Rule 34

I finally found out why the Americans are putting pressure on the Germans to give their tanks to Ukraine, while they themselves won’t give them their own Abrams tanks, with an excuse that they are too high-maintennance.

You see, the Americans told all countries who will give their Leopard II tanks to Ukraine that they will receive free Abrams tanks from America’s own stock. Apparently, being high-maintennance is not a problem in this context. The Germans are freaking out because this is removing them from the market for tank purchases and harming their industry.

As the 34th rule of acquisition clearly states, war is good for business.

The endless spiral

I must admit that this Andrew Tate person (or at least his public persona) pissed me off more than I expected, but probably for reasons other than one might expect. For instance, I agree with most of what he’s saying. I don’t like his flamboyant behaviour, or the way he doesn’t seem to really connect with women, but that’s not what pissed me off.

What pissed me off is that he tries to teach people never to be content with anything, never to settle for “good enough”, never to transcend base greed, never to stop trying to acquire status by flaunting status symbols, never to stop and think and understand that appearance of power and appearance of freedom do not magically produce the real thing, when acquired. I kept having an argument with a simulated Tate in my head, and it bothered me that I couldn’t answer some of his boisterous arguments in an immediate and satisfactory way. “Where’s your Bugatti?”, for instance, is something I can’t answer with a satisfactory sound bite. I don’t have enough money to be able to afford such an object, and then decide against it because I’m being reasonable, or because I don’t really want it. It is true, however, that when I acquired a significant amount of money, I stopped caring about “status symbols” to a very large degree, which is something I understand; when I was financially threatened, I felt the need to maintain a defensive posture that would prevent the “sharks” from smelling my blood in the water, so to speak, so I kept the appearance of having money when I was deeply in debt and everything felt very fragile. I would buy the most expensive car I could possibly manage, in order to maintain the appearance of wealth and security, in order to discourage attacks by my enemies. I don’t know if any of it worked, but that was my reasoning. It was all based on instinct, the way a cat puffs itself up to appear bigger when scared, and acting on such instinct probably only depleted my scarce resources, but in hindsight I don’t see how those resources could have been used for something constructive; the situation was too profoundly bad for constructive measures at that point, and I correctly felt that I need to just buy time, survive while maintaining a defensive posture, until the situation that was presently outside of my control improves. One would expect that, later, when I not only got out of debt, but started making quite a bit of money, I would start preening like that Tate peacock, but that didn’t happen. What I noticed is that I was buying the stuff that I would normally need, but I could do it properly now. If I needed a laptop, I could just buy a proper one that meets my needs, not something second-hand from ebay, or something barely adequate because it’s cheap. If I needed clothes, I could just walk into a store and buy whatever I needed. I pay the bills immediately, not postpone it until the latest possible moment. I buy the fuel when I need it, not when I can afford it. If I feel like going somewhere for a day, I just do; I don’t have to wait until I have enough money for fuel. If I need a computer, I buy really good components, not the cheapest ones that barely work for me. So, money is good, and poverty is shit. However, what I noticed is that this peaked quite quickly; basically, for the most part, I still buy the same kind of stuff that I previously used, but I can easily afford it now. Before, I had to buy a seven year old car, and even then it was a stretch. Now I can just go to a car salon and buy something, but I still drive cars of exactly the same type and class I did before; it’s just that I buy them new now, and I can easily afford it. I once thought that, if I could buy a new BMW M5, that I would immediately do it, but that didn’t happen. Instead, I bought normal cars, and when I found a good deal on them. I wondered why that was, and one possible answer was that I don’t have enough money to buy such a thing and not reduce the amount of money I have significantly, and that certainly is one factor, but that would not have stopped me in the bad years, when I felt financially vulnerable and threatened; I’d spend everything I had on such a status symbol, and go into debt as much as possible; the self-preservation preening instinct was just too strong to allow for reasonable action. When I look at Tate, it seems that for some people this never goes away even when they become wealthy, they develop an insatiable greed in their years of poverty, a greed that can never be sated, a hole that can never be filled. That didn’t happen to me; I reacted with defensive instincts when I was in real trouble, but once I replaced all the things that wore out or broke during the bad years, I basically got to a point where I relaxed and calmed down, capped my expenses at a reasonable, slightly above average level, and started saving money.

That’s one thing that annoyed me with Tate – he tries to provoke people into keeping up the endless spiral of greed and preening, into destroying themselves financially and making potentially dangerous financial moves in order to be able to afford a lifestyle of incredible wastefulness, because he convinced them that freedom and safety are only possible at the upper echelons of wealth. Considering how he and his brother are currently in a Romanian prison, under whatever fake charges America told the Romanians to invent, and his opulent and boisterous lifestyle not only didn’t prevent that, but arguably caused it, I could flip the question and ask him where his Bugatti is, now. This, however, doesn’t satisfy me, because the fact that I don’t actually have enough money to really do all the things I would want to is something I feel to be a valid argument against me, so let’s see how I would actually answer it if I wanted to be perfectly honest. I would answer that I am a slave, a prisoner and a cripple. I can’t fly, or teleport, or change shape of my body, or extend my mind as well as I would want to. I am confronted with my limitations whenever I try to do anything I have no talent for – I can’t read or compose music, for instance; I have only limited understanding of electronics, and always had issues with mathematics, because I am slightly dyslexic to the point where I make mistakes copying long sequences of numbers and symbols, and I make mistakes when solving long equations, even when I completely understand how they should be solved. Some things come to me with trivial ease, and for some my brain just doesn’t work and it feels like trying to push through a brick wall. So, I’m limited by my lack of ability, by my lack of talent, by fundamental immutable physical limitations of my body, by the characteristics of the world, by limited resources at my disposal, and so on. The most painful limitation is that God hides himself from my sight; I feel the presence, and I can be much more than I can see, but for the most part I have to try really hard not to think about it because it hurts like fucking hell. I can’t meditate because I immediately hit an artificial wall, that was put there because God apparently thinks I have to remain in the state of separation in order to do the things I have to do, so when I meditate and hit that wall I feel helpless frustration caused by the fact that it’s not up to me; I actually sometimes wish that it were because I fucked up, because then I could work on fixing it, I could repent, or work hard to repay whatever debt, or something. So, I am limited, and I hate it, but the point where I get incredibly pissed at the imagined “where’s your Bugatti?” question is that the damn fool asking it doesn’t understand the enormous extent of my problem. Sure, I can’t buy a 5M USD car, but honestly, I can buy a 200K USD car, and I still bought one that’s ten times cheaper, just because I knew that a more expensive car won’t solve my problem. I won’t get my abilities back. I will still hit a “presence, but no information” barrier when I meditate. It will still hurt like a motherfucker when I accidentally think about all the things I can’t reach. I will still feel damaged when I try something that’s outside of my talents. I will still feel vulnerable to attack. I don’t have a Bugatti because I’m not wealthy enough, but that’s beside the point; the reason why I don’t have an M5 is because I know it wouldn’t solve my problems. The illusion of power doesn’t interest me. The illusion of safety doesn’t interest me. I want the real thing, not illusions and trinkets. I mentioned my weak points and limitations, but this one is not one of them; you see, I am not prone to self-deception. I know what the problems are, and I know what doesn’t solve them, even if I don’t have the actual solution available. I don’t do stupid moves that have the purpose of creating pleasant illusions. If truth hurts, I would rather feel the pain. So, that seems to be the root of my irritation with Andrew Tate – I see the guy who’s taking the path of self-deception, and by some instinct this makes me do the opposite, and it hurts.

Corruption

I was explaining to Biljana yesterday how Russia can create weapons that exceed American equivalents for a fraction of the cost, and I think you will find the explanation interesting. You see, it’s not that Russia doesn’t have problems. It has a problem with corruption, for instance, but the thing is, corruption is against the law in Russia. One can abuse his position of power in order to steal material and sell it on the black market or whatever, but he can be caught, and in that case he will end up in jail for a long time, and Russian jails are not the most pleasant places. The Russian system is designed to be very lean and effective – the weapons are designed to be cheap to purchase and to require very little maintenance. They also need to be durable. This is because it is understood that the purpose of weapons is to defend Russia and kill the enemies, at the least possible cost to the state, because every Rouble wasted is a Rouble not spent on something useful, such as infrastructure or education. Because the system is designed to be lean and effective, there are no legal ways for people in positions of power to dip their hands into the pork barrel, and if they do so, they have to do it illegally and risk jail.

In America, things are designed differently. The weapons manufacturers, big pharma and other industries finance the campaigns of politicians who pledge to serve them if elected to office. They hedge this by financing politicians from both parties, which guarantees that they will get what they want. The elected politician then works for them, and not for the nominal electorate, and his job is to push through legislation that favours his owners, including government purchases of extremely expensive equipment that includes all kinds of pork barrel dips by a huge chain of leeches that each need to “earn” a commission. Only the smallest fraction of the cost is the actual equipment, and it’s designed to require frequent and extremely costly maintenance in order to guarantee future pork barrel dips, and it’s also designed to fail early, and require replacement, also guaranteeing future pork barrel dips. Corruption in America is therefore designed into the system, and not only is it not against the law, it’s actually the entities that generate corruption that control the entity that makes the laws, basically creating a situation where normal states have corruption, and corruption has America.

Weather forecast


The ground is freezing in Ukraine, which means the Russians will attack, which means the end of Ukraine, which means the NATO/America will go in openly trying to seize at least the western part, which means there will be direct contact of Russian and American troops on the ground.

At the same time, collapse of the American stock market and the dollar is expected, and the central banks have something planned that seems to include revaluing the gold price in order for all who own it to be able to rinse their debt and inflation.

And yeah, I think I have a possible explanation for the Russian withdrawal from Kherson: it becomes obvious once you remember the old news, from when it was freshly liberated by the Russians. You see, a significant percentage of the population  (20-40%, not sure) there are Ukrops, who hate Russia. The Russians withdrew all their guys into Russia proper, left the Ukrops there, and now their beloved banderistas from Kiev are recruiting them for cannon fodder, or torturing and killing them because they suspect them of working with the Russians. Also, no electricity, water, food or anything else there. I guess hatred for Russia will keep them warm.

Electricity

There was a question asked once on one of the “prepping” sites: how much would a permanent electrical outage disrupt your life.

I answered that it would most likely be an unrecoverable, life-threatening disaster, to which the local “experts” laughed, saying how hard is it to heat your home and cook your meals on wood and coal like people used to? I concluded that they didn’t really think things through.

Let’s just go with the obvious – heat, light, cooking. If your apartment or a house isn’t designed around solid fuels – meaning wood and coal – you might not even have a chimney to get the smoke out. If you do, it’s most likely connected to the kitchen ventilation hood, and you would have to get a wood stove and rework your kitchen quite a bit to have it installed in place of the electrical appliances, and that would give you only a single-point heating source. Central heating, with circulation of hot water across the radiators, uses an electric pump, which means that if you have central heating on utility gas, it won’t work if there’s no electricity. This means your entire family would have to move their beds to the proximity of the wood stove in the kitchen. Also, since your home isn’t designed around it, and people don’t have experience with it, there would be a significant increase in numbers of carbon monoxide poisoning cases, because people wouldn’t know to ventilate the place properly, or know what is dangerous.

The second thing is, do you know how much coal/wood you need to get through the winter? Do you have it? Do you have a place to store it? Is it dry? Do you know where to buy it? Is there even enough on the market for everybody, and can you afford it?

Let’s just say that there is enough coal, but the distribution network doesn’t exist, and people absolutely don’t have adequate storage for the quantities required. Also, burning coal for domestic use in the cities would produce such degradation of air quality we haven’t seen for a century. As for wood, there’s absolutely not enough for everybody. The logistics absolutely aren’t there for the big cities.

As for the light, petroleum and gas powered lights do work, as do the candles. However, using open flame as a light source would increase the number of fires.

Everything you have in the refrigerator would go bad, and you would have to either prepare it for immediate consumption, or throw it out. The same would happen in the big refrigeration centres and shopping malls. Refrigeration is absolutely necessary for ensuring food supply of the kind we are used to, and we can’t just flip a switch and do it the 19th century way. There were 1.5 billion people in the world in the 19th century, and that’s a high estimate, and it also assumes a civilization that is optimized very precisely for that way of life. We are at 7.9 billion now. Returning to the 19th century means there are suddenly no resources for the 6.4 billion people, and it’s not that they would just die. No, they would rob and kill everybody first, and then die. Such a sudden drop in available resources would be an extinction-level event, not a “return to the good old times”.

Modern medicine works on electricity, so no modern medicine.

No refrigeration. Medications require refrigeration, so no medications.

Industry requires electricity, so no industry.

Every damn thing that works on gas and oil also has some part that requires electricity to run.

Every damn thing that used to be wind and water powered in the past is now powered by electricity; think windmills, or water mills. Can’t mill wheat into flower without rebuilding those from scratch. Bakeries used to work on coal and wood; not anymore. Can’t buy bread.

No Internet. No computers. No mobile networks. No radio, no TV. No communications. Can’t call the police, or ambulance, or the fire department. Beyond what you can see, and beyond a distance you can ride a bicycle to in reasonable time, communications are broken and you don’t know what’s going on.

No banks, no ATMs, no cash registers in the stores and no POS devices. No money, because the paper money would become worthless quickly and people would revert to barter, because they no longer have any experience with precious metals as money.

Lawlessness. Armed gangs roaming the streets, robbing houses and apartment blocks. Martial law, where the police and the military might actually be as dangerous as the gangs.

A permanent no-electricity situation isn’t a “oh, we’ll burn coal and wood like our grandparents” situation. It’s the extinction event. The greatest number of deaths in a nuclear war scenario isn’t due to the atomic bombs hitting you, or the radiation; it’s due to a disruption in transportation, refrigeration and so on. The bombs and radiation kill tens of millions. Lack of electricity and fuel kills billions.

That’s why I don’t have a backup plan for the complete lack of electricity; because it’s a doomsday scenario. It is not realistically survivable.