Posts Tagged ‘idiots’

Western Attempts at ‘Regime Change’ in Venezuela Will Fail or Backfire

February 25, 2019 3 comments

While I try to focus on topics of more lasting relevance than the latest ravings of mobs on social media, some contemporary events are worthy of coverage because they fit into larger themes. As many of you know, USA and some of its west-european catamites.. I mean allies.. seem to have embarked on a tragically comic project to effect ‘regime change’ in Venezuela. Trump, led by Pompeo and Bolton (henceforth referred to as Guinea Dago and Bolt-on), seem to think that they can depose Maduro in Venezuela and set up a puppet regime in that country, without significant problems or negative consequences. Trump, in particular, seems to be stupid enough to believe people as incompetent and strategically stupid as Guinea Dago and Bolt-on. Then again, that orange buffoon also thinks that Sebastian Gorka (a Hugo Drax impersonator) is a genius.

In the rest of this post, I will tell you why this poorly thought brainfart will fail and backfire. But before we go there, let me ask you a simple question. Why didn’t Obama ever push things to this level- whether it was with Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Russia or China? Why did he instead prefer to either make some half-hearted effort, not do anything or try to cut a deal? The answer is that Obama being a neoliberal was a couple of notches smarter than a neocon. He looked at these conflicts carefully and came to the conclusion that they were either unwinnable or carried a very high risk of failure. He knew that being a mediocre non-failure was vastly superior to being seen as the second coming of Bush43. Furthermore, Obama’s post-presidency plans for making his millions via writing, speeches etc were highly dependent on being seen as a non-failure.

And let us clear about something else.. Obama has no qualms about extending the ‘war on terror’ BS in some poor African countries. Neither did he any issues with actively supporting the Saudi and gulf state funded effort to prop up ISIS and similar religious nutters in Iraq and Syria. To put this another way, Obama was no anti-imperialist or supporter of democracy and ‘human rights’. And yet, on certain issues, he chose to stop at strong words- rather than concrete action because of concerns related to self-preservation and not being seen as the loser. Trump, on the other hand, being less intelligent than Obama actually seems to trust the judgement of chronic failures such as Guinea Dago and Bolt-on. Perhaps the orange buffoon thinks that he will achieve some kind of “victory” which could translate into better prospects during the 2020 electoral season?

Now let us get back to the reasons why Trump’s attempts to effect ‘regime change’ in Venezuela will fail- regardless of whether he eventually approves an actual military invasion of that country. Yes.. you heard that right, the USA-led project of ‘regime change’ in Venezuela is doomed to failure regardless of the course of action taken by Guinea Dago and Bolt-on. To make it easier for readers to follow the rationale behind this prediction, the rest of this post is sub-divided into a couple of main points followed by an explanation for each one.

1] Military and non-military influence of USA has been in decline since end of WW2. The speed of this terminal decline has greatly accelerated since the late 2000s.

Ok.. many of you might have come across lists circulated by white academic leftists which show USA interfering in the governance and elections of many countries since 1945. While that list might look long, it reveals an important trend in the terminal decline of USA. For example, in the 1950s USA could successfully interfere in the governance of countries as distant as Italy, Greece, Iran and Japan. However, starting in the 1960s, that ability fell pretty sharply and soon the USA could succeed only in African countries and Latin America. The defeat in Vietnam and upset in Iran constricted this ability even further and by the late 1970s, they could do so only in smaller Central and South american countries (including the Caribbean). By the mid- 1980s, it had atrophied to the point where they were restricted to small countries with barely an army.

Some of the jingoists might counter by pointing out that USA was able to depose Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi in addition to helping Yeltsin win in 1996. Well.. let us for a minute ignore that Saddam was hated by over 2/3rds of his population for a number of reasons (religious and otherwise) and Libya was always an artificial entity stitched up from groups who hated each other- ask yourself, what was the lasting impact of these actions? In the case of Iraq, deposing Saddam and going after Sunnis made Iran the most important power in that region. Also, USA lost that war of occupation. Libya has not been a functionally unified country for years, is a major base for smuggling African refugees into Europe and its oil output has declined since then. Did I mention that the reaction to what USA tried to do in 1996 ended up giving us Putin.

In other words, USA as nation-state has been the loser in these recent attempts at ‘regime change’. Sure.. it made a few people in its military industrial complex much richer, however that wealth was taken away from the 99% in the country making them even poorer. Did I mention that USA is also the loser in its attempt to depose the government in Syria. They lost there too. Then again, this is how dying empires behave..

2] South and central american countries are not what they used to be, in more ways than one.

So understand what I am getting at, ask yourself another question- what is the defining common characteristic of south and central american countries? Hint: it is not their language or last names. Ok.. they are all racial hierarchies in which whiter people (irrespective of competence or ability) end up at the upper end of income and power while the less whiter ones end near the bottom regardless of how hard-working or competent they are. While racial hierarchy was never as rigid in those countries as USA, it has always been there and has had some rather negative consequences. Ever wonder why those countries still make most their money by selling raw and semi-processed natural resources to the outside world? Or why they have been always been so politically unstable and easy to manipulate from the outside?

The answer to that question requires us to appreciate something which is seldom mentioned nowadays- namely, that the elites and upper class in those countries have long obtained their legitimacy by virtue of their cultural and economic connections with the west. Even worse, for many decades, the less whiter members of those countries and societies used to believe in that crap. Which is a fancy way of saying that those countries were filled with white-worshiping losers. That is why they would rather import weapons from the west, send their kids to western universities and trade almost exclusively with the west. The flip side of this mindset is that they never funded their own educational system properly or developed institutions which were equivalent to those in the west. The world, however, changes irrespective of what people want.

The first of the two important changes which have occurred in those countries concerns their demographic makeup. To put it bluntly, fertility of the whiter members of their population has declined far faster than those of their less whiter members. There is a reason why the population of countries such as Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Venezuela look less whiter than they did in the 1950s and 1960s. There is a reason why countries such as Bolivia, Venezuela and Brazil increasingly have had leaders who look like the majority of their population. Moreover, this change have also occurred in their civilian bureaucracy and armed forces. Also, whiter south-american countries such as Argentina have not done better than their less whiter neighbors.

And this brings us the second, and related, issue of money and trade. See.. for the longest time, the west was the largest market for south-american commodities. This is also why USA could influence events in that part of the world even after it lost the ability to so in Africa. But the world keeps on changing and the USA is no longer the top industrial producer in the world. Long story short.. it is Asia, especially China, whose trade with these countries has exploded over past two decades even as their older trade with the demographically stagnant west has well.. stagnated. However, unlike their white western counterparts, Asians have no special racial connection with the rapidly shrinking numbers of white elites in those countries.

Asian trade partners have no interest in supporting one racial group over the other beyond what is necessary to keep the wheels of commerce running. And all of this is occurring in the backdrop of USA losing wars of occupation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya etc. The present state of affairs in Venezuela has gone on for more than a few years and as I wrote in a previous post, things are likely nowhere as bad as they are portrayed in dying western white-imperialism funded media. The thing is.. less whiter south Americans no longer see the USA, its aging white population and decaying capabilities as something they cannot win against- specifically in a war of occupation. The Vietnamese realized they could defeat white nations in 1954 and that is why they persisted against USA and won in 1975.

What do you think? Comments?

American ‘HealthCare’ System Has Been a Scam for Over Two Decades

February 10, 2019 6 comments

What do you call a service which keeps on getting expensive much faster than general monetary inflation but which does not improve? How about calling it a scam. In the past, I have written a few posts about this general area such as the american ‘healthcare’ system is crap, a majority of people now see doctors as no better than credentialed scammers and how life expectancy in USA has always been about class, not race. Yesterday, I came across a tweet in my twitter feed containing a graph which tracked the amount of money spent on healthcare in USA since 1960. Intrigued, I looked up the source and used the more realistic inflation adjusted option. Having seen many other graphs and infographics about the ‘healthcare’ system, I noticed something right away. Here.. have a look at the attached figure to spot what I am talking about.

You might have noticed that the increase in calculated average life-expectancy at birth from world bank data has a peculiar relationship with cost in USA. For starters, the calculated average life-expectancy at birth has improved by just shy of 9 years since 1960. But isn’t that a good thing? Well.. sure, but have a look at how it correlated with cost. It had already reached the 74 year mark in 1981, when the total cost was about 440 billion USD (inflation adjusted)- which is about 1/4th of what it costs now. But it gets better.. or worse. In 1998, the average calculated life-expectancy at birth was 76.6 years and cost about 1,016 billion USD (inflation adjusted). Long story short, average life expectancy has increased by only 2 years over the previous 20 years- but the costs have more than doubled over the same time span.

Even worse, average life-expectancy has been slowly falling over the past two years– but costs keep on going up. While USA spends a bit over 18 % of its GDP on ‘healthcare’, other developed countries achieve significantly better results by spending less than half that amount and their average life expectancy is 3-4 years higher and still rising slowly. So what is happening in the american system? Well many things.. first, the income of doctors started rising a lot after 1980 due to the introduction of billing codes. Impressed by the ability of doctors to extort the system, hospitals joined in the act and used their leverage to out-exploit them starting in the mid-1990s, which is also when pharma got in on the act. So far, none of the three want to stop. And why should they? Too many boomer idiots still want to delude themselves into believing that the american ‘healthcare’ system is the “best in the world”. Keep believing..

What do you think? Comments?

Why Internet “Activism” Against the NRA Will be Counterproductive: 2

March 17, 2018 1 comment

In the previous part of this series, I wrote about why manufactured internet “activism” is based in wishful thinking and why current attempts by “socially responsible” corporations to de-platform gun and ammunition sales were either meaningless or likely to backfire on them. Some of you might wonder.. how can anybody make predictions such as these? After all, corporate media outlets and “respectable” and “credentialed” talking heads keep telling everybody that “it is different this time around” (without explaining why) and how the younger generation has “no interest in defending the right to own firearms”, etc.

Then again, corporate media outlets and the same cast of “credentialed” experts also told their audience that HRC was certain to beat Trump (in the electoral college) in November 2016. They have, in the past, also pushed obvious fairy-tales such as how Saddam possessed “Weapons of Mass Destruction” in early-2003, how american military involvement in Libya would create a secular democracy or how North Koreans were too poor and stupid to develop thermonuclear weapons and ICBMs, etc. My point is that anything coming from these official stenographers has been repeatedly shown to have a very high probability of being incorrect, false and misleading.

And this brings me to why idiotic ideas such as attempts to “target the NRA” through legislation and corporate behavior will have the opposite effect. Perhaps, you might have heard about the infamous and ultimately ineffectual Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. What many of you might not know is that it was simply the culmination of a number of anti-gun laws enacted in the mid-1980s and early-1990s. These included other ineffectual idiocies such as the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 and the 1989 ban on importing “scary looking assault rifles”. As the gun owners know, these and other similar laws did have any real effect on overall availability of semi-auto rifles and handguns in USA. They, also, did not reduce the incidence of spree shootings.

These laws did however greatly benefit the NRA and did wonders for fundraising and membership drives. In fact, it is not a stretch to say that the NRA we know today was largely created by public reaction against stupid and ineffectual gun laws. Prior to 1980s, the NRA was a fairly mediocre organisation involved in things such as promotion of shooting competitions, training people to use guns safely and basically doing some low-key defense of gun owners rights. It involvement in the political arena was largely a non-issue since most democrats and republicans were fine with gun-ownership. That started to change in the 1970 after a small number of coastal politicians started pushing for “gun control” aka criminalizing private gun ownership.

It was obvious to people capable of independent though, even then, that “gun control” did not address the root causes of increased crime levels during that era. It is no secret that the late-1960s, 1970s and 1980s saw a large increase in levels of crime (as perceived by average people) largely because pent-up racial, social and economic tensions were rapidly unmasked in those years. The majority of gun owners, rightly, did not see a connection between their lawful gun ownership and crimes caused by poverty and racial discrimination. FYI, a previous post of mine talks about why establishment democratic and professional-types are so concerned about gun ownership by all those “other” people.

The passage of many ineffectual anti-gun ownership laws in the late-1980s and mid-1990s did however convince a lot of people that the government was out to get their guns. Between 1933-1974 things in USA were run to benefit average people (at least the white ones) in addition to corporations. However institutional changes and corporation-friendly policies since the late-1970s convinced many people that the government had stopped caring about their welfare and saw them as inconveniences to be suppressed and marginalized. Let us just say that the raft of anti-gun legislation passed in the late-1980s and early-1990s merely validated their beliefs. This is also when the current movement to defend private gun ownership started.

But why were gun owners so contemptuous of all these laws and regulations for “sensible gun control”? Well.. because they were not sensible and were about ultimately ending private gun ownership. Let me give you some examples of why those laws were counterproductive, in addition to being ineffectual. The 1989 law by the Bush41 administration to ban import of foreign-made “assault rifles” was intended to stop the importation of surplus AK-47 type guns in USA. The ban on importation of those and other rifles simply led to them being manufactured in USA. The end result of is that today you can buy pretty much any semi-auto firearm of foreign origin, because it is made in USA.

Similarly, the law banning select-fire (full auto) weapons made after 1986 from being registered in USA had no impact on their use in crimes because.. legally purchased full-auto weapons are almost never used in committing crimes. Also, well made guns last for many decades when cared for properly and used sparingly. Passage of the AWB of 1994 was, however, the biggest disaster for the “gun control” movement. As some of you know, the many regulations within that bill clearly displayed that “gun control” advocates had little real life experience with handling and using guns. And that is the most polite way to say they were clueless.

Between the bizarre,hilarious and ineffective regulations on magazine capacity, pistol grips, and gun barrel accessories and their supporters inability to distinguish between semi-auto and select-fire weapons, let alone the internal mechanisms- it is fair to say that the AWB of 1994 did more to increase public support and monetary contributions to NRA and other gun-rights organisations than anything they put out themselves. In many respects, the overall environment is even more unfavorable for similar “gun control” legislation, or other measures, today. As things stand now, establishment democrats are out of power at the federal level and in most states. Even worse, they have manged to lose to unabashedly pro-corporate and anti-populist republican candidates.

The socio-economic environment (for average people) is far bleaker today than it was even eight years ago. Between that and the now-overt loss of public faith in institutions and “experts”, it is safe to say that manufactured “activism” against the NRA and gun owners in general is not a pathway to win elections in most of the country. In my opinion, such “activism” is doing more for the NRA and similar organisations than the AWB of 1994 could ever achieve. To make a long story short, half-assed attempts at creating bad laws and regulations always end up having the opposite effect- and this is not exception. Might write another part based on feedback or further developments in this area.

What do you think? Comments?

Why Internet “Activism” Against the NRA Will be Counterproductive: 1

March 4, 2018 15 comments

Just over a week ago, I wrote a post about why frequent mass shootings are almost unique to the USA- at least among allegedly “developed” nations. The very short version of that post is that the USA is, and always has been, a third-world country.. albeit an affluent one. The way things work in USA, especially as it concerns how people view each other and the institutions around them, is similar to what one might see in Mexico or Brazil rather than Japan, France or Canada. People in USA, therefore, behave and react in a manner similar to those in the former group of countries than the latter.

But what does any of this have to do with the recent wave of manufactured internet “activism” targeting the NRA and gun owners? Why do I think that this wave of internet “activism” and worthless corporate displays of virtue are manufactured? And what makes me think that it will backfire in a spectacular manner, perhaps destroying the chance for the democratic party to win either the house or senate in the 2018 election? Also, why now and not after the Oct 31, 2017 Vegas shooting? Let us start by talking about supporters and enablers of this alleged wave of internet “activism”.

So.. what makes this incident different from that one which occurred about four months ago and resulted in the deaths of three times more people (59 vs 17) and many more injuries (422 vs 14)? Isn’t it odd that the corporate media and certain internet companies did not promote the views of those killed and injured in the Oct 31, 2017 Vegas shooting to even a tiny fraction of what they did for this one? What accounts for the manufactured fascination and promotion of certain students in that school by the corporate media? The short answer to that question is the corporate media will only provide free promotion to those who will support whatever agenda they want to push.

That is why the corporate media does not like to talk about the ongoing genocide perpetrated by Saudi Arabia in Yemen but is totally willing to give tons of airtime and publicity to a 7-year old girl in Syria who allegedly tweets in perfect English though she can barely comprehend that language. Long story short, the first example casts a negative light on the policies of their masters while the later is a desperate attempt to legitimize western (mostly american) military intervention in the ongoing Syrian conflict. But what does this have to do with the aftermath of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting?

I cannot be the only one who noticed that certain students from that high school who supported gun control were intensively promoted by the corporate media within less than 24 hours of the shooting? I mean.. how come something like this never happened after the Oct 31, 2017 Vegas shooting? Also, how do you account for the almost simultaneous publication of articles by corporate media which push the exact same narrative (example 1, example 2, example 3) about these “activist” students? And isn’t it peculiar that their small protests and meetings with state politicians were unusually well covered by the corporate media (example 4, example 5, example 6).

Why was so little attention given to the fact that the Broward County Sheriff, Scott Israel, was responsible for the botched response to that shooting in addition to inadequate followup of all those previous tips and complaints against Nikolas Cruz. You might remember that he was busy talking to everyone in the media, in the first few days after that shooting, about how ‘police should be given more power’ and how ‘he supported sensible gun control’. You might also remember how they initially cheered him on and then dropped him like a hot potato after the level of his incompetence and corruption was accidentally exposed.

But it gets worse.. or more darkly hilarious. Many of you might have heard or read about all those noises made by the corporate media about how big corporations are “cutting their links to the NRA”. First of all, the vast majority of such virtue signalling by corporations is meaningless bullshit. For example, one airline which stopped a program to give small meaningless discounts to NRA members had to acknowledge that only 13 people had used that particular discount in the previous calendar year. In other words, most of the manufactured news about how “corporations are cutting their ties with the NRA” is hogwash.

Secondly, all those breathless “news reports” about how certain large box stores deciding to stop selling ‘scary assault rifles’ or put new illegal age-limits on selling guns and ammunition are also meaningless because of the sheer number of small and medium size private business who will continue to do what they have been always doing. Also expect the big box retailers to quietly walk back from their current position within a few months or get sued and lose in court. Did I mention that this type of empty “moral” posturing by corporations has occurred many times in the past- especially in the aftermath of mass shootings.

Then there is the issue of banks and financial institutions trying to enforce gun control by de-platforming gun sales. Once again, there is the pesky issue of legal challenges to such actions. However, the far bigger problem for such actions is that many elected officials would lose their seats and political careers if they did not vigorously oppose such actions. Also, guns and ammo are far cheaper than cars and houses and therefore cash transactions would simply replace those through neoliberal financial institutions. And this brings us to the major problem with fallout of such pathetic attempts to use internet “activism” against the NRA.

Attempting to enact gun control in 2018 or 2020 is political suicide for democrats as well as “moderate” republicans. As many of you know, democrats are hoping that Trump’s failure to follow up on his populist election promises and generally ineffectual governance will result in a windfall during the 2018 cycle. That belief is however too optimistic, because they still have not come up with a better message than “Trump is a bad, bad man”. Given that control of the house depends on winning a number of very close electoral races, pissing off a fairly large body of single-issue voters who will come out in large numbers and vote against you seems like a really bad idea.

In the next part of this short series, I will talk about why every historic attempt at “targeting the NRA” has made it and the pro-gun lobby stronger and how these attempts have paradoxically led to the loosening of regulations on guns.

What do you think? Comments?