Category Archives: politics

Pot calling the kettle black

Posted on by
Reply

I cannot believe that the main stream media, CNN, MSNBC and others, who have been manufacturing lies and propaganda continuously for the last several years, have the nerve to call out “fake news” sites. And no, they’re not targeting The Onion, they are targeting Breitbart and Alex Jones, who’ve been the only trustworthy sources of information so far – they’ve been spot on in both their facts and their analysis thereof.

And they are calling out RT, which is the most trustworthy source of information on everything regarding world politics, because everybody else is controlled by America and writes propaganda.

I can’t be the only one who’s pissed off at that, so I expect two things will happen. The assholes who control the media will introduce some sort of dictatorial censorship laws and try to suppress the actual news sources. And then I expect them to lose the elections to the “extreme right”. And then all sorts of shit will hit the fan.

Just to make it clear, I’m disgusted by RT’s attempts to implement the official Russian policy of appeasing Islam, I’m disgusted by their open praise of Fidel Castro, who is one of the greatest political idiots of the 20th century, and had his mother aborted him it would be the greatest day in the history of his country and they wouldn’t even know it. I am also annoyed by Alex Jones frequently going off on a tangent, raving about some crazy bullshit, and advertising his nutra supplements. Yeah. The problem is, CNN, BBC, MSNBC and others are completely unwatchable due to propaganda. They are not news sites, they are enemies of truth, freedom and justice.

On common foes

Posted on by
Reply

There’s been talk about how America and Russia should cooperate instead of fight, because they have a common enemy, which is Islamic terrorism.

That is essentially true, but of secondary importance, because they both, on a very deep core level, believe that Islamic terrorism doesn’t really threaten them as long as they can wipe out all Muslim countries off the face of the Earth within 30 minutes; and they can, believe me. They can. So, basically, for as long as the Arabs are as dangerous to them as a mouse is to a cat, they can’t really be expected to take it seriously enough to take their eyes off their main problem.

America’s main problem is that its economy is in final stages of collapse. Anchoring dollar to oil is no longer sustainable, their budget deficit is huge but their greater problems are dependence of the economy on the military industry, which doesn’t really produce anything useful to the economy and instead binds otherwise productive men into non-productive and expensive activities, so it’s essentially a drain. This is visible from the correlation between military spending during wartime and the rise of national debt – it essentially became exponential when Bush overreacted to 9/11, and the curve simply continued to skyrocket during Obama’s administration. The attempt to dampen the collapse of the credit system with printing trillions of dollars of fiat money while the mortgage system, which is a big part of the fiat currency backing, collapsed; essentially, instead of removing the uncovered part of the currency from circulation in order to preserve value, they in fact printed more, much more. This shifted the weight of the currency backing completely on oil and foreign economic levers, starting to pump serious money from the rest of the world into America, which was useful to stabilize America’s condition and postpone the collapse of its economy with the infusion of fresh money, but it exported the crisis overseas and essentially provided a strong motivation for other countries, who didn’t feel like being used like a blood bank for an ailing vampire, to break free from America’s economic hold on the world’s economy.

As a result, America’s problem is that it’s economy is failing and it needs to keep the rest of the world within its sphere of control in order to keep draining the resources.

Russia’s problem is that it understands exactly what’s going on and doesn’t feel like being dominated, drained for resources and reduced to a source of cheap commodities and a market for all kinds of imports. Essentially, Russia wants to remove the unhealthy mechanisms of international control that hamper its growth and keep it in the artificially handicapped state where it sells oil and gas to the markets that continuously threaten to stop buying them if Russia doesn’t “behave”, and at the same time buying everything else from those same countries. Also, Russia very much didn’t like being paid with american worthless currency for their oil and gas, because simple math says that if America printed trillions of fresh dollars at the time where they lost a significant amount of their currency’s backings (the mortgages), the actual value of that money was hugely diminished, and the oil price didn’t reflect the actual reality.

So, as America’s problem is that it absolutely needs to dominate everyone, with economy and politics if at all possible, and militarily if necessary, and Russian problem is that it wants to outgrow the consequences of their multi-decade crisis and develop a healthy economy and an independent international position, you can see why I’m seriously skeptical about any possibility of their cooperation on fighting their “common enemy”. They don’t really have a common enemy, they are fighting several proxy wars that serve to disrupt and re-establish their respective spheres of influence. The Muslims are American pawns, propped up as they once were in Afghanistan in order to subvert the existing order, and introduce chaos that was calculated to harm the Russians more than Americans, because Syria was Russia’s to lose, and even it it were razed to the last brick, as Afghanistan was, America would count this as an important strategic victory, because Russia lost an ally and America gained a pressure-relief in the region and an improvement to Israel’s strategic position. ISIS is counted by America as their asset, however disposable. To Russia, it’s a weapon aimed against their strategic interests. It’s not a common enemy. Were it a common enemy, it would have been wiped out within one morning, years ago. Both ISIS and the West-Ukrainian fascist government are disposable weapons aimed against Russia’s interests, and created and funded by America.

America and Russia are on a strategic collision course, this collision course is determined by geostrategic forces, and Trump’s victory is completely irrelevant in this regard, since he is by the very nature of his position unable to change America’s essential geostrategic realities. If he manages to rebuild America’s infrastructure, how is he going to fund it? If by printing money, he will increase the financial drain on the rest of the world and thus accelerate confrontation. If by taxation, he will collapse his economy. If he tries to de-fund the military, he will be killed. If he makes the military happy, he will have to at least continue having the military budget on the same level, continuing the exponential debt curve. If he tries to change the aspects of the economy that involve other countries, he will accelerate confrontation. The only way for America to actually recover would be to attempt to replicate the results of the second world war, by destroying the rest of the world and serving as a safe haven for brains and gold. However, I don’t see how this would realistically work, since there is no way for America to survive such a confrontation unharmed; in fact, it would be one of the most heavily nuked parts of the world.

The difference between Trump and Clinton is that Clinton already tried to placate, manipulate and pressure the Russians, and it didn’t work, and this is why she was primed for the next step, which is a nuclear war. Trump just didn’t have the opportunity to get to that page. If and when he assumes presidency, he will try the same “reset” bullshit, which Putin wouldn’t buy, instead asking for actual partnership and equality in mutual dealings. Since this is against America’s fundamental interests, they will quickly get to the point where Trump will play chicken with Putin, and Putin wouldn’t blink.

Why Islam is wonderful

Posted on by
Reply

In mathematics, there’s a simple way of proving a theorem. You try to prove the opposite of what it states. If an attempt to do so leads to contradiction, the impossibility of the opposite is taken as proof of the original thesis.

The implication, of course, is that something cannot be both true and false at the same time. Barring quantum superposition, let’s assume this to be universally valid, and let’s assume that if something can be proven as both true and false at the same time, it means that the thesis was incorrectly postulated.

The leftists have a fundamental problem. They state that diversity is good and that tolerance is good, and therefore different religious ideologies need to be accepted as an aspect of diversity, which is their argument for embracing Islam. On the other hand, they vehemently oppose fascism and try to outlaw it and imprison its proponents. The rationale for that is that fascism is an inherent danger to the basic tissue of a liberal, tolerant society, as it is inherently intolerant and authoritarian, and tends to erase all different opinions, ideologies and peoples.

So, let me exercise a rhetorical instrument called “sarcasm” and show the problem I see in the left’s defense of Islam:

Islam is, in fact, wonderful. As a Nazi, I love it. No wonder Hitler admired it so greatly and even considered having it as official religion. In Islam, you get to either kill or submit your enemies, they have to accept humiliation and additional taxation and you can always treat them badly with impunity. Women are treated like a support service for men, good only for sex, reproduction and making food, and they can’t interfere in men’s business. All those faggots and perverts can be expunged from society, along with other degenerates. Also, you get to have proper elections, where the candidates are inspected by a religious committee to ascertain if they have proper views, so that there can be no changes in policy and no surprises. Only the right side is allowed to compete and win. All that feminist, communist and liberal scum can finally be put to death.

Get it? There is no significant difference between Islam and National-socialism. Both are inherently anti-liberal, totalitarian political ideologies powered by the conviction of some cosmic rightness, from which they derive the right to rule mankind and kill or subjugate everybody who either opposes them or is recognized as a member of the inferior classes of men.

To tolerate Islam, or to tolerate National-socialism, disqualifies one as a tolerant, liberal person, because tolerance of the extremely intolerant is basically intolerance, since you then need to oppose those who are concerned with the intolerant systems as intolerant – Naziphobic or Islamophobic. The weirdest thing is, those who embrace tolerance are indeed intolerant towards some intolerant systems – they are intolerant towards the fascists, racists, gay-bashers and women-haters, but for some insane reason, probably attributable to infusion of money from the Islamic states to the “liberal” NGOs, Islam, which is a women-subjugating, gay-bashing, racist, fascist political ideology of the worst kind, masquerading as a religion, is not only excluded from the group of recognized intolerant and unacceptable ideologies, but somehow manages to pose on top of the oppression-olympics list of victims.

I’m a cynical and sarcastic bastard, but not even I could make up shit like that.

About calling Hitler a Nazi

Posted on by
Reply

Imagine accusing Hitler of antisemitism. Imagine accusing a Ku-Klux-Klan member of racism. Imagine accusing Stalin of communism. Imagine accusing Jack the Ripper of misogyny.

Ridiculous, eh? They would either laugh at you or stare blankly at you not understanding what the fuck are you trying to do, or confirm proudly. In any case, you wouldn’t accomplish jack shit.

And here we have the leftists who continuously go around accusing white men of racism, misogyny, bigotry and all sorts of nonsense, with the purpose of making them feel guilty enough to vote for a black poseur or a female criminal, tax them and drain them for all kinds of unfair benefits.

Is this shit for real? Let’s say the white men really are misogynes[*] and racists. Guess what’s the probability of a woman trying to do a follow-up on a black guy in a party that was founded by Dixieland in order to oppose abolition of slavery (look it up). Where the Democratic party was Sinn Fein, the Ku-Klux-Klan was IRA. So basically, if a party that used to hang blacks on trees if they looked at them the wrong way ended up electing a black candidate for president, and he ended up winning two terms, it’s proof that white racism doesn’t really exist in America as a realistic thing. Black racism, that’s a different matter entirely. The blacks are allowed to be as racist as they feel like, because whites are the only ones who can be influenced by this kind of guilt. A black person will go around all day saying how he hates white people and how they should all be killed, but if you tell that person he’s racist, he’ll just laugh at you the same way a KKK member would laugh at you if you accused him of being a racist. They would both think you’re an idiot.

If some label does in fact apply to someone, you can tell it by the fact that using it to induce guilt in that person doesn’t work. You can’t influence a true racist by telling him he’s a racist. I knew a true misogyne, a closet-homosexual who used to openly rant about how women are disgusting. If you told him he’s a misogyne, he’s just blankly stare at you, because it doesn’t work. Of course he is, he just told you he hates women and finds them to be disgusting subhuman trash that should be kept on a short leash. Of course a KKK member doesn’t have a problem being called a racist, he’d confirm and go on about how those damn niggers need to be hanged from trees and kept in fear and submission. Calling such people misogynes and racists is like trying to make me blush by calling me a yogi. I’d just look at you and try to figure out what the fuck are you about.

So basically, wherever this kind of debate tactics are used, they are self-canceling. If you use it on someone, it obviously doesn’t apply.

[*] A linguistic correction: a practitioner of misogyny is a misogyne, not a misogynist, just like a practitioner of misanthropy is a misanthrope, and not misanthropist. The French got this right, the Americans as usual fucked this up, because the fake scientists on their liberal colleges don’t really know Greek, they just want to use enough of Greek-sounding words in order to sound like scientists.

An analogy with tech

Posted on by
Reply

I was thinking about the similarities between the groupthink in the political sphere and its equivalent in the consumer technology sphere, and it dawned to me that I could more easily explain the political conundrum if I illustrate the problems in the technological equivalent, which might be less emotionally charged, at least for some parts of the audience.

So, let’s see the stereotypes.

1. An iPhone user is a stupid sheep who blindly follows trends and will pay more money for an inferior product.

2. Android is for people who want to customize their device.

3. Android is for poor people who can’t afford an iPhone.

4. A Mac user is a stupid sheep who will buy the overpriced shiny toy because he’s so stupid even Windows are too complicated for him.

5. Windows machines are virus-ridden, unstable, blue-screen-of-death displaying boring gray box.

6. Mac is for creative people, Windows are for accountants.

7. Windows are for poor people who can’t afford a Mac.

8. Linux is for poor people who can’t afford Windows.

Need I go on?

Now, let’s go through the list.

1 and 2: There are many reasons why one might want an iPhone. One is because he really is too stupid to understand that there are alternatives. Another is because he’s too busy doing whatever is his day-job to fiddle with a device, and just wants something that works reliably. His day-job might be “astrophysicist” or “doctor”. He doesn’t have either will or time to fiddle with a phone or to install an alternative kernel. He just wants speed, reliability, good build quality and, occasionally, he wants to run very specialized apps that are available for it. Someone who will “customize” his phone is more likely than not to live in his mom’s basement, because that’s the profile that’s likely to waste time on non-productive shit like that. If you have things to do, you use the phone to make calls, to google something or to find your way around on a map. You’re too busy operating on people’s brains, designing a new rocket engine, analyzing data from the Kepler telescope or getting that call informing you how that million-dollar deal went through. If your phone is all you have to deal with in your life, you’re either a phone designer, or someone who has too much spare time on his hands.

3: Yes, in many cases people who opt for Android phones find iPhones to be too expensive. That might be because they are poor. On the other hand, they might just want to buy something good but affordable and not too fragile for their kids. Or, they might decide that the iPhone just isn’t worth the premium; it does basically the same thing as a much cheaper Android phone, so why would you overpay for the same functionality? Essentially, you may have several good options and once you’re satisfied with the fact that any of them will do a good job, you pick one based on both preference and estimate of cost-effectiveness.

4: Yes, there are people who buy a Mac because they find Windows too complicated (although, it is difficult for me to figure out how that is possible, since both systems are more-less equally trivial to master). On the other hand, there are people who will buy a Mac because Apple’s laptops have great battery life, great screen, excellent touchpad, or because they can run open source tools via macports or homebrew, allowing them to have access to the same toolkit they would have on Linux, but with better reliability, better battery life, less bugs, and with the ability to run Adobe apps. Those are excellent reasons, and it’s easy to understand why one would get a laptop from Apple, and in fact it might explain why Apple laptops are outselling everything on the market, and why they are especially popular with technology and science professionals, who certainly aren’t using them because they find Windows intimidatingly difficult. I, for instance, migrated to a Macbook Air from a Thinkpad running Linux five years ago, simply because it was thin, light, had a great battery, had an SSD, and one of the best displays on any laptop. Also, it ran Unix natively and I was so at home with Linux command-line tools I would have great difficulties re-organizing the things I do in a way that was doable on Windows. So, the options for me weren’t Windows or OS X, but OS X or Linux, and I couldn’t run Lightroom on Linux.

5: Windows machines exist in a wide range of price, capability and performance. Yes, there are the basic Windows boxes, both laptops and desktops, that are indeed quite cringe-worthy. Then again, I’m writing this on a i7-6700K PC, with very high-end components, and it’s incredibly fast, it’s as reliable as a toaster, and my monitor has the same LG-Philips matrix as a 27” iMac, only with matte coating, so I get no reflections from the window beside me. Essentially, it’s the performance equivalent of a 6-core Mac Pro, with a better graphics card, better cooling, and at half the price. Basically, it’s as far from being a bland beige box as you can imagine. In most things, it’s equivalent to an OS X machine, except for the fact that I have to run a virtualized Linux machine in order to get the Unix functionality that I need. That’s less annoying on a desktop than it would be on a laptop, but essentially, the reliability, ease of use, performance etc. are so similar between the two I don’t really care which one I use. I do have a mail archive manager that works only on the Mac, and that does determine my preference in part, because although I did write a proof-of-concept portable alternative in Java, I would hate to write and maintain something that already exists and works great, and I wouldn’t get paid for the work. I have better uses for my time, honestly. As for the viruses, I have a simple rule that had served me well so far: don’t click on stupid shit. As a result, I don’t get viruses. The last time I got a virus I was running Windows 98 or something, and it happened because I mistakenly clicked on something. I do use an antivirus, as a precaution, but honestly, if you’re having problems with viruses, you’re more likely having problems with porn sites and stupidity.

6: As for Mac being for creative people, I used Windows 3.1 for desktop publishing with Ventura Publisher software in the late 1980s, I use a Windows machine for photo editing and writing books, I even used Linux machines for photo editing and writing books. I can basically make anything work for me, and if I’m not counted as a creative person, nobody will meet the requirements. This thing about Macs and creative work is basically propaganda. Windows machines are used by some 95% of all computer users, which basically means they are used by both the most creative people and by most accountants. It’s just that creative people tend to configure their machines differently, that’s all. A programmer will have different requirements than a photographer or a graphics designer.

7: Try configuring a dual-Xeon 24-core, 128GB PC workstation with two Titan X Pascal graphics cards and tell me it’s for poor people who can’t afford a Mac. I personally can afford a Mac laptop because it’s good, and I can’t afford a Mac desktop because it’s worse than my machine and for more money. Essentially, I can’t afford overpriced, underperforming shit of any kind.

8: Since Linux runs basically on all servers everywhere, and since Google uses it on all workstations for their developers, there are obviously good reasons for very rich people to use it in a production environment. If you’re a developer, a good Linux distro might be the best thing to have on your desktop in terms of getting things done efficiently, basically being able to use your desktop as a test-environment for the software you’re developing. Personally, I prefer having the Linux development and testing environment virtualized because Windows makes better use of my hardware, but it’s a matter of preference and I could very easily see myself running Linux on the hardware and doing everything from there if it became more convenient for some reason.

You can see how there are many reasons why someone might have a certain opinion, reasons that differ significantly from the stereotypes. One might use something because he’s too stupid to know better, and another person might use that same thing simply because it works better for his usage case. One person can have a certain political attitude because he’s stupid or evil, while another person can have a very similar position but on a far higher intellectual octave, because he knows much more than you do, has better insight, greater intelligence and, in the end, you might not have any arguments that could disprove his. So tread lightly. The leftists can’t fathom why anyone with IQ over 150 would vote for Trump or have political opinions in the right political spectrum; due to their stereotypical understanding of the opposition they are facing, they are simply unable to either comprehend it, or to argue against it, or do anything constructive about it whatsoever, which leaves them with the option of smearing fake blood on their faces and chanting slogans. This doesn’t differ greatly from the shock some people experience when they get to know an IT expert and a technology enthusiast who uses an iPhone. It’s not that the concept itself is unfathomable, it’s just that they painted themselves into a corner with their closed-minded stereotypes and inability to understand different positions and scenarios.