Posts Tagged ‘liberalism’

COVID-19 Pandemic has Exposed Intellectual Bankruptcy of Liberals

November 21, 2020 19 comments

In the previous post, I wrote about how the COVID-19 pandemic exposed many of the chronic problems and systemic dysfunctions in West for all to see. While writing that post, I started thinking about another one on how this pandemic also exposed the mind-boggling levels of intellectual bankruptcy among liberals. And yes, I wrote two very similarly titled posts a few months ago (link 1, link 2). As far as my ideological roots are concerned, those who have read enough of my older posts know that I despise ideologies of all flavors- from CONServatism to LIEbralism. Sure.. some are a bit worse than others, but not by much. While many of early posts were about the intellectual bankruptcy of CONservatism, it has became increasingly obvious to me that LIEbralism has gone from being a little better than CONservatism to significantly worse- especially in the past five years.

1] The first serious instance of how the pandemic exposed LIEbral idiocy came pretty early. You might have heard something about how tests for antibodies against COVID-19 show far more widespread infection than PCR- and LAMP- based tests. It was also well known, rather early on, that infection in younger age groups was largely asymptomatic. This would suggest that the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) for this virus was much lower than the high Case Fatality Rate (CFR) as measured before extensive testing was deployed. But LIEbrals would have nothing of that. These dumbfucks tried to discredit and suppress any evidence that it was far less dangerous than the equally intellectually bankrupt MSM was trying to push.

What makes this, however, especially interesting is the arguments used by LIEbrals in their attempts to discredit the results of antibody testing. One of their main arguments was that these antibody tests had very high false positive rates. Well.. any person who understands the science behind these tests and laboratory techniques will tell you that even the most poorly designed modern antibody tests have false positive rates below 2%. In fact, a false negative result is far more likely than a false positive for these tests. And yet there was no shortage of self-proclaimed experts on Twatter, FakeBook and MSM who claimed that these tests were “wrong”. It is as if LIEbrals had close to zero understanding of STEM subjects, which is not surprising as most of these losers credentialed in “liberal arts” at university.

And it gets worse. Once it became obvious that their lies about antibody test results were making them look like idiots, they started claimed that antibody titres were the only predictors of immunity to viral infections. But as anybody with a proper undergraduate-level education in Microbiology can tell you, immunity to viral infections has much more to do with memory B-lymphocyte, helper T-lymphocyte and Dendritic cells activated in response to infection than the persistence of antibody levels. That is why immunity to many viral infections can often last a lifetime. Now, it harder and significantly more expensive to measure these post-infection responses than a simple antibody test- but they are far more important for lasting immunity to a specific virus than antibody levels.

2] Let us move on to non-specialized face masks, a topic which I have touched on in another previous post (link 3). In case you haven’t heard, a recent large RCT Danish study of mask efficacy which many journals were initially unwilling to publish clearly shows that surgical-grade face masks have virtually no effect on rates of COVID-19 infection. And this is not surprising, since similar studies done on the efficacy of surgical masks at prevent Influenza infection (caused by a virus of roughly similar dimensions) in the past had yielded similar results. In other words, unless you are wearing N95 or better face masks, such measures are not effective at preventing infections. But liberal idiots continue defending this dubious talisman, once again demonstrating their ignorance of experimental science.

To make matters more interesting, these LIEbral idiots still haven’t explained why dense and crowded cities in Asia and some parts of Africa have only a tiny fraction of the COVID-19 deaths which many of these same racist idiots were happily anticipating. Isn’t it interesting that almost none of these LIEbral idiots are even considering the possibility that.. maybe.. people in some countries have partial cross-immunity to COVID-19 due to previous infection by other coronaviruses. Or why states with mask mandates don’t have lower rates of infection that neighboring ones with far fewer restrictions. Then again, liberals would rather stick their head up their behind than care about anything which contradicts their belief system.. you know.. like real life. Having said that, it is fun to watch them make up explanations which are rationally inconsistent with their previous ones, while pretending that they aren’t doing so.

These same idiots keep pushing worthless measures that sound effective such as “circuit breaker lockdowns” with no evidence that they do anything other than temporarily suppress case numbers a little. Why do you think that something which didn’t work in Italy, Spain, France and UK in the spring is going to work again? Because you want it to work? Seriously? Also why haven’t all those Asian countries which have very low case numbers and kept it in control done so without lockdowns? Also how long are you going to keep up this shit? How do you plan to compensate all those business owners who will be bankrupted by this ineffectual bullshit? What about all the people who have lost their jobs- in many cases, permanently? I would rather have excess mortality among the 80+ crowd in nursing homes than destroy the lives of many tens of millions more in the prime of their lives.

3] Let us now talk about all those measures to control COVID-19. Given that most outbreaks occur in places that are indoors, crowded and poorly ventilated- why are we pretending that normal outdoor and indoor activities are risky? Given that this virus is airborne, what is the whole point of “social distancing”? Given what we know about Vitamin D levels and severity of disease, wouldn’t giving Vitamin D supplements to dark-skinned and older people be a far better use of resources. And why not give the older and otherwise vulnerable people free N95 facemasks rather than pretending that ersatz cloth facemasks are equally effective? And we have not even touched on the issue of how mortality strongly correlates with advanced age and presence of multiple chronic disease conditions. But try telling any of this to a STEM-illiterate LIEbral retweeting make-believe bullshit on Twatter and FakeBook.

Since we are past a thousand words, I will wrap up this post here. Based on your feedback, I might write another post. Here is a parting question.. Do the governors and administrations in democrat-ruled cities and states have a realistic plan to cover their massive upcoming revenue and tax losses? Do they think Biden will be able to bail them out?

What do you think? Comments?

COVID-19 Face Masks are Modern Day Talismans of Liberal Scientism

September 28, 2020 18 comments

As regular readers know, I have written many posts about the hilariously ineffectual and visibly incompetent response of western governments to the COVID-19 pandemic. Continuing in that general direction, let us talk about another stupid intervention cooked up by all the credentialed dummies advising morons occupying elected office in these allegedly developed countries. Yes.. I am talking about the enthusiasm displayed by many countries in recent months to make people wear face masks that are incapable of stopping viral transmission. But as you will soon see, my issues with making people wearing ordinary face masks are about much more than them being generally ineffective at preventing infection by airborne viruses.

So let us start by talking about the efficacy of various types of face masks at preventing viral infections. Long story short.. only masks rated N95 or higher have been shown to reduce the transmission of viruses. And there is a very good reason for why that is the case. It comes down to the maximum size of particles which can pass through them. N95 or better masks can reliably filter out particles that are in size range of common larger viruses. Your normal surgical mask or cloth face mask cannot stop particles in the size range of most bacteria and viruses. At best, they are effective at reducing formation of aerosols created by wearer when speaking or breathing.

Remember that surgeons wear surgical masks to reduce the chance of bacteria from their nose and mouth from ending up on open wounds or during procedures. All of this is another way of saying that normal cloth face masks and surgical masks are basically useless at filtering out particles in size range of respiratory viruses. Sure they might reduce the size of inoculum by trapping larger droplets and aerosols, but let us not pretend that they do much for viruses such as influenza, rhinoviruses or COVID-19. Now some of you might say.. “isn’t a bit of protection better than no protection?”. Well.. sure, but only as long as you are being honest about their limited effectiveness. Pretending they are far more effective than they are is malpractice.

So why are LIEbrals, especially those found on social media site such as Twitter, Reddit etc so enthusiastic about forcing people to wear ineffectual face masks? To understand this, you have first accept that LIEbrals are as stupid as their CONservative equivalents. They just happen to believe in different religions. See.. while CONservatives believe in traditional religion with all its trappings, LIEbrals believe in the church of Scientism. So instead of blindly believing in the word of priests in white garb, LIEbrals choose to blindly believe the words of “credentialed” dummies who represent the church of Scientism. It is about blind faith, not rational and critical belief.

The LIEbral obsession with making people wear ineffective facemasks is better understood when you understand what they represent to believers in the church of Scientism. To make another long story short, ineffective facemasks promoted by the priests of Scientism are best seen as Talismans. In case you don’t want to click on the link, a talisman is an object that someone believes holds magical properties that provide particular power, energy, and specific benefits to the possessor. Note that Talismans or ‘good luck charms’ have a long history of use in pre-modern medicine and the cynical might say, even modern medicine. Some of you might say.. “but what is the harm of letting people believe in such bullshit if it makes them feel better?” Don’t many people keep their own lucky shirts, coats, dresses, shoes, baseball caps etc?

Well.. here is why. If you promote something as a highly effective for prevention of COVID-19 infection, people might actually believe you in the beginning. But what happens after it becomes increasingly obvious that normal face masks are almost ineffective at preventing COVID-19 or Influenza? While devout believers in church of Scientism might continue to believe in ordinary face masks irrespective of evidence, others won’t be so ideologically invested. Another long story short.. the loss of credibility caused by failure of such face masks will blow back on those most involved in promoting them and destroy whatever residual credibility they might still command.

If you thought people weren’t believing in the pronouncements of attention-hungry losers such as Fauci etc and institutions such as CDC and FDA now, imagine how bad things could get once it becomes once it is obvious that these face masks don’t work. To reiterate, while N95 and better face masks work quite well, the cloth and surgical ones promoted by western governments barely work.. if at all. Pretending that they do won’t change reality.

What do you think? Comments?

How the Democratic Party Could Lose in 2020 Elections and Beyond: 5

September 25, 2019 12 comments

In the previous part of this series, I promised to finally go into why support for certain superficial liberal causes is going to backfire on democrats during the 2020 elections. I also made the point that most allegedly “popular” causes in liberalism, such as “gun control” and “LGBTQ” issues, are secular religions in all but name. So let us ask the next question- which traditional religion does modern liberalism most closely resemble? While modern liberalism displays some similarities to Christianity, especially its Catholic variant, it differs from from the later in some very important aspects. Specifically, liberalism is heavily dependent on the use of identity politics, constantly changing taboos and a peculiar form of abstract “spirituality” to enforce its writ among followers.

In other words, modern liberalism cannot function without increasing inter-group factionalism, constantly changing taboos and overt public displays of abstract “spirituality”. Enumerating all the stuff it ignores is even more revealing. For example- liberalism does not care about gross income inequality, horrible working conditions, shitty personal lives and many other issues that actually affect most people living in post-industrial societies. In contrast to liberalism, many traditional religions such as Christianity and Islam try to increase group cohesion, get new members, keep taboos clearly defined and to a minimum in addition to (at least) giving lip service to ideas such basic human equality, dignity and charity. So.. is there a closer match for Liberalism?

As it turns out.. Hinduism is a far closer match to modern Liberalism than almost any other major traditional religion. As I repeatedly mentioned in a previous (and still incomplete) series, almost every major problem that has plagued the India and its people since about 300 AD can be traced back to Hinduism- specifically the spread and consolidation of the ‘jati’ system throughout India. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Hinduism, as has existed since about 300 AD, is nothing more than an excuse to perpetuate the ‘jati’ system. So what makes Hinduism the traditional equivalent of modern Liberalism? Well, let us start by talking about how both use identity politics to divide society into ever smaller groups that hate each other.

Some of you might want to believe that white liberals invented identity politics, but that is simply not true. The ever fragmenting ‘jati’ system in India pioneered and refined identity politics many centuries before white liberals were a thing. The core of Hinduism (as understood and practiced by most believers) is identity politics. That is why most Indians still make important decisions, from voting to marrying, almost exclusively based on whether the other party is of the same or similar ‘jati’. But why are ideologies that preach social fragmentation bad? The simple answer is that societies which accept such fissiparous ideologies end up becoming unable to get stuff done. There is a reason why China was able to achieve in 30 years what India appears unlikely to get done anytime in the foreseeable future.

This is also why India was colonized by followers of two foreign monotheistic religions for over a thousand years. Long story short, societies which are based around identity politics lose their ability to get stuff done and become vulnerable to domination by more cohesive ones. But what does any of this have to do with the democratic party losing the elections in 2020 and beyond? As mentioned in previous posts, the public image of democrats is increasingly defined by being part of the top 10% or aspiring to join that group. But why is that a problem? Think about it this way.. the number of eligible voters who did not vote for either candidate in the 2016 election was larger than the number who voted for either HRC or Trump. Also the plurality of vote cast by the non-professional or credentialed class go to republicans.

Some of you might attribute this to racism and there is some truth to that viewpoint. However a far larger issue, which I have alluded to in a previous post, concerns how each party treats its voters. Republicans do not insult their voters while they are fucking them over unlike their democratic counterparts. To put it another way, the republican religion is a noticeably more inclusive than its democratic equivalent. But isn’t their appeal restricted to white voters? Well.. yes, but as many of you saw in 2016- democrats were unable to motivate enough young non-white voters to go out and vote for them.

A secular religion centered around “gun control”, “forced diversity”, “manmade climate change”, MeToo”, “gender fluidity”, “wokeness” and numerous other fashionable causes and ever changing social taboos simply cannot compete with another which is far more straightforward, inclusive (as long as your are white) and does not require you to debase yourself quite that much. The secular religion of democrats also does not provide solutions to far more prevalent problems such as inadequate healthcare, poor job security, ever increasing cost of university education etc. Their democratic brand of secular religion is simply too exclusive and full of useless and ever-changing rituals to appeal to the majority of voters across this country.

Will write more about this point of view in next part of this series.

What do you think? Comments?

How the Democratic Party Could Lose in 2020 Elections and Beyond: 4

September 20, 2019 14 comments

In the previous part of this series, I wrote about how politicians who dutifully recite their allegedly traditional beliefs and pieties can no longer compete with those willing to push beyond previous boundaries of what was considered “routine”, “polite” or “acceptable”. We have reached this point because, over the past four decades, living standards for the vast majority of people have either stagnated or deteriorated. The majority, therefore, no longer feel that a better future is possible. This is why the stale and canned pseudo-populist antics of people such as Reagan40, Clinton42, Bush43, Obama44 and their ilk are no longer sufficient to win elections. Now, we will go into why the current democrat party obsession with “gun control”, “LGTBTQ issues” and other supposedly “woke issues” fashionable with the incestuous and effete “elite” of modern day america.

A couple of years ago, I first wrote about how “wokeness” is largely driven by neoliberals trying to show that they are morally superior to the rest. Since then, we have seen a concerted push by the effete managerial class and every politician who wants to pretend that they too are somehow morally superior to push “solutions” for problems which do not exist. Even worse, in almost all cases their “solutions” either make things worse, cause public backlash and provide ammunition to their equally despicable opponents in the so-called ‘culture wars’. There is a reason why almost everyone in this country, other than those who live in a few exclusive zip codes, see ideas such a “plastic straw ban” or unrealistic fuel consumption guidelines for cars as bad and stupid. And in case you are wondering, the recent proliferation of crossovers in USA has a lot to do with how such automobiles are classified for the purpose of fuel economy standards.

So what does any of this have to with the promotion of electorally disastrous issues such as “gun control”, LGBTQ issues and environmentalism by the democratic party? Well.. a lot. But before we go there, let me clear about a couple of things. While republicans screw their voter-base as much as democrats, they do so without insulting them like the later. Secondly, seemingly unconnected issues promoted by many democrats such as “gun control, LGBTQ issues and environmentalism are closely related, but not for the reasons most of you might have guessed. This is not to say that virtue display has no role in the promotion of such bullshit policies. But while virtue display can explain behaviors such as adopting non-white children, being vegetarian or vegan, driving a Prius and donating to certain charities, it cannot explain the deep obsession of core democrat constituencies with issues such as “gun control” and promotion of LGBTQ.

But what is the difference between adopting a non-white child or going vegetarian and pushing for “gun control” and promoting LGBTQ. Well.. it comes down to doing something yourself versus trying to manipulate of force others to do things your way. For example, almost nobody who has adopted an African child or driven a Prius is forcing you to do the same. But those who allegedly believe in “gun control” and “gender fluidity” want to take away the guns of other people and castrate their children, all in the name of “social progress”. Most of the enduring, and unpopular, hobbyhorses of the democratic party center around top-down control of the lives and behaviors of those “other” people. That is right.. most issues animating the core white constituency of democratic party are about credentialed types and managers trying to control other people.

But to what end? And why are establishment democrats so tone deaf to the unpopularity of their hobby horses. Sure.. focusing on such cultural issues also allows them to ignore real issues such as the desperate need for affordable healthcare, post-secondary education, housing stock etc. Having said that, it mostly comes down to the need to exert power (for its own sake) over other people, not unlike what is presented in George Orwell’s’ 1984. Promoting issues such as “gun control”, “gender fluidity” and environmentalism is about using the framework of a traditional religion to push for its secular equivalent. Did I mention that all religions are about making other people go along with lies and bullshit fairytales to further your control over them.

Religions have another feature that is relevant to this discussion. All the “truths” and “causes” espoused by any given religion cannot be disproved or questioned. This is why establishment democrats who cannot tell the difference between a semi-automatic and select-fire rifle will never change their mind on that subject. It was never about “facts”, “truth” or anything approaching reality. Belief in the righteousness of “gun control” is part of the gospel of coastal american liberalism. Similarly, belief in the validity of “wokeness”, “gender fluidity” and other similar new sacraments of american liberalism has nothing to do with acting in the best interest of other people or children. Do you really think they care if tens of thousands of gender-atypical children get wrongfully castrated and suffer permanent psychological damage because of their beliefs?

Some of you might remember that I recently posted a series about how belief in anthropogenic climate change is a form of secular apocalyptism. In it, I also made the case that the belief in man-made climate change has massive parallels to Catholicism. The part relevant to this post is who benefited from religions such as Catholicism. To make a long story short, the only groups and institutions who really benefit from Catholicism (or any other religion) are the clergy, church, contemporary ruling elites and their stooges. Everyone else suffers necessary deprivation and immiseration. But this, you see, is a central feature of all organized religions- not a bug.

Since we are at almost 1000 words, I will wrap up this post. In the next part, I will go into why support for these liberal causes is going to backfire on democrats during the 2020 elections. Yes.. I am aware that it was supposed to be in this part.

What do you think? Comments?

How the Democratic Party Could Lose in 2020 Elections and Beyond: 3

September 8, 2019 13 comments

In my previous post of this series, I pointed out that the upper echelons of democratic party are so full of effete professionals that it can no longer win national elections unless the other party screws up hard. And to reiterate, racist white anger after the passage of civil rights legislation in 1960s is not the main reason behind the decline of democratic party in most states since the early 1990s. If that was the case, why did a few coastal states such as California, Oregon and Washington go from being reliable republican strongholds in early 1980s to reliably democrat by early 2000s? My point is that something else is at work.

Here is a clue. The shift of any given state (historically non-slave owning) from the democrat to republican column almost always occurs after many years of economic stagnation, permanent job losses, systemic deindustrialization, increase in poverty and zero hope for a better future. On the other hand, those which fare better under the neoliberal regime of “free” trade (predominantly coastal states) end up becoming democrat strongholds. You might have also noticed that the propensity of a state or even a city to vote for democrats after 1992 has a peculiar correlation with its percentage who have office jobs and others that require “credentials” or “licenses” of some sort. So why does this connection exist?

To make a long story short, it comes down to which socio-economic group benefits from the real policies of each party. White university “educated” petite bourgeoisie are the core constituency of modern democratic party. Notably, this group is heavily dependent on government spending and “regulation” for keeping their often useless jobs and professions protected from the negative effects of globalization, while simultaneously being able to use outsourcing of manufacturing jobs and influx of desperate undocumented immigrants to inflate their own living standards. Think of them as the modern equivalent of white people who weren’t rich enough to afford tons of slaves but had enough money for a couple of slaves.

But aren’t there tons of the mythical small-business owners who are reliably conservative and vote republican? Well.. there used to be. Right till the end of 1980s, the business environment in USA was reasonably conducive to the establishment and growth of small to medium businesses. Since then, the neoliberal consolidation of businesses and financialization of the economy resulted in the slow-motion destruction of small to medium sized enterprises. The vast majority of “small businesses” in this country today are now single-person entities used to process earnings from side-gigs or unstable contractor-type jobs.

Corporate consolidation has now created a system that is almost totally dominated by monopolies and oligopolies. Most petite bourgeoisie in america are, therefore, now mostly professionals, people in “licensed” professions, middle to upper management types and those aspiring to join their ranks. These people also happen to be concentrated in larger cities, especially on the coast. Now you know why democrats are so desperate to gain votes from richer white suburbs who are still marginally republican. Ok.. but why do so many black people, especially from the older generation, vote for democrats.

Well.. there are a few reasons for that pattern, but it largely comes down to two major ones. In the early 1960s, the democratic party (at national level) moved from its previous pro-apartheid position to one which supported civil rights. A large number of black people, especially those born after 1930 but before 1970, see democrats as the party of civil rights. They also actively recruited a few black politicians in its ranks. The other reason is that republicans, after 1968, became the party of working class whites. Some of you might wonder as to why republicans focused on working class whites instead of focusing on the entire working class.

The superficial reason for that choice is as follows: the demographic and racial profile of USA in 1960s-1980s was such that restricting oneself to working class whites was a viable political strategy. But the real reason is far more interesting. Both parties have always been controlled and beholden to the very rich and large corporations. Also, electoral politics in USA has always been a stage-managed show. But why did it appear to work? Well.. because a combination of circumstances and situations in the first seven decades of 20th century created enough spare wealth to duct-tape over a lot of systemic problems.

Until the 1980s and even 1990s, the overall economic situation for most people was good enough for them to ignore class-based politics. The peculiar history of USA and its racial demography in those decades. also, made it much easier to push race-based political divisions. In other words, restricting your electoral support to the white working class was a very viable strategy. And that is why republicans became so obsessed with “crime”, “law and order”, “war on drugs” and all that other bullshit after 1968. But note that even in the late-1970s, rates of incarceration (except in deep south) were comparable to other western countries.

But what does any of this have to with democrats in 2019 wanting to implement strict “gun control” laws, trying to outdo each other at being “woke” and do meaningless token bullshit such as banning plastic straws and passing other stupid laws to “protect” the environment. And why are these virtue-display based strategies likely to be counterproductive? To better understand what I am getting at, let me ask you a simple question- why did Trump win the republican nomination and then the presidency in 2018. So let us start by answering the first part, namely how he was able to beat 16 other candidates, some with especially deep pockets.

While some of you might still want to believe that it had something to do with “Russia” or “Putin”, the real if somewhat unpleasant explanation is that his success in the primaries was the logical culmination of post-1968 direction of republican party. Trump was (and is) not an aberration. He was just far more open about his worldview. More interesting, but seldom explored, is why all those other generic mediocrities failed. Why did all those republican politicians duly reciting republican beliefs and pieties fail against Trump? To make a long story short, their performance of the republican version of virtue displays could no longer compete with Trump’s pretense of caring for the white working class.

A slightly longer version is that since 2008, or even a few years earlier, public trust in institutions and systems have fallen in a precipitous and irreversible manner. Performing the same virtue displays which would have guaranteed victory in republican primaries as late as 2008 are not longer sufficient. A few years ago, I wrote a post on how anodyne communication styles have destroyed societal trust. But how is any of this connected to the current clown car of democratic presidential candidates? Well.. it comes down to what that party has learned, or not learned, from their humiliation in 2016. As it turns out, democrats haven’t learned anything useful.

As I wrote in my previous post in this series, people in 2019 care far more about issues such as being able to afford “healthcare”, cost of university education, poor job and career security than the urgent need to ban guns. Face it.. this issue only matters to some credentialed professionals living in urban areas of certain coastal states. However these parasites are highly represented in the social bubble inhabited by the upper echelons of the democratic party. I cannot resist pointing out that this situation is analogous to that time in 2015-2016 when many republican candidates (except Trump) tried to portray themselves as morally upright family men educated at famous universities. Guess what.. most republican voters did not give a shit about the personal moral standards of their elected representatives.

So why did all those allegedly mainstream republican candidates in 2015-2016 keep on reciting these pieties? Here is a clue.. it had to do with their social circle and bubble. In the past thirty years, most politicians of both parties have lost the ability to relate with people outside their carefully insulated social bubble. Consequently they keep harping on stuff which is fashionable and ‘hip’ in their social circles but is seen as out of touch in the real world. Democrats talking about their “wokeness” or being “totally supportive” of LGBTQ issues is similar to republicans talking about their “christian faith” and “virtues of hard work entrepreneurship”. The average voter perceives both as comically inept hypocrites and parasites.

In the next part, I will finally get into some detail about why democratic support for causes such as “gun control”, LGBTQ+ issues and environmentalism are going to be especially disastrous during the 2020 elections.

What do you think? Comments?