Archive

Posts Tagged ‘SJWs’

SJWs and ‘Activists’ will Likely Destroy Gains Made by LGB Movement

June 10, 2019 9 comments

As some of you might remember, I have written a couple of posts (link 1, link 2) about how the contemporary transgender movement is creating the conditions for its eventual demise. It is also increasingly clear that much of the external support for this movement is linked to the need for virtue display by some other people. It also bolsters pre-existing CONservative stereotypes about men and women. In this post, I am going to make the case that SJWs and Professional ‘activists’ are very likely to end up alienating the vast majority of people and thus destroy many (if not all) of the historical gains made by gays, lesbians etc. To better understand what I am getting at, let us first talk about the two major categories of minorities.

All minorities fall into one of two broad categories: biologically unlimited and biologically limited. For example- racial or ethic groups who are currently classified as minorities in USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand can become the dominant demographic group in those countries. And the way things are going, we will see that change within our lifetime. My point is that belonging to a race or ethnicity which is currently a minority in a given geographical area does nor preclude that group from eventually becoming the new majority. Groups whose minority status is based on race, ethnicity and religion are examples of biologically unlimited minorities. This is, however, not true for all types of minorities for reasons that will soon be obvious.

In contrast to groups mentioned in previous paragraph, certain minorities are biologically limited and can never become the demographically dominant group in countries they currently inhabit. For example, there is good evidence that (regardless of race, ethnicity, culture or historical era) the percentage of men and women who prefer sexual partners of same sex doesn’t cross ten percent. It is basically impossible for a stable or growing population in any country to become majority homosexual. The same is true for other all other sexual minorities. To put it another way, sexual minorities are also biologically limited minorities. But why is this insight relevant to the topic of this post? And how does it influence what the minority can get away with?

The simple answer is that biologically unlimited minorities can afford to be far more brazen in imposing their will on the rest, especially once they become a large enough minority. They have far more leeway to make mistakes and overreach in their goal of ultimate domination, especially if they are a large enough ascendant minority in a country where the erstwhile majority is in terminal demographic decline. Those options are, however, not available to biologically limited minorities since their percentage in the population will never exceed a few percentage points. To make a long story short, the rights of biologically limited minorities are perpetually contingent upon maintaining the goodwill of majority. The key word in previous sentence is ‘goodwill’.

In a previous post, I noted that the rapid success of movement for equal rights for gays and lesbians was largely due to the issue being framed as an extension of legal equality to historically marginalized and persecuted classes. Their struggle for legal equality was never framed as gays and lesbians being a holier-tha-thou class of righteous and intrinsically superior people who were beyond criticism. And this brings us to the past few years. Many of you might have noticed a recent increase in the number of losers who pretend to be “woke” and see “micro-aggression” in almost interaction they have with other people. You might have also noticed that a small but vocal minority within those sexual minorities trying to claim a special exalted status linked to their alleged intrinsic moral superiority over all those ‘cis’ peasants.

Some may not like my characterization of “woke” sexual ultra-minorities as nothing more than grifters trying to use currently existing public goodwill towards gays and lesbians to elevate their social status and validate their delusions of grandeur. I would welcome alternate explanations for this phenomena which are rational and consistent with observable reality. My point is that the spread of this particular way of thinking among the population most closely resembles quasi-religious cults who promise special status to true believers. It is therefore not surprising that people in the entertainment industry have embraced the “woke” cult. After all, similar older cults such as Scientology or those centered around a plethora of now-discredited eastern spiritualists simply don’t carry the prestige they used to in the past.

But there is one crucial difference between previous cults popular among the effete and declining western “elite” and this one. See.. older cults understood the limitations of their scam and never tried to become mainstream. In fact, many tried to be as secretive as possible. The cult of white “wokeness” (and yes, it is mostly white) is stupid enough to try to enforce its way of thinking on the rest of society. But what harm can come from using hilarious pronouns to humor a few mentally-unusual people? Well.. two major reasons.

First, their demand for special treatment does not stop at hilarious pronouns and gender-neutral washrooms. Read a bit about the controversy surrounding trans athletes (who were born male) competing in female events. Demanding that all biological women accept trans ‘women’ as women is an excellent way to antagonize half the population. Also, do you think biological women will ever accept trans ‘women’ as real women? And why would they? What is in it for them? To make matters worse, a small part of the medical profession is beginning to see this movement as an opportunity to make more money. That is why we are seeing an increasing push to medicalize any behavior in children that appears to be “non-gender conforming”. Do you really think that this is not going to create a rapidly increasing and massive backlash?

Then there is the issue of how SJWs and other professional ‘activists’ who are the public face of “wokeness” behave towards rest of population. The thing is.. getting away with being constantly rude, dismissive and generally abusive towards others requires real power and, even then, is often unsustainable. The current crop of idiots.. I mean activists.. is completely reliant on a few large spineless corporations and existing public goodwill towards gays and lesbians. The real question is- how long will their twin pillars of power hold? More specifically, do you really think that the currently favorable outlook of general population towards gays and lesbians will withstand their association (in the public mind) with these shrill “woke” losers? Corporations, being especially unpopular since 2008, will drop them once it starts hurting their bottom line- directly or indirectly. In other words, their twin pillars of power are made of sand, not concrete.

Perhaps the most unfortunate legacy of this “woke” activism for sexual ultra-minorities is its potential (and almost certain) negative effects on achievements by gay and lesbian movements. A good analogy is how all Germans today often have to answer for actions of Third Reich, even if most of their ancestors were not involved in the atrocities and genocides under that regime. There is no shortage of religious nutcases who would love to use the public dislike and contempt for “woke” SJWS and activists in rolling back many of the rights and protections gained by gays and lesbians over multiple decades- and that would be most unfortunate given all the sacrifices and effort to reach the world of today.

What do you think? Comments?

Conflict Between Right Wingers and Tech Monopolies Won’t End Well: 4

June 5, 2019 4 comments

In the previous post of this series, I wrote about how the large number of aspies.. also known as programmers etc.. in the tech industry will be one of the main reason for its coming downfall. To quickly summarize, most programmers are poor at reading other people- especially as it concerns transgressing boundaries that no sane person would dare cross without expecting blowback. As a result, these mentally disabled people (just being honest here) will often make and stick to really bad decisions, you know.. the type which will get them removed from the gene pool. Euphemism aside, this is an issue that is especially relevant in the rapidly declining west due to market share of tech monopolies such as Google, FakeBook etc. See.. monopolies make the effects of stupid decisions that much worse, creating conditions for a quicker and far harsher blowback.

In that post, I also briefly mentioned SJWs- specifically, how they too lacked a theory of mind, but for far different reasons than aspies.. I mean programmers. But why is the nexus of aspies and SJWs in tech monopolies so problematic and ultimately suicidal for those corporations. It comes down to how these two groups of losers make each other mistakes that much worse. So let us talk about that dynamic. Large tech corporations seem to hire people with SJW mindsets for administrative jobs at a much higher frequency than other corporations. Part of the reason for this phenomena has to do with them being located in coastal California and heavily urbanized parts of the east coast etc. But the more important reason, in my opinion, is that tech monopolies want to present a public image of being trendy,”with it”, “woke” and morally “superior”.

It also helps that they have not suffered any serious or sustained blowback to acting like high-handed assholes.. yet. And that is likely to change, far faster than most want to believe. Many forget that just a decade ago, the state of internet (as far as it concerns tech monopolies) was quite different from what we see today. And let us be honest about something else, the public image of tech monopolies and that sector in general has taken a pretty severe beating in the past five years. There is a reason why cable shows such as ‘Silicon Valley‘ have become popular and increasingly caustic in their depictions of that sector. A decade ago, many people worshiped techies and wholeheartedly supported that sector. Today, I am willing to bet that, over 50% of americans will pay money to watch them be burned in a public square.

But why does this fast and large shift in public attitudes towards tech monoplies matter? After all, who really liked Standard Oil, Bell Telephone Company, pre-1950s Movie Studies and IBM during their heyday. In case you didn’t catch it, there is a reason I chose the names of those erstwhile monopolies and oligopolies. Is anybody today saddened by their breakup or downfall subsequent to anti-trust actions by previous governments? My point is that the public perception of any corporation, even one that is effectively a monopoly, is ultimately the single biggest determinant of its future survival. Tech monopolies have made far more enemies in past decade than many other monopolies did over multiple decades. But why and what does it have to do with SJWs?

To understand what I am getting at, let me ask you a few short questions. Which corporation will be hated more, one which charges you a bit too much for some services (any old-fashioned local bank) or one which unilaterally screws you over with no recourse (Paypal)? Which one will be hated more, an old-fashioned record label or movie studio run by greedy people belonging of a certain ethno-religious (insert name..) or corporations that fill a similar niche today but will shut you down and screw you over at the metaphorical drop of a hat because you offended some stupid piece of shit (YouTube, FakeBook)? I could list more examples, but you get the point. The later types of corporations elicit far more revulsion and hatred than the former. But why?

Well.. for two reasons. Firstly, internet monopolies do not follow due legal process or even bother to carefully justify their actions. Human beings remember slights and insults far better than “rationalist” idiots want to accept. Secondly, many less reputable corporations of yesteryear were not monopolies and one could easily find competitors eager to work with another new customer or partner. Also, as mentioned in a previous post, monoplies such as Standard Oil, Bell Telephone Company and IBM were always more than willing to sell their products and services to whoever could pay- irrespective of whether they agreed with their worldview or not. It was all about making money and getting repeat business, nothing more.

Now let us go back to SJWs or more precisely, how they will be the death of internet monopolies- in more ways than one. Ever wondered why corporations in previous eras seemed to lack SJWs, or why corporations in some sectors still have no SJWs within their ranks? It comes down to corporate structure, specifically how it has changed over past four decades. Prior to 1980, almost every person in management and administration rose to their current positions from within that corporation or from another similar one. In other words, they were loyal to the corporations they worked for and it was rewarded with job or career security. However the neoliberal “revolution” changed that and the management and administrative staff of corporation were increasingly external hires who saw each job as a temporary stepping stone towards an independent career- which never works for most of them in the end.

But what does this have to do with SJW-ism and “woke” capitalism? Well.. think of it this way, what does a person who does not expect to stay at a corporation for the rest of their life care about? The simple answer is- finding their next and hopefully better job. But what value does somebody, who likely has never worked in a corporation similar to the one in which they are seeking a job, offer to their new employer? Only two things, impressive-sounding educational “credentials” and manufactured public image. This why, for example, a mediocre candidate getting an MBA from an ivy-league school translates into a great job offer while an intelligent one from a “second rate” state university languishes in obscurity.

And this often ties in with a carefully curated public image aka people indulging in grandiose acts of “virtue” display or anything else that is seen as fashionable. It is all about showing off, lying and bullshitting. Earlier, I mentioned that SJWs lack a theory of mind, albeit for different reasons than aspies. Well.. here is the reason. SJWs are all about careerism supported by ever more ridiculous displays of fake “virtue”. If being “woke” and “tone policing” did not exist, they would support and promote anything that appeared fashionable. Heck, if enough idiots educated at ivy-leagues thought that Nazism was hip, they would go full Nazi.

In other words, being “woke” and “politically correct” is fashionable for the same reason polyester suits were fashionable in 1970s or those weird padded suits were big in 1980s. It is all about constantly giving off the appearance of being “hip”,”current” and “with it”. But surely, they cannot be that stupid? Are they so out of touch with reality? Guess what.. they are, and hanging out in their own social bubbles merely reinforces their belief system- if you can call it that. But more importantly, they have so far been insulated from the consequences of their behavior and actions. I, however, predict that it will soon change and they will increasingly have to face the wrath of people abused by them in past- for reasons that have to with probability.

In the next part of this series, I will lay out the many statistical reasons why SJWS and their corporate enablers will soon face an extremely nasty and likely violent backlash. And ya.. their doom is linked to probabilities generated via their own actions and behavior.

What do you think? Comments?

Conflict Between Right Wingers and Tech Monopolies Won’t End Well: 3

May 12, 2019 18 comments

A few months ago, I started a short series about why the conflict between right wingers and tech monopolies won’t end well. While the immediate reason for that series was the conspiracy by tech monopolies to deplatform Alex Jones, I knew that sooner or later there would be more instances of such high-handed behaviour by tech monopolies. As it happens, my allegedly pessimistic views on human beings and their pathetic institutions get validated almost every single time. Some of you might have heard that Roissy’s blog was recently banned. Apparently that particular blog was on WP, unlike self-hosted WP blogs who are constrained only by the availability of a willing DNS registrar and hosting provider. There are those, especially on the “left” who see this as some minor victory in the war against “hate speech”.. which is now basically whatever shrill SJWs do not want you to say in public. Others see it as good riddance since that blog had increasingly become full-bore racist and was frequented by even sadder racist nutcases.

Here is what I think about the whole situation and some of you won’t like to hear it. The right to free speech is about protecting the right to unpopular speech- even and especially if you do not agree with it. I am no fan of the racism, anti-semitism and nativism which increasingly filled up posts on that blog. Having said that, I support the right of Roissy to post crazy and repulsive stuff as long as it does not involve overtly illegal stuff (making specific threats towards specific people etc). In any case, people who post controversial stuff online are not making you go to their site or social media profile and read it. Some of you might think it odd that me, a non-white guy with a deep dislike for racism and other forms of bigotry and discrimination, would support the free speech rights of a blog that peddled many of those very things. Then again, I have read a bit more history than most of you to know that “public moralists” of all shades are power-hungry sociopaths who will not stop once the most objectionable people or stuff are gone.

Consider, for example, that the hilariously misnamed PATRIOT act passed after Sep 11, 2001 to combat “global terrorism” is now used almost exclusively in investigations of “drug trafficking” to target poor people of color. Or SWAT teams, first conceived to tackle rare instances of hostage taking, are now found in almost all larger police departments and usually used to murder non-violent (and usually non-white) citizens. Similarly, laws to deal with highly organised Italian mafia are now used to terrorize, murder and otherwise destroy the lives of poor and often completely innocent non-white people. You might also remember how the 1994 crime bill meant to combat fictitious urban “super-predators” ended up jailing and destroying the lives of millions of black men for “crimes” that would have been never prosecuted if they were suburban whites. My point is that all laws, rules and regulations meant to “protect” public morality, virtue and other non-tangible bullshit end up as tools of exploitation, profit and abuse for those pushing them.

It also my contention that the tech sector, especially tech monopolies are highly susceptible to behave in such a high-handed manner. Of course, the problem with behaving in such a manner is that the inevitable backlash will be especially brutal- and that previous term is not just a figure of speech. Let us first talk about why the information technology sector is unusually susceptible to high-handed and ultimately suicidal behaviour. See.. two types of persons are over-represented in information technology corporation- Aspies and SJWs. Yes, you hear that right- Aspies and SJWs. But why is that combination so problematic and ultimately suicidal? The simple and short answer is that both, Aspies and SJWs, do not posses a functional theory of mind– albeit for different reasons. Aspies, aka computer programmers aka software “engineers” are often seen as smart or intelligent people. The tragically funny part is that they are not.

The vast majority of computer programmers are closer to autistic savant artists and other autistic savants than people without such mental disabilities. While I am not denying their specific skills, a majority of people working in programming etc are what one might say.. suffering from a mild mentally disability. This is also why so many in that sector have libertarian economic leanings. I can appreciate this far better than most since I was a bit aspy as a kid but grew out if it. But most programmer and mathematically minded do not grow out it- largely because they lack the brain circuitry to appreciate what they do not possess- not unlike a child who was born blind or deaf. But why would this be a problem? After all, haven’t the founders of Google, FakeBook etc done very well- at least right now? A disability which lets you make a very nice salary in Silly Valley cannot be that bad.. right? The thing is.. keeping power is far harder than attaining it.

The next issue I am going to talk about will be obvious to most people, but may not register in the mind of tech Aspies. Have you noticed that information technology companies, out all types of corporations, treat their users and customers like shit? I am sure that most of you have come across tons of people complaining about FakeBook, Twatter, Google, Apple, Paypal etc. Did you notice the large tech monopolies missing from that list… Amazon, Netflix and to some extent Microsoft. But why is that so? The ‘so clever’ among you might say that this has something to do with you being the product for companies such as FakeBook and Google and the consumer for Amazon, Netflix and Microsoft. Others might say that this is because they can get away with it- and there is some truth to that. Let me posit a third option- connection or lack thereof to the physical world aka reality. And you will soon why I think that is the case.

Let me ask you another question- How many of you would walk into a some random bar, insult everybody you interacted with and try to start fights with them? Let us assume that you could somehow win the first few bar fights. Or consider randomly insulting people around you, for no good reason. Why won’t the vast majority of people behave in this manner, even if they could “win” the first few times. The simple, if tasteless, answer to that question is most people who are not Aspies understand real-world social dynamics. The majority of people understand that pissing off random people around yourself, for no good reason, carries a serious and rapidly increasing reputational cost. While it may not be much in the beginning, especially if you are rich, the many enmities you will make along the way will lead to your eventual downfall and demise. There is a reason that even Machiavelli advises rulers against mistreating their common subjects- lest it create fertile grounds for successful usurpers.

Even highly totalitarian, but somewhat successful, regimes such as those in the former eastern block understood that gross mistreatment of average people and frequently subjecting them to capricious power-crazy nutcases was fundamentally bad policy. This is also why the Chinese government actually cares about what its people want and think, in many cases far more so than USA. The problem with tech Aspies is that they can read history quite well but are mentally incapable of understanding it. In other words, they are unable to appreciate how their actions and behaviour make them hated and detested. As you will see in the next part of this series, this profound inability to read other people and their proximity to equally oblivious SJWs makes for a really bad combination, with potentially catastrophic results. In case you are wondering, the main reason Amazon, Netflix, Microsoft haven’t gone that far down this route has a lot to do with such behaviour having an immediate and marked negative effect on their business.

In the next part, I will write about how SJWs aka hyper-socialized sociopathic fakes and their involvement in the tech sector makes the effects of tech aspism far worse than it would have otherwise been. SJWs, academic leftists and post-modernists also lack a functional theory of mind- though for vastly different reasons than tech Aspies. As you see, the peculiar combination of tech aspism and SJWism induces way more backlash than either would have by itself.

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?

My Thoughts on the “Google Memo” and James Damore: Aug 9, 2017

August 9, 2017 6 comments

It appears that many of you want to hear my opinions about that now infamous “Google Memo” and its author- who has now been identified as James Damore. Well.. I had considered writing about this issue a couple of days ago, but thought it was best to wait until the guy at the center of this latest culture war controversy represented himself though an interview or two and maybe a detailed blog post. As it stands today, he seems to have given interviews to two people in what many would consider the ‘alt-right’.

In my opinion, who he gives an interview to at this time is not particularly relevant- since the Mass Media and SJWs of all persuasions are going out of their way to demonize and shut him out. This is not to say that I agree with every single word in his memo. However, the right to free speech (which I strongly support) is more important than the right of SJWs and other morons to feel “safe” from speech which they might find “offensive”. As long-time readers of my blog know, I am not fond of SJWs or the underlying motivations of their behavior.

As I have said in previous posts, SJW-ism is largely driven by the desire to show moral superiority (and perhaps make a quick buck) under neoliberalism. The current “intellectual” underpinnings of the slowly imploding neoliberal order do not allow real large-scale social problems to be addressed, and therefore activists and scammers spend their energy at promoting really small-scale causes such as transgender rights and the right for muslim women to wear a hijab while simultaneously ignoring endemic poverty, joblessness and overall misery seen in western neoliberal countries- especially the USA.

To put it another way, SJWs and their boosters in Mass Media are more interested in trying to make you feel ashamed about some video game you enjoy than push for universal healthcare. They would rather spend their efforts on trying to make you say that certain women comedians are talented and “beautiful” than lead a campaign for fully tax-funded university education. It is also no secret that many supposedly “liberal” TV personalities who pretend to care about social issues are just scammers making money out of misdirected outrage that is safe for their corporate backers.

So now you know where I stand on the issue of free speech, SJWs and Corporate Mass Media. But what about the actual contents of that memo or James Damore? Well.. this is the part that some of you might not like, because what I think about both of them is a bit more nuanced than my views on SJWs and Corporate Mass Media.

Firstly, the basic idea proposed in that memo- namely that women and men’s brains are not “wired” the same way is essentially correct. Now this does not mean that there is no overlap between the “wiring” of the two groups. In fact, there is far more overlap than many would be willing to accept. Having said that, you can make the claim that women as a group will perform better at some tasks than men as a group and vice versa.

This does not however translate into differences in gross intelligence or other large-scale abilities. As many of you know, women now make up almost half of doctors, lawyers and (in many countries) engineers and they seem to do as well as their male counterparts in these vocations. You might also recall that even 50 years, it was rare for women to be admitted in these field because of their supposed lack of intellectual ability. So clearly, all the beliefs which kept women out of intellectually demanding fields in previous eras were wrong.

Furthermore, psychological studies (which is largely made up bullshit) was once used as a justification to treat non-whites as subhuman. Today we are largely accept the idea that asians (both east- and south-) are very good at math and other STEM subjects and account for a disproportionate number of employees of technology heavy corporations and institutions. However as late as the 1960s, many prominent white scientists still believed that Asians were “low IQ” without any worthwhile ability for scientific or original thinking. How the tables have turned now..

And this brings me to what I think about the most significant, but overlooked, part of that memo. Though the document has been blasted for being overtly sexist, it is more about the corporate and office culture at Google in particular and corporate america in general. The guy is complaining about how the managerial and HR types at Google has basically stopped listening to opinions which diverge ever so slightly from their fashionable and “naturally correct” consensus. He is describing an organisation where the loudest and most manipulative faddists carry the day.

In short, he is describing an organisational culture which has more in common with royal courts, politburos and other large corporations that are dominated by clever and sociopathic power seekers than those who make the system function properly. I, for one, am not surprised that a large and unwieldy corporation such as Google has now more in common with other corporations and institutions with a similar head count and complex hierarchies than what it was a decade ago.

The fact that institutional bias at Google seems to be based in one fashionable type interpretation of the social “sciences” is just a quirk of the times we live in. Some of you might recall that many large corporations of yesteryears- such as Kodak, IBM, HP, Ford, GM, Merck too used have their own and equally well-known institutional biases based in conservative values or whatever corporate bullshit was fashionable at that moment. In fact, I wrote about inevitable emergence of such dysfunction in large institutions about six years ago.

Anyway, to summarize this post- what James Damore wrote in that memo has more to do with emergent dysfunction in large impersonal institutions than sexism. I would go far as to say that there is little, if any, sexism in that document. The very fact that he is being attacked for the basically nonexistent sexism in his memo says a lot about our contemporary media culture and society. Also, it says a lot about where Google is going.. or not going.

Might write more about this story depending on comments and future developments.

What do you think? Comments?