonistic centers of power. Contrast that to successful east-asian countries where the political leadership and bureaucracy are different faces of the same system. There is a good reason why I used the words such as unitary and coordinated to describe the Chinese system. But why does any of this matter? Also, does it matter that much? Well.. let me show you with a couple of examples.

Very few of you know that India was first Asian country to build its own supersonic combat aircraft. Ya.. India built the HF-24 Marut and successfully tested it in the early 1960s. While the team leader of the project was Kurt Tank, almost everybody else in the project was Indian and they went from nothing to flying prototypes in about 6 years. So what did the Indian political leadershit and bureaucracy do in response to this success? The sabotaged it in every way they could- from denying funding for better imported engines to crippling the organisation setup for developing indigenous engines. Even worse, they spent a lot of effort trying to make sure that all the knowledge and expertise gained through that project was lost. But why?

The “conventional” explanation for this behavior is that USSR offered them decent inexpensive combat aircraft. However that is not true since the USSR which made such aircraft in multiple thousands was not really bothered by this indigenous effort. Moreover, it filled a role distinct from the aircraft they supplied to India at that time. The real reasons have far more to do with the Indian psyche, especially those of its white-worshiping idiot politicians and bureaucrats. The thing is.. they could not believe that people of their skin color could make world-class products. To make matters worse, they had no ability to understand concepts such as iterative development and using the insight gained in one project to advance others. But most fatally, they believed in what white scammers told them about the nature of money.

Now contrast this to what China did during the same time period. After getting all the equipment from USSR to manufacture Mig-15s, 17, 19s etc they first kept cranking out replicas. While not the best combat aircraft of that era (mid 1960s), they were good enough. But far more importantly, they used that opportunity to train a shitload of engineers who would then go on to improve these aircraft and eventually build far better ones. They did this at a time when they were as poor as India and in politically worse shape. They also did the same with soviet diesel-electric submarines, infantry weapons, artillery etc. Did you notice that they never stopped these projects or disbanded their experienced teams regardless of domestic upheavals and other issues. Why not? And where did they get the money to do all these things?

The answer to first part of those questions is that they, unlike their Indian counterparts, were not incompetent white-worshipping idiots. The second and related answer is that they saw money in a very different way to their Indian and white counterparts. To make another long story short, they implemented a form of what we today call modern monetary theory, which is fancy way of saying that they printed money and allocated resources as necessary to get important things done while making sure that this new money did not enter the general circulation at levels large enough to cause runaway inflation and currency devaluation. So ya.. they pretty much printed money and rigged their system to deliver what they wanted, which they could do because of the size of their country. Their Indian equivalents chose to believe “credentialed” white eCONomists.

In the next part of this series, I will show you (with more examples) how a unitary and coordinated government policy gave China a huge advantage over India in other sectors.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Difference in Outcomes for China and India in Post-1945 Era: 2

January 30, 2019 6 comments

In the previous part of this series, I wrote that India and China started from about the same level, and with a host of systemic problems, as nascent modern nation states in 1947 and 1949. While India might have initially seemed to be the more successful of the two, China slowly but surely outpaced it in almost every aspect from about the mid-1960s. The gap has now grown to such levels that the real difference between these two equipopulous Asian nations now appears unbridgeable. In the previous part, I also said that majority of difference in outcome between the two can be attributed to difference in quality of leadership and administration between them. For starters- Indian leaders, while superficially more erudite than their Chinese counterparts, came from families who had previously gotten rich by collaborating with British colonizers.

The majority of those who came to power in India had also never been tested under real life-and-death situations. In addition to displaying uncritical belief in whatever any white person wearing a suit told them, they had no real interest in improving the condition of their fellow country men and women. Indeed, most of them did not see themselves as part of India.. well at least not ‘that other’ India. They saw themselves as darker white sahibs carrying the “white mans burden” and ruling over a hopeless bunch of subhumans. Some of you might wonder as to how I reached this rather dim view about that allegedly “great” generation of leaders which India had in aftermath of gaining independence in 1947, from the now defunct British empire. Easy.. look at their behavior and actions, rather than their words- because the later is cheap unlike the former two.

1] Both India and China started life as modern nation states with very high levels (over 80-85%) of illiteracy. So how did Indian leaders go about trying to fix this problem? How about.. by doing almost nothing. That is right! While Chinese leaders put a lot of effort and force into projects such as simplifying the Chinese script, ordering translations of everything they could find into Chinese, improving primary school attendance and childhood literacy among its population by any means (including force)- their Indian counterparts gave speeches and raised slogans about removing illiteracy. While it is true that Indian leaders did fund a few elite universities and educational institutions (IITs, IIMs etc) earlier than China, they largely ignored the primary and secondary educational sector. But why? Well.. think about which educational institutions their progeny, and those of their flunkies, would attend. It is that easy.

So why didn’t the Chinese leadership behave in such an utterly selfish manner? The answer is.. because they were pragmatic. While creating elite educational institutions for your own children sounds like a good idea, doing so without creating an equally extensive non-elite educational system would almost certainly lead to them remaining a poor country. Chinese leaders were always interested in true global power and prestige. It is not possible to be powerful and feared (or respected) on the international level if your country is an un-industrialized and materially poor country full of illiterate people. Indian leaders, on the other hand, were incapable of visualizing themselves as anything other than second-rate ‘whites’ in charge of a country predestined to be poor because some white guy in an expensive suit told them so.

2] It is no secret that the administrative system and bureaucracy in India, along with its laws and regulations, had been designed to exploit and abuse Indians for the benefit of the now extinct British empire. Any person with half-a-brain who was genuinely interested in improving conditions in India after independence would have liquidated everyone in the administrative system, except its junior-most employees, and built a new one- if necessary by copying from countries where things worked. That is, however, not the path taken by Indians leaders after ‘independence’. Instead they retained almost every single part of the incredibly abusive and dysfunctional system including its pathetic white-worshiping personnel. And this is how India ended up with a shitty and incompetent bureaucracy which benefits nobody other than its employees.

Their Chinese counterparts, on the other hand, went on quite the cleaning spree after 1949. They started by getting rid of bureaucrats who were, should we say, not sympathetic to the new order or problematic collaborators to previous regimes. They reformed laws, rules and regulations to make them more useful and internally self-consistent. Moreover, they were willing to reform their system as the situation changed- for example after 1971 and 1979. Some people say that it was helpful that China has a long history of competent bureaucracy, unlike India. However, after the ‘century of humiliation’ they had to start from scratch to build a modern secular bureaucracy and so their history is not especially relevant to what happened after 1949. Let me reiterate that the Chinese leadership did not educate their people and build a good bureaucracy because they were altruistic. They did so because they wanted to be leaders of a powerful and respected nation.

In the next part of this series, I will write about how the lack of imagination and ability displayed by Indian leadership over every single decade since ‘independence’ contrasts with the willingness of their Chinese counterparts to take calculated risks, persevere along initially suboptimal routes, keep thinking big and have a viable plan (or two) to get there.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Difference in Outcomes for China and India in Post-1945 Era: 1

January 20, 2019 15 comments

Approximately three months ago, I wrote about my plans for a couple of series on topics which I had either not tackled or done in a less-than-through manner. In case you are wondering, one series would focus on the reasons why China became the world’s largest economy (in real terms) almost a decade ago while India is.. well.. stumbling around in that general direction. While most of the blame for dismal post-1947 performance of India can still be assigned to the first-, second- and third- order effects of the ‘jati’ system, there are clearly other factors at work- some of which are ‘intersectional’ to the continued existence of that wretched system. Let us start this series by examining them- starting with a comparison leadership cadre of both countries.

But before we go there, let me reiterate a few relevant points and spend the next 3-4 paragraphs giving you some background on the topic. As I wrote in a previous post, the majority of informed outsiders looking at the situation in both countries in 1950 would have put their money on India ending up as the more prosperous of two in 50-70 years. Yet in 2019, the Indian economy is still only 1/4th or 1/5th of its Chinese counterpart in real terms, despite containing an almost identical number of people. Did I mention that they started out at almost the same level in 1950. Let us also be clear that things had not gone well for over a century in either country at that time. In the case of India, it was a heavily exploited colony of now defunct British empire.

In the case of China, it was well.. a whole host of other problems. We can start with the various large and highly damaging rebellions towards the end of the Qing dynasty. One of these, known as the Taiping Rebellion, resulted in about 20-30 million deaths over a period of 14 years. Then there was the problem of western countries such as UK and USA pushing Opium in China which resulted in probably 20-40% of the population becoming dependent on that drug. There is some irony about tens of thousands of mostly white people dying from synthetic opioid overdoses, each year, in contemporary USA- given the major source of that drug. Add into that the humiliation caused by numerous military setbacks against 19th century European colonial powers culminating in the Boxer rebellion. And it got even worse in the early 20th century.

It started with the formal collapse of the Qing dynasty and lead to the Warlord Era– which was much worse than it sounds. And then there was that other unpleasant period due to the partial colonization by Imperial Japan, which culminated in events such as the Nanjing Massacre in addition to many millions more deaths due to that invasion, including many thousands due to activities of Unit 731. And we are not even getting into all the problems caused by on-again off-again alliance between various factions of the nationalists and communists in pre-1950 China. There is a very good reason that the Chinese see the hundred odd years between 1839-1949 as the Century of Humiliation. Long story short, China started from scratch after WW2. And we have not even talked about the Great Famine of 1959-1961 and the Cultural Revolution.

My point is that the modern nation states of India and China started at almost the same time (1947, 1949) and from about the same relative situation. Both had low literacy rates (12-15 % and 15-20 %), not much of an industrial base, very few universities and technical schools etc. Both experienced chaotic conditions during and shortly after their formation (India-Pakistan Partition, final stage of civil war on mainland China). Neither country had experienced unitary self-governance for over a hundred years. Most of the lay people in both countries still believed in tons of superstitions and bullshit. Long story short, both nation states started under equally dismal conditions. And yet in 2019, the economy and global stature of India is a fraction of China.

So let us now start talking about the types of people who ended up in leadership positions in both countries, starting with those involved in their respective independence movements.

The Indian “independence” movement, at least its modern form, can trace its origins to the establishment of the Indian National Congress in 1885. Ironically, it was established by a retired British civil service officer- Allan Octavian Hume. Think about it for a moment, the organisation which came to lead the Indian “independence” movement was not started by an Indian. But it gets better, or worse. Here is something many of you might know about many of the subsequent important leaders of the Indian “independence” movement.. most were the sons of people who had grown rich and powerful from enthusiastic collaboration with the British colonizers of India. Ya.. all those “great” leaders of the Indian “independence” moment were almost exclusively the sons of greedy and treacherous collaborators.

And most did not demand total independence until the early 1940s.. just varying degrees of autonomy from the now defunct British empire. And now you know why I decided to use quotation marks for independence. Sad.. isn’t it? And it gets worse.. if that is even possible. Unlike their Chinese counterparts, most leaders of the Indian “independence” movement were oxbridge educated lawyers with close to zero ability or experience to do anything beyond giving stirring speeches and writing elaborate letters in protest. They had a serious inferiority complex vis-à-vis white people in general and the British in particular. But most importantly, they simply wanted to rule instead of the British and had no real desire to improve the condition of most people in the country, and just wanted to be seen as equal to British on an individual level.

Now let us compare this sorry bunch to their equivalents in the Chinese national movement of early 20th century. Note that I am not implying that their Chinese equivalents were any less power-hungry, double-dealing, generally corrupt and sometimes thoughtless. But there are some very important and relevant differences between the two groups. For starters, most of their leadership did not arise from a group of traitors who collaborated with colonizers. Neither were most of their leaders born in very prosperous families. Sun Yat-sen, Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-shek came from somewhat comfortable but not unusually rich or politically connected families. Even the second and third order leadership of the national movement was largely derived from people born into poor, middling to somewhat prosperous bourgeois families.

Furthermore, they all agreed that expulsion of foreign colonizers, restoration of unitary authority and building a new secular technological society was not negotiable. Compare this to their Indian counterparts who were fine with continuing caste divisions, widespread poverty, little to no economic development, low literacy, semi-independence etc as long as they were in power. Leaders of the Indian “independence” movement.. you see.. just wanted an equal seat at the table of their British masters so they could regale them with tales with how stupid and poor all those “other” Indian were and have a laugh about it. While it sounds harsh, this is how things went after 1947. The leadership of the Chinese national movement, on the other hand, understood that only leaders of powerful and prosperous nations wield true power.

This is why, for example, the government of post-1949 China put so much effort into improving literacy levels, setting up universities, funding research institutes, building their own weapon systems, investing in infrastructure projects etc- even when they technically did not have the “money” to do so. In contrast, multiple generations of Indian leaders used the excuse of “no money” to either not do those things or do them in an anemic and half-hearted manner. That is also why India retained the shitty colonial system of laws and administration which was designed to exploit and abuse Indians rather than build a new one to benefit them. The darkly comic part of all this is that most of them lack the ability to understand their own pathetic behavior.

Will write more about this issue in the next part of series.

What do you think? Comments?

Some Thoughts on How TransGenderism Will Likely Lose Public Support

September 3, 2018 21 comments

In a previous post on this topic, I made the point that TransGenderism (as currently promoted) is almost certain to experience a disastrous and expensive blowback. The reasoning behind my prediction can be summarized as follows: TransGenderism, as promoted today, is going to result in a lot of litigation within the next decade as many of those who underwent medical or surgical gender reassignment as children, adolescents or young adults will sue those who mutilated them without consent or realize that they were promised something not even remotely close to reality.

It is hard to escape the feeling that a very significant percentage of adolescents and young adults undergoing such procedures appear to believe that becoming transgender will provide an almost magical solution to their mental issues- from serious depression, existential dread, living under late capitalism etc. Promotion of transgenderism by corporate media, some parts of academia etc is a perfect example of neoliberalism in action. Think about it.. there is much money to be made selling therapy, expensive surgery and lifelong drugs to people who want to be transgender.

This brings me to the part where I start discussing how the ideology of transgenderism will start to lose public support. To be clear, this part precedes the one where those who promote it start having to pay tons of money to all the innocent people they victimized and become permanently disreputable in public eyes. Readers might have noticed that elite rags.. I mean ‘magazines of repute’ such as The Economist and The Atlantic have, in past few months, started to question the narrative that promoting transgenderism among children and adolescents is “right” thing to do.

In my opinion, this push-back from elite neoliberal rags is probably the smallest component of a much larger trend. Indeed, many other parties who have harbored negative views on this topic.

1] Biological straight women, irrespective or race, have never been big fans of transgenderism. For starters, they rightly see trans “women” as imposters who are trying to get the privileges which come with being a woman without suffering most of the downside of being born as one. They, also, do not like any extra competition- especially from biological men pretending to be biological women. Changing the body of a Toyota Corolla (even an up-engined one) does not make it a Porsche 911 nor does changing the styling of an SUV make it a Econobox car.

Biological straight men, irrespective of race, are also not big fans of transgenderism- not only because of the imposter problem but also because they have little interest in having sex with transgender “women”. Furthermore, they are not happy with the amount of attention devoted to transgender issues, while their own and much bigger problems (chronic underemployment, punitive sexual environment etc) are openly ignored. Many see transgenders as attention seekers with mental issues and no amount of SJW propaganda will change that viewpoint.

2] Even the so-called allies of transgenderism, such as Gay men and Lesbian women, are not big fans of that ideology. Sure.. there are a few attention seeking activist types among them who pretend they are in the same boat as transgenders- but most don’t, and here is why. It is no secret that a significant percentage of gay men tends towards the feminine side while a similar percentage of lesbians tend towards the masculine side. However the vast majority of gay men and lesbian women are fine with their biological gender and is an important part of their identity.

Transgenderism, therefore, creates a philosophical inconsistency for gay men and lesbian women since it (once again) makes their same-sex sexuality a conscious choice rather than something inborn. And let us be honest, the gay and lesbian rights movement has spent decades reversing the popular notion that their alternative sexuality was a choice rather than something they were born with and I, for one, believe that sexual orientation is inborn. But there is an even bigger problem and massive conflict of interest..

People realize they are gay or lesbian because they are attracted to others of the same sex as they grow up. But what if a bunch of “psychologists” and “experts” supported by the corporate media tried to tell that being attracted to somebody of your own sex meant you were the “wrong” sex? And this is not just a theoretical question since gay men and lesbian women in Iran are forced to undergo sex change operations so they become the “right gender”. Don’t you think the perverse incentives of late capitalism and SJW-ism might create a similar situation in USA?

3] The extensive wall-to-wall positive coverage of transgenderism by corporate media at a time when half the people (with jobs) in USA make less than 30k/ year, most live paycheck to paycheck, a majority have less than one thousand dollars in savings and are one semi-serious illness away from bankruptcy does not bode well for the future of that ideology. Similarly, repeatedly celebrating the alleged “bravery” of some attention-seeker of no consequence on traditional and social media is slowly but surely alienating the general public from that cause.

Do you remember how Trump won the 2016 republican presidential nomination in spite of insulting and trash-talking establishment icons such as John McCain, George W Bush and his sad-sack brother Jeb? Ever wonder why he was able to win the general election despite his atrocious sexual history with women? Could it because his unfiltered and plebian talking points sounded more authentic to voters than other republicans or HRC? Maybe that is also why his approval rating among republican voters is still so high in spite of an almost two-year long incessant campaign by establishment media to mobilize public opinion against him.

My point is that trying to force a deeply problematic viewpoint, on something as central to human identity as gender, down the throats of an unwilling public is almost certain to make an increasing number of them swing the other way. Furthermore, they will do so regardless of what some made-up consensus by “experts” and “institutions” says- especially since the public has lost faith in both since 2008.

What do you think? Comment?

On the Most Likely Mode of Discreditation for TransGenderism Ideology

July 28, 2018 26 comments

Many of you might have noticed, over the past five years, that not a day goes by without some mainstream media outlet publishing a piece or two about how biological gender is passé and becoming transgender is somehow the hippest, coolest or bravest thing to do. They also seem to promote the viewpoint that becoming transgender somehow results in people becoming happy and mysteriously solving many of their problems. Oddly enough, these same ivy-league anointed presstitutes are still amused by the idea of male members of the Heaven’s Gate cult undergoing voluntary castration in order to meet space aliens.

Then again, recent human history has no shortage of equally peculiar ideologies becoming fashionable for a period of time before being exposed as highly problematic and then becoming extremely disreputable. Did you, for example, know that the idea of forcibly separating the children of first-nation people in Canada and Australia to be “educated” in residential schools was once considered sound public policy? Or how about the once widespread public acceptance for forced sterilization of poor and non-white women In USA? Or how a bizarre surgical procedure such as lobotomy were once seen as a cure-all for anything that looked like “mental illness”.

I could give you many more examples such as race-based eugenics, recovery of memories of ritual satanic abuse etc .. but you get the point. Anyway, let us talk about why the transgender ideology as it being promoted today is almost certain to meet the same end as a number of these now utterly discredited and highly noxious ideologies. But before we go there, let us talk about the difference between that ideology and sexual orientation. To be more precise, let us talk about why sexual orientation is a totally different creature than transgenderism.

Firstly, the fact that a percentage of people prefer being sexually intimate with somebody of their own sex has been common knowledge throughout human history. There have always been gay men, lesbian women and bi-sexual men and women. If you don’t believe me just look the art, literature, stories and other documentary evidence from non-christian cultures and even some christian cultures. Do you think all those extremely close male friends of certain famous roman emperors were just friends? Do you think that the Pope who commissioned Michelangelo to paint frescoes in St. Peter’s Basilica was not aware of his sexual orientation? Do you think people in 17th-19th century were oblivious about what went aboard sailing ships with all-male crews?

And this brings me to the second relevant difference between sexual orientation and the ideology of transgenderism. When was the last time homosexuality was promoted as somehow ethically or morally superior to heterosexuality? The vast majority of gay men will always tell you that they discovered while growing up that they were born with said sexual orientation. The same goes for lesbian women and bi-sexual men and women. They simply wanted true legal equality and freedom from harassment and discrimination- which is something any rational person can agree with. And now, we have legal equality for them in most western countries.

By now, you might have figured out that I have no issue whatsoever with people finding their sexual orientation as they grow up. As you will soon see, there is a reason why I have highlighted some words in previous sentence and paragraph. To understand what I am getting at, let us talk a bit about myself- specifically my strong preferences for certain body types in women and certain BDSM practices. So how did I come to know that I preferred women with toned and curvy behinds or how did I figure out that I was into spanking willing women? Well.. the simple answer is that I just kept on going towards what I really liked over a period of years.

I did not reach my current physical preferences in women or sexual practices because those were considered fashionable or because somebody else told me or encouraged me in that direction. I reached there on my own and am therefore completely satisfied with the destination. But what does any of this have to do with the failure mode of transgenderism as an ideology? And why did I talk about all those other now discredited and noxious ideologies with no apparent connection to transgenderism near the beginning of this post?

What is the real connection between highly abusive residential schools for first-nation children, forced sterilization based on consideration of race-based eugenics, the use of horrendous surgical procedures such as lobotomy and the transgender ideology in its current form? Well.. it comes down to the validity of consent given by of those damaged by such “interventions”. To put it another way, if a person of sound mind who has reached the age of legal consent decides that they want to undergo surgery for transitioning into somebody of the opposite sex- well.. that is their right. And as long as they are aware of the realistic limitations that such a change would have on the quality of their life- that is their business.

But what about children and adolescents who do not have the range of life experiences and mental maturity necessary to make such a life altering decision? And this is not simply a “will nobody think of the children” type question. Consider for example, the consequences of an overenthusiastic mother putting her male child, who allegedly displays some feminine tendencies, on drugs to block puberty. What happens if the subject of such an intervention grows up to regret its effects? Is the mother and the “medical professionals” who supported and facilitated such a decision guilty of castrating that child? And this is the most likely scenario, since mothers seeking male-to-female transitions for their allegedly trans male child are far more common than mother seeking a female-to-male transition for their female child.

Or what about clinics who dole out hormone blockers and bilateral orchidectomies to any adolescent complaining of something hastily diagnosed as ‘gender dysphoria’? What happens when some teenage boy with mental health issues who thinks he is ‘trans’ and undergoes an orchidectomy grows up to regret that decision? What if the teenage boy makes that decision based on an air-brushed promise that transition to a woman will somehow improve his life? Who is responsible if the subject of such an irreversible surgery believes he was lied to by medical professionals? Are you now starting to appreciate how horrendously problematic the current elite and media driven fascination with helping children and adolescents to ‘transition’ could become?

How bad could the delayed backlash really be? Let me help you understand with a few thought experiments and examples.. Would you, for example, dare to support the ‘aboriginal residential schools system’ in polite company in Canada or Australia? If now, why not? Would you support raced-based eugenics, forced sterilization and lobotomies at your office Christmas party and still have a job in the coming year? Remember that they were all once “common sense” policies supported by the majority and governments of that era. Heck.. those who still support them on twitter are fearful of their employers and friends finding out.

Did you know that Penn State university will have to pay over 220 million to survivors of the eponymous sexual abuse scandal. And that is secondary to the reputational costs of that scandal to recruitment for their famous football program. Or what about the massive reputational hit to USA Gymnastics and 500 million dollar payout by Michigan State University because they looked the other way while Larry Nassar diddled hundreds of little girls under his care? Can you now imagine a catholic priest without also thinking of the enormous sexual abuse scandal and coverup within the catholic church. And remember, the vast majority of children affected by those scandals were only mentally scarred.

Now try to imagine the size of the shit-storm, a decade from now, when thousands of children and adolescents who were transitioned while legally minor or under air-brushed assurances realize that they are very unhappy with results of irreversible surgical and medical procedures. Even the loudest squawking by ‘trans’ activists will then have no effect on the course of events, resulting in the utter discreditation of these ‘activists’ in popular public perception. We have seen this story many times before, and it always ends badly for the ‘activists’ and whatever bullshit cause they are promoting.

Have a feeling that responses to this post will necessitate another one on this topic.

What do you think? Comments?