Archive

Posts Tagged ‘racism’

Using the Accusation of Racism is Always Superior to Keeping Quiet: 1

January 10, 2019 15 comments

One of the many issues on which I strongly disagree with most older non-white people living in the “west” concerns how racism (ambient, casual or specific) should be handled. A large number of these older people, especially from certain countries, seem to believe that accepting overt or not-so-overt racist behavior from the now rapidly aging and declining white populace in western countries is the best default response. These pathetic losers justify such behavior by deluding themselves into believing a number of BS memes such as “this situation won’t change anytime soon”, “it has been always like that” or something along those lines. Some even believe that they kinda deserve it or believe they can get ahead by validating the racist mindset of white idiots.

Luckily, this mental affliction (at least its more severe forms) appears to be largely restricted to non-whites above a certain age. I am sure that some of you will point to the ratio of WMAF to AMWF couples, and we will go into that issue later. But for now, let us focus on how the previous paragraph relates to the topic of this post. In my opinion, it all comes down to a behavior that is especially common among older non-whites and is intimately linked to their willingness to accept racist behavior. More specifically, they do not actively confront self-identifying whites who display such attitudes and behaviors or protest adverse portrayal of non-whites. But why not and what is behind this passivity? And this is where we start getting into more controversial areas.

Let me start this part by asking you a simple question. What motivates people more- the fear of losing what they have or the hope of future gain? If you have read enough history, hopefully from a number of diverse sources, and looked at the world around you- it is obvious that the hope of future gain is a far bigger motivator than fear of loss. Think about it.. slavery (at least the version practiced in Americas) was driven by fear of loss and yet for all its brutality, it could not produce much more than cotton, coffee and sugarcane. Similarly, communist regimes in Eastern Europe collapsed in the late 1980s in spite of them being harsh totalitarian systems because the fear of loss, is at best, temporary. Meanwhile, the communist party of China is still in power largely because it could provide real opportunities for profit and better life for its citizens.

But what does this have to with acceptance of racism by older non-whites who live in western countries? Well.. ask yourself, why would they accept it at the subconscious level? Fear of loss or hope of gain? Clearly, it has always been the later than the former. However, if you posed this question to them, they might tell you it was the former rather than the later. But why? Well.. it comes down to maintaining their internal self-image. Remember that everyone wants to believe that they are good, brave and moral. Acknowledging that they allow racism in the hope of future gain sounds much more sad and pathetic than claiming they do so in fear of loss. It is about maintaining an internal self-image which is at odds with one’s behavior and actions.

Don’t believe me? Look at how many actors of Indian descent (Kal Penn, Kunal Nayyar) have been willing to play brown-face characters in films and TV shows. Have you ever wondered why somebody would degrade themselves by playing such characters? I mean.. nobody is holding a gun to their head to make them play those parts. Nor are they starving and desperate for any source of income, however demeaning it may be. Or take most stand-up comics of Indian descent, who until a couple of years ago, largely focused on the alleged shortcomings of their own ethnic group rather than satirize white culture and behaviors. Long story short, willingness of older non-whites to accept racism has always been driven by hope of gain rather than fear of loss.

But in case you still believe otherwise, let us go through a few specific categories of behavior..

1] Some older non-whites believe that pointing out racism will adversely affect their opportunities for future career advancement. But is that so? Think about it.. do you really expect someone who perceives you as less than human to ever treat you fairly, let alone as an equal? My point is that a racist will always be a totally unreliable employer or highly problematic colleague. Also, racists remain so until they are dead. Furthermore, the transient nature of most jobs today and lack of defined career paths removes any vestigial excuses for tolerating such behavior. To put it another way, there is not much left to lose. Of course, the right way to go about this involves avenues other than reporting it to the subhuman scum who populate HR department of corporations.

2] Some non-whites appear to believe that accepting racism or even participating in criticism of their ethnicity or race will somehow make then “honorary” whites. This is similar to CONservative minded blacks who believe that racists can tell the difference between them and.. you know. The reality is that any person who harbors racist belief is incapable and unwilling to see “those others” as anything other than stereotypes. At best, these non-white morons (who seek acceptance) are providing free entertainment for aging racist losers. I have written a few posts about such people in the past- On Brown House Slaves, Gungadins and Sepoys, My Views on “Wannabe Whites”, The Inner World of Massey Sahibs : An Introduction and The Inner World of Massey Sahibs: 2.

3] Now let us take this one step further and imagine a situation where a pathetic non-white who accepted racism was somehow able to translate it into a decent career and partial acceptance by racist whites. How is such an existence any different from that of a pet dog? Sure.. a loser might rationalize this as ‘not that bad’ or something along those lines. But is that really the case? Are you really going to be happy waiting for somebody else to throw a few table scraps of pseudo social acceptance? Are you going to be happy to be with some badly aged, washed out and psychologically damaged white chick? My point is that only stupid losers believe that they have no other choice than being self-hating house slaves who look forward to table scraps and crave acceptance from subhumans who see them as their perpetual inferiors.

Will write next part of this series based on the comments to this post.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Rise of NeoLiberalism in West During the 1968-2008 Era: Part 2

February 15, 2018 14 comments

A few months ago, in the first part of this series, I wrote about a confluence of factors responsible for very high rates of support for neoliberal ideas and policies among whites in USA during the 1968-2008 era. To make a long story short, white support for neoliberalism (in USA) was largely due to a combination of post-WW2 prosperity, desire for continuing racial discrimination as well as a delusion that people in the ‘rest of the world’ could never catch up with them. As we all know, things did not turn out as expected towards the end of that era- and it has been clearly downhill for them since the early 2000s.

Neoliberalism, did however, spread past the boundaries of USA into other countries- especially those in western Europe. However, most popular accounts of neoliberalism tend to ignore, or give very little attention to, its spread in European countries (other than in UK). But why? Well.. there are some reasons. Firstly, the spread of neoliberalism into the institutions and popular psyche of those countries was never as thorough as in USA. Even today, people in those countries enjoy universal healthcare coverage, a largely functional social safety net, affordable higher education and many other things which CONservative idiots in USA believe to be ‘pipe-dreams’.

So why did neoliberalism spread, albeit in a limited manner, in western Europe? But perhaps more importantly, why was it never able to gain the sort of popular following it achieved in USA (except, maybe in UK)? Why were politicians, elites and capitalists in those countries never able to successfully push for neoliberal changes of the magnitude seen in USA? Why did neoliberalism fail to change the belief systems of a majority in those countries, unlike the USA? How could corporations in those countries remain relevant and profitable without jumping on the Anglo-American neoliberal project? What, exactly, was different over there?

1] The first reason for the relative inability of neoliberalism to spread in Western Europe comes down to a simple, if very unpleasant, fact about the nature of USA as a society and nation-state. Modern west-European nations states, unlike USA, have never been racially segregated societies. Also, unlike USA, they never allowed race-based slavery to occur on their own soil. Consequently, one of the most important boosters for public support of neoliberalism based policies such as shredding the social safety net, job precarization and union busting (in post-WW2 era) never existed in those countries. USA until 1968, in contrast, practiced legalized race-based Apartheid in a form identical to the now defunct pre-1994 state of South Africa.

Now, some of you might say that it has something to do with “racial diversity causing low trust societies”. But was that really the case? Widespread public acceptance of neoliberalism in USA came in the era before large-scale non-white immigration. That is right! The population of USA was somewhere between 85-90% white as late as the early 1980s. Reagan was elected in 1980 by an electorate that was close to 90% white. So why did they vote for him? In case you do not remember, he won because he promised to restore law and order (screw over “uppity” blacks) and make america great- like “it used to be”.

Which brings us to an odd question.. why was a self-identified and dominant (at that time) group making up almost 9/10ths of the population so concerned about the quest for equality by a historically marginalized group making up the other 1/10th? While it is possible to come up with many clever sounding reasons to explain this behavior, the most straightforward, if tasteless, explanation is that a significant percentage of 9/10ths enjoyed screwing over the 1/10th for reasons that had nothing to do with self-interest or money. Maybe they were getting off by screwing more vulnerable people- which leads to the next reason for Europe’s partial immunity to neoliberalism.

2] Most people looking at Europe today forget that it was once a hotbed of nationalism, racism and support for mass murder at a level that makes USA today look tame in comparison. But then WW1, numerous conflicts after WW1 and WW2 happened. While these wars and conflicts killed tens of millions of people in that part of the world, they really cut down the numbers of young CONservative minded men (also known as ‘useful idiots’) in those countries. Many of you might have noticed that the strongest non-rich supporters for neoliberalism in USA are almost always white men of average intelligence and mediocre ability who are delusional enough to believe that they too can become rich by following and defending the rich.

In contrast to that, american casualties in WW1 and WW2 were (sadly) minimal and too many men of a CONservative mindset, average intelligence and mediocre ability were left alive after those wars. It certainly did not help that post-WW2 economic growth and prosperity reinforced their beliefs about things “ought to be”. That is why USA as a society embraced neoliberalism so thoroughly when it was near the peak of its relative prosperity in the 1960s and 1970s. It was easy money, not hard times and non-white immigration, which made white american society embrace neoliberalism. Remember, Reagan was elected as governor of a very prosperous California in the 1960s, before he was elected president in 1980.

Even today, older white voters who grew up during the “good times” in USA are far more likely to vote for republican or establishment democrat candidates (aka neoliberals). The point I am trying to make is that the lack of large-scale casualties in WW2 along with immediate post-WW2 prosperity for even the most average and mediocre cannon-fodder is why neoliberalism took such firm roots in USA. That is also why even larger west-European countries which took heavy casualties in both world wars, such as France and Germany, ended up becoming and remaining more socialistic after WW2.

In the next part of this series, I will share my thoughts on why neoliberalism in European countries took off in the private sector after the late-1980s, but was not able to start dominating it till the early 2000s. Will also write about why UK went neoliberal about a decade earlier, and far more systematically, than neighboring countries.

What do you think? Comments?

More Thoughts on Aziz Ansari “Sexual Assault” Scandal: Jan 20, 2018

January 20, 2018 37 comments

In my previous post on this topic, I wrote that latent racism and a miscalculation about the social standing of white womanhood in 2017 were major factors contributing to the accusations leveled by that woman against Aziz Ansari. The woman in question would not have dared to make those accusations unless she felt it was possible to get away with making them, given the significant amount of contrary evidence in her own testimony. In some respects, this case is eerily similar to another recent backfire for the ‘MeToo’ and Time’s Up’ movement.

How many of you have followed the aftermath of similar accusations against a journalist known as Jordan Chariton? To make a long story short, one of his female colleagues cheated on her husband with him and later accused him of sexual assault. The result of this malicious rumor and its dissemination by an other journalist, or two, resulted in him being fired by TYT- who was his main employer at that time. He has since sued HuffPost, which was one of main redistributors of that libelous report. As of time of writing this post, Jordan has reached a settlement with ‘The Intercept’ (for republishing that libelous claim) and TYT.

Now, some of you might say that this supports the idea that such claims against more well-known men are not inspired by racism- since Jordan Chariton is white. Well.. I never said that such claims were always due to racism. However, for reasons which I shall go into soon, race played a major role in the claims made by the accuser of Aziz Ansari. To start with, she accused Aziz of sexual assault even though her own account of that event did not support her contention. The woman who accused Jordan Chariton of sexual assault kept on altering her story to the point where later versions of her story clearly contradicted her initial version.

The point I am trying to make is that the woman who accused Jordan Chariton at least tried to change her story to make it sound like a sexual assault. In contrast, the woman who accused Aziz Ansari tried to extend the definition of sexual assault to new and highly problematic levels- specifically withdrawing consent after the encounter was consummated. In case you have not read her original account, it is clear that she never verbally communicated her desire to end the encounter to Aziz. Nor did he force her to participate in an act (such as penetrative sex) when she overtly refused to do so.

In other words, she accused him of sexual assault largely because the encounter failed to live up to her expectations. If that seems too harsh, consider that she by her own accounts went to his apartment on the first date, got naked with him and then engaged in repeated oral sex with him. Perhaps more importantly, she continued the encounter even after her allegedly felt that he was not “listening to her non-verbal communications of distress”. She was therefore a willing and enthusiastic participant in that encounter- when it occurred. So what happened afterwards? Why did she later start representing it as sexual assault, after the fact, rather than a date marred by poor sexual chemistry?

Part of the answer to that question can be found sprinkled throughout her account. To be specific, it is clear that she felt that Aziz did not live up to her sexual expectations after the encounter had started. Now, we can make all kinds of guesses as to why she felt like that- but it is clear that she knew who Aziz was and his general physical attributes before initiating said encounter. I mean.. if she did not want to have sex with short brown-skinned men, she did not have to approach him in the first place and then go on a date with him. And yet, she did all that and more. So why made her change the way she felt about it- after the encounter?

Let me put forth another idea about her motivations- specifically, that she is a ‘starfucker’ or ‘groupie’. I am sure most readers are aware that even pretty ugly men who are famous, or infamous, seem to get inordinate amounts of female sexual attention- which they would not receive if they were not famous. I can bet you that this woman would have given Aziz the time of the day if he had approached her before his entertainment career took off. Yet, after getting his own series on NetFlix and an award or two, it was she who approached and flirted with him.

But what went wrong? Why don’t other groupies (especially of musicians) complain about sexual assault regardless of the quality of sex? What made her answer the solicitation for such a story about Aziz Ansari by that webzine?

Here is what I think happened.. She correctly guessed that having sex with Aziz Ansari was a sure thing given his known preference for white women and his relatively newfound fame. Maybe she wanted it to be another notch on her proverbial ‘celebrity’ bedpost. However the combination of a lack of sexual chemistry between them and the less than enthusiastic reception from her friends after confessing to casual sex with a non-white guy made it necessary for her to reframe that incident as a sexual assault. She got her chance when the webzine that published her account began soliciting for such stories about Aziz Ansari.

She could now try to rewrite her less than stellar sexual encounter with a semi-famous non-white guy as sexual assault- thereby freeing her (in her mind) from any personal agency or role in that encounter. But perhaps, the single most important factor behind her willingness to share her story with that webzine was the following calculation- who would the public support.. an anonymous young white girl or a swarthy non-white man? As it turns out, she miscalculated pretty badly since 2018 is a very different from 1998 or even 2008- when that calculation was last viable.

Change in american society, racial demographics and communication technology over the last two decades have made the tired “wholesome young white girl sexually abused by swarthy non-white guy” shtick fundamentally nonviable. Furthermore, most men and more than a few women seem to have realized that and attempts to legitimize withdrawal of sexual consent after the fact would be highly problematic and quickly thin out most male support for other feminist causes- which is something they cannot afford, at least for now. Might write another part in this series depending on future developments and reader comments.

What do you think? Comments?

First Thoughts on Aziz Ansari “Sexual Assault” Scandal: Jan 16, 2018

January 16, 2018 36 comments

By now, most of you might have come across one or more articles on the Aziz Ansari “sexual assault” scandal. In case you have not, here are a few takes- Aziz Ansari Is Guilty Of Not Being a Mind Reader; Before We Burn Aziz Ansari Perhaps Some Self-Reflection Is in Order and The Humiliation of Aziz Ansari. Of course, there are also the white feminist moron types pushing this incident as yet another opportunity to push their agenda even further- #MeToo hasn’t gone too far—it’s just getting started; Aziz Ansari Is The Creep Every Woman Deals With; No, the woman’s story about a night with Aziz Ansari isn’t the worst thing to happen to #MeToo and How the Aziz Ansari Allegations Opened Up a New Frontier in the #MeToo Conversation. To put it another way, every mediocre female journalist with an opinion, or axe to grind, is writing about this news item.

There seem to be two distinct types of reaction to this story- even within the supposedly “liberal” media-sphere. On one side, you have the more pragmatic people who see that retrospective classification of bad or awkward sex into sexual assault would be disastrous for the long-term success of any worthwhile ‘MeToo’ type moment. On the other side you have more than a few young women fame-seekers.. I mean ‘third-wave feminists’ who are trying to use this incident to get their 15 minutes of fame and perhaps a career upgrade. The second group is, of course, willfully oblivious to the fact almost all male support for any ‘MeToo’ type moment would evaporate very quickly once they see other guys being accused of sexual assault for merely having less than stellar sexual chemistry- especially in the internet age.

What do I think about all this? And why did I wait for a couple of days before writting on a topic which I could have posted about within an hour of that story spreading on Twitter? To make a long story short, I have been through a similar situation many years ago- and yes, everything turned out well for me. But before we go there, let us talk about how the strategies which worked for me then can still be used, perhaps even more effectively, by somebody in Aziz Ansari’s situation. The very short version of what worked for me in such situation is as follows: a] extremely aggressive but plausible counter-allegations against the accuser invoking inherent white racism; b] making anybody involved in adjudicating such a situation tread very lightly for the fear of being exposed as a racist and c] researching and exposing anything said, written or implied by people adjudicating such a matter that shows evidence of even a slight racial bias.

So, here are my thoughts on this alleged scandal. Firstly, I think there is a strong racial component to this story. Some of you might disagree, but my considerable experience over all the years suggests that this particular incident would never have been publicized the way it was if Aziz Ansari was white. Some might say.. ” but, haven’t most of the celebrities shamed by the #MeToo movement been white?”. And my answer to that is- White celebrities exposed by this movement so far like Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Charlie Rose etc did things which are either clearly criminal or were gross abuses of their power to employ the people they are accused of assaulting. Aziz Ansari’s “crime” was that the delusional white girl he hooked up with was not impressed enough by the sexual encounter- though she did (by her own admission) blow him a couple of times on her own free will.

Now tell me, how many white celebrities have been recently accused of sexual assault because the sexual experience was less than stellar (according to the woman). Now I am not saying that such a thing won’t occur in the future, but let us face the obvious.. what are the chances that one of the few semi-famous non-white people in the entertainment industry just so happened to be the first semi-famous person in USA accused of sexual assault by a white women because the sexual experience was not stellar- according to her. While I can certainly go into the theories put forth by other people, as well as my own, on why this delusional racist white women accused Aziz Anasri of sexual assault- let us instead focus on the far more important question. How did we reach the point where a woman can accuse a guy (even if he is non-white) of sexual assault just because the consensual sex was mediocre or awkward?

A simpler way to understand this issue is to consider the conditions under which people will provide false testimony. While some people might lie under oath to escape prosecution, others do it because they think or feel that doing so carries little to no personal downside. For example, accounts of medieval trials of witches and ‘secret jews’ by local authorities or the church are rife with blindingly obvious examples of ludicrous exaggeration, pile-ons by multiple witnesses, exhortations to protect the virtues of white christian women and an otherwise lack of anything which looks like due legal process. Paradoxically, accounts of common civil and criminal trials from the same era or even the same set of judges show far more consideration being given to contemporary evidentiary standards, detailed testimony, punishment for perjury and far greater adherence to something approaching due process. But why? Why were some perpetrators treated so differently from others?

In my opinion, it comes down to who is being accused and who is doing the accusing. To put it another way, an accuser who is a relatively higher position in that society as compared to the accused can typically get way with perjury, lies, bullshit, exaggerations beyond what he or she could get away if the accused was of a higher social station than her. Some of you might protest.. “but Aziz Ansari is a multi-millionaire semi-famous person in the entertainment industry”. And to that, my answer is- the delusional racist woman who accused him of sexual assault is white and still thinks that her relative social station is higher than that of a non-white man such as Ansari- as was the case twenty years ago. As it turns out, she miscalculated badly and her relative social position in relation to someone like Ansari is rather different in 2018 than 1998. But racist idiots will learn no other way.

I will probably write a second post on this topic based on future developments in that story and reader comments.

What do you think? Comments?

On Moves to Brand Masculinity of Men in West as ‘Toxic’: Nov 26, 2017

November 26, 2017 27 comments

Many readers of my blog might have noticed a recent rash of articles, in both traditional and online media, about how masculinity is somehow inherently ‘toxic’. In case you haven’t seen them, here is very short list of these hilarious opinion pieces: Funny Link 1, Funny Link 2 and Funny Link 3. I am sure that most have also seen links to other similar and equally hilarious write-ups on that topic in their FaceBook and Twitter newsfeeds. But poking fun at unintentionally comic articles is not the main focus of this post, though many are highly entertaining to read.

Let me, instead, begin by asking you a simple question: since when has masculinity been seen as ‘toxic’ in western countries? Most of you might select a time between say.. 1968 to sometime within the last few years. However, as I shall shortly demonstrate, those dates and the thinking behind selecting them is not based in reality. Masculinity, you see, has always been toxic in the ‘west’ as long as it was the masculinity of non-white men. In case you don’t believe it, have a look at the disproportionate number of black men lynched for alleged sexual ‘crimes’ against white women in the pre-WW2 USA. Or look at how the behavior (sexual and otherwise) of black men is viewed and treated in USA.

You could also look at how the sexuality of men from other non-white groups has been traditionally depicted in books, films, TV shows and other forms of popular entertainment. I mean.. can you think of even one semi-well known film or TV show that depicts east-Asian men as attractive or desirable? What about non-white Mexican men? Or what about men of Indian descent? I can reel of a list of characters within american popular media based around negative stereotypes of non-white men. Somehow, all of these negative stereotypes which border on dehumanization and demonization never caused anything more than a few polite disagreements… because, doing so was considered perfectly acceptable for the previous and now rapidly waning majority- especially white men.

But reality, you see, often displays a sense of bitter irony. Many of the same tropes used to dehumanize non-white men and demonize their sexuality have in recent years been turned at full blast towards white men. Then again, attempts to nurture proverbial poisonous snakes in the hopes that they will bite only ‘other’ people always ends the same way. This process is also generally similar to how western attempts to create civil and ethnic strife in other countries ultimately cause the same within their own borders. Or how the ‘War on Terror’ in other countries becomes the incarceration-surveillance state for those idiots who supported the former. Or how welfare, free trade and free-market “reforms” meant to hurt black people have now fucked over lots of white people too.

Some of you might say that what I written until now is too non-specific. I mean.. which tropes am I talking about? and how do they apply to the current situation?

So here it goes. Consider how ‘non-alpha’ white men (aka the majority) risk getting accused of sexual harassment, sexual assault and even rape if the women in question either does not find them attractive, thinks they are “creepy” or has regrets after the fact. That particular type of demonizing male sexuality in USA started with black men- for reasons that are too obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of american history. As some of you know, talking and flirting with white women and having sex with them resulted in black men being accused of identical ‘crimes’- even if nothing non-consensual had occurred. The fact that most white men are now treated that way is both funny and richly deserved.

Or consider how mere accusations of sexual impropriety are now enough to destroy careers of white men. Or how white women are supposed to be always truthful when they make such accusations. Both tropes trace their origins to what occurred to black and other non-white men in previous eras. It is darkly funny to watch most white men get railroaded the same way as they once did to others. It is also hard to feel sympathy for those who cheered on and participated in such mob behavior under the mistaken belief that they would be never affected by such injustices. I mean.. if public trials based on one-sided accounts were ok when the accused were non-white men, what is wrong with continuing that ‘tradition’ when the accused are white men?

Then there is the issue of many white men now being seen as less than worthy for having sex with women. And once again, this is the extension of a trope which was previously applied to non-white men (especially east-Asian and Indian). Of course, almost everybody else in the ‘west’ was perfectly fine when the men not deemed worthy of having female sexual partners were non-white. As it turns out, that trope also spread far beyond the groups it was originally meant to marginalize. And that is why it is amusing to watch all those mediocre (white) men complaining about being treated as undesirable and less-than-human by white women. Then again, thinking beyond the short-term is rather uncommon in human beings- irrespective of race and ethnicity.

What do you think? Comments?

A Few Quick Thoughts on UDMH and the North Korean Missile Program

September 21, 2017 35 comments

A few days ago, I came across a series of articles in the MSM about the use of UnSymmetrical DimethylHydrazine (UDMH) in newer long-ranged North Korean IRBMs and ICBMs. As expected, they were full of sensational and hilariously ludicrous disinformation. But why take my word for it? Have a look at all the bullshit published by supposedly reputable news outlets: The Rare, Potent Fuel Powering North Korea’s Weapons; North Korea’s secret weapon REVEALED – how China supplies Kim Jong-un with ‘Devil’s Venom’; North Korean missiles powered by Russian ‘devil’s venom’. Readers can find reprints of these and similar articles in many other news outlets.

All these articles, which seem to be have been derived from one original post, make a number of incorrect and misleading claims such as: 1] Synthesis of industrial quantities of UDMH is very hard or complex. 2] North Korea is not totally self sufficient in UDMH production. 3] Russia does not use much UDMH for its ICBM or space launch programs nowadays. 4] China is the main source of UDMH used in North Korean IRBM and ICBM programs.

So now let us go through each of the major claims by these posts, one by one.

Firstly, the chemical structure of UDMH is very simple (see below) and routes for its synthesis are remarkably easy and straightforward. One of older process to make it and other simple organic hydrazines on an industrial scale is over 100 years old.. so yes, it was possible to make UDMH on an industrial scale even before WW1. However, this specific compound had little to no industrial use before the development of hypergolic rocket engines in the 1950s. And yes, while it is reasonably toxic and volatile enough to pose hazards if handled carelessly, it is no more problematic to handle on a large scale than highly concentrated inorganic acids or compounds capable of releasing releasing chlorine.

Which brings us to the second claim made by those sensationalist propaganda piece in NYT, namely that North Korea might not be totally self sufficient in UDMH production. As you might have realized by now, large scale synthesis of UDMH is not much involved than any other moderately dangerous industrial chemicals which are nonetheless synthesized by the thousands to millions of tons. North Korea has enough educated and competent people (including process chemists), is extremely willing to provide them enough resources to do their job properly and has more than enough appetite for small accidents. Furthermore, they are highly unlikely to remain dependent on external sources for such an important requirement of their missile program.

The third claim made the sensationalist post in NYT was that UDMH and hypergolic fuels are rarely used by countries other than China. Well.. that is news to me. The fact is that one of two major space launch rockets uses by Russia (aka Proton), all the space launch rockets used by India (PSLV, GSLV-2, GSLV-3) in addition to almost all major space launch rockets used by China use hypergolic fuels in one or more of their large primary stages. In other words, the idea that China is the only major user of hypergolic fueled rockets is utter nonsense. The only reason some countries import UDMH from China has more to do with saving money for small scale usage.

By now, you have probably figured out that the fourth claim made by original article in NYT, namely the China is the major supplier of UDMH to North Korea, is laughably ridiculous. While its is certainly possible that the North Korean chemists who operate facilities for making UDMH might have learned their trade in China, it is laughable to believe that the North Korean government would not do everything in its power to fully indigenize production of UDMH and Dinitrogen tetroxide used to fuel the hypergolic engines in their IRBMs and ICBMs.

The simple fact is that almost all “scholarly” analysis of North Korea missile and nuclear program by western “experts”, so far, has occurred though the lens of racism and orientalism. These sophistic and out-of-touch idiots do not want to believe that non-white countries are capable of technological and scientific achievements. That is, also, why Trump can call for the genocide of North Korean in front of the UN without severe criticism by the corporate MSM in USA. The problem with such attitudes is that they are too divorced from reality to work. Of course, I don’t think that Trump or establishment in USA will learn other than though public failure and humiliation.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Rise of NeoLiberalism in West During the 1968-2008 Era: Part 1

August 31, 2017 10 comments

One of the more interesting questions about neoliberalism concerns its apparent popularity among the general population in western countries during the 1968-2008 era. I mean.. why did so many average people in western countries willingly support neoliberal ideas and policies during that era? Some of might say that a similar percentage of the population in 1930-era Germany also supported Nazism- and therefore most people are easily misled idiots. Except that is not really true..

The rise of public support for Nazism in 1930-era Germany was the culmination of widespread disgust with repeated catastrophic failures of mainstream political parties in governing the country. To put it another way, the supposedly “normal” political parties of that era had shown themselves to be incapable of maintaining a general acceptable level of governance- on more than one occasion. Things reached a climax in the early 1930s when global economic depression and ‘austerity’ driven economic policies cause mass unemployment and misery among the general population.

At that stage, the only two remaining alternatives were the Nazis or some coalition of communist parties. After the 1932 elections, the rich and petite bourgeoisie in Germany supported the “business friendly” Nazis over the communist parties. Hitler took full advantage of the situation and the rest, as they say, is history. In other words, the rise of popular support for the Nazi party in 1930-era era Germany looks far more rational once you consider the environment in which it occurred. They did also implement some fairly populist polices (at least for the majority) in the first few years of their rule.

The point I am trying to make is that public popularity of repugnant ideologies in certain historical eras should not be seen as evidence that people are stupid or easily misled. Instead, such popularity should be understood, if not celebrated, through the lens of prevailing socio-economic conditions and cultural mores. That is also why people like Mussolini, Stalin, Franco came into power and were able to hold onto it for so long. That is also how so many ‘muricans still see their country as one of good law and order when it was always about enslaving, exploiting and murdering black and other non-white people.

And this brings me to the main questions posed in the current post, which are as follows: Why did so many average people in western countries support neoliberal ideas and policies during the 1968-2008 era? Why did so many non-rich people cheer on an ideology which made their lives poorer, more precarious and generally more shittier than before? Was it just good propaganda or were the reasons for the public support for neoliberalism during that era more systemic than most critics are willing to admit? And why might the critics of neoliberalism not want to consider systemic factors behind its rise during that era?

One of the biggest contemporary myth about the rise of neoliberalism is that it was centrally planned by cabals of rich businessmen behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms. While I do not doubt that many such meetings occurred, it can (at best) explain changes in some government policy changes in a few countries such as USA and UK. However as anybody who has lived during that era will remember, the public was also very enthusiastic about a number of neoliberal policies from cutting the social welfare net, privatization of public goods and services, financialization of the economy, increasing corporate profits and many other ridiculous ideas.

So how do you explain public enthusiasm during that era for so many neoliberal policies? What were they thinking, or not thinking, when supporting those ideas and policies? What drove them to support policies that were against their best long-term self interests?

Here is my theory..

1] General prosperity and economic growth in the west after WW2, coupled with the residual effects of pre-WW2 colonialism resulted in what is probably the largest gap in living standards between the west and the rest of the world during the 1950s-1980s. Of course, that gap in living standards has decreased ever since those years and could likely go in the other direction in the future. Nevertheless, your average white person who grew up in that era almost certainly saw this as “proof” of their inherent racial superiority. They interpreted something which occurred through a combination of circumstances and luck as the natural order of things.

It is therefore not surprising that con-artists such as Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman etc started gaining an ever larger popular audience. While support by the scheming rich certainly helped these con-artists attain social respectability, it was the general environment of western society during those three decades which made neoliberalism seem ‘right’ in the first place. Most contemporary critics of neoliberalism would prefer to believe it was clever propaganda and sinister brain-washing, rather than inherent racism and other popular delusions of white people in western countries, which made neoliberalism the default ideology of the 1968-2008 era.

2] Some of you might have noticed that I consider 1968, and not the early 1980s, to be the beginning of neoliberal era. But why 1968? Didn’t neoliberalism start in the early 1980s under Reagan and Thatcher? While it is true that overt policy implementation of neoliberalism started in the early 1980s, the ideology itself had been fashionable for over a decade before 1980. While the precise triggering event or events which made neoliberalism fashionable was different in each western country, in the case of USA it came down to passage of civil rights related legislation in the mid-to-late 1960s.

Yes, you heard that right. Neoliberalism, as an ideology, became mainstream in the USA only after it became obvious to the average white person that maintaining their relative superiority over non-whites through overt “legal” racism was no longer possible. It is also therefore not surprising the strongest popular support of neoliberal policies such as shredding the social safety net, job precarization, union busting etc have always been stronger in ex-slave owning southern states and those adjacent to them (Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Indiana) rather than those in the North East or the West Coast.

3] But why would a combination of racism and delusions of inherent superiority specifically enable the dominance of neoliberalism in the west? Why not fascism or some other form of majority totalitarianism? Well.. it comes down to the delusion of inherent racial superiority. In the post-WW2 era, almost nobody wanted to be seen as a fascist, nazi or overt racist. Those were crude and failed ideologies. Neoliberalism, on the other hand, appeared to offer average white people most of the benefits of racism and discrimination while appearing to be liberal and hip. Since even the most average and mediocre white person now saw himself or herself as insurmountably superior to non-whites, they deluded themselves into believing that neoliberalism would only further their dominance.

Of course, it is now obvious that things did not work that way. However, in the late 1980s to mid 1990s, it was very easy for the average white person in USA to believe that the rest of world would never catch up with them. Remember, the USSR had just collapsed and everyone and their dog was proclaiming the end of history. China and other Asian countries had not reached the level of industrialization we see today. It appeared the white americans supporting neoliberalism were set for their own 1000-year Reich. I should also mention that some of the most damaging neoliberal trends like job precarization and high stealth inflation (housing, medical, education) had still not hit white-collar workers.

It is therefore not surprising that many average white americans, blue and white-collar, thought that they would be the winners of a neoliberal order. I mean.. it appeared to work for them for the first 10-15 years. Also, it was far easier to explain away problems caused by neoliberalism when they affected non-whites and poorer white people. Furthermore, the initial large wave of indiscriminate financialization specifically the housing price bubble and easy access to credit allowed the majority to look past ugly emerging problems. All of this meant that average white americans were cheering on neoliberalism until the financial crisis of 2008. Of course, by then it was too late..

In a future post of this series, I will try to explore why neoliberalism became popular in other western countries- specifically those in western Europe. As you will see, american influence was only one of the factors that drove the rise of that ideology in those countries.

What do you think? Comments?