Pot calling the kettle black

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.

About compassion

I have a long-term issue with compassion.

Every time some manipulative asshole wants to emotionally blackmail me into doing something that’s useless, harmful, evil or which I don’t care for, they appeal to my compassion.

“Don’t you have a heart? Allow the Islamic refugees in.”

“Don’t you like animals?”

“Would you rather have a doughnut or save a child?”

“You have things and I don’t. It’s not fair!”

“Rich people should pay their fair share in society.”

It’s not that I oppose helping people. In fact, I strongly support it. However, there seem to be several forms of helping people, and I have a hugely different emotional feedback to both. The first kind is when you help someone who’s having a problem. You help solve the problem, and things are better. You feel good about it. The second kind is when you’re emotionally manipulated, or, should I say heartfucked, into giving your resources to someone who is the problem, who just squanders it away, and you get to feel like you’ve been pissed on.

The problem is, the word “compassion” is used for both, indiscriminately.

I recently helped a financially not well off kid by donating my old computer; a Q8200 quad core thing with 4 GB RAM and a 15” LCD monitor, so don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t a piece of junk, it’s more powerful than the one my wife uses for browsing the web. She asked me, why are you doing this, you already know how that’s going to end? I answered that I’m testing a hypothesis. So, I installed the whole system with every kind of educational thing I could think of – Ubuntu Lucid, Netbeans IDE with support for Java, C++ and PHP, Python IDLE, and all the command-line programming languages, and I made sure my son told him what he had there, and I told his father that it’s an educational system he can use to learn how to code.

The first thing the kid did was to try some Linux games, got bored with them, and then installed Windows 10 so that he can play all games. He got a graphics card from someone and now has a gaming PC. He never even touched anything educational. Yes, he has barely passing grades in school, and yes, since he’s poor the people will tend to attribute his poor results in school to his situation at home.

But no, that’s not how it works, because there’s another kid who’s friends with my son, whose parents are also financially not well off, and who also struggles with money. He’s one of the smartest kids in the whole school, has top grades in everything, and he, my son and one other kid spend their time after school arguing about politics and economy. Yes, they’re 12, and they argue about political and economic systems.

So, essentially, whom should I feel compassion for? Whom should I try to help? The kid who will convert all resources into fuel for perpetuating his situation, or the kid who apparently doesn’t need much help because he’s doing great despite his apparent circumstances?

So, how do you help people? It’s very simple. Just do your job well, do the things you feel good about, and let the free market sort things out. Don’t try to help the poor people. Buy whatever you like having and using, and someone will have to manufacture more of that. They will have to open factories and create jobs, and poor people will then have jobs, and if they are motivated enough, they will use that as a stepping-stone towards a better job, and higher qualifications. Buy the shoes that were manufactured in a sweat shop in Thailand, where the workers are supposedly “exploited”, because you see, that’s communist propaganda. They are not exploited, they are given a great opportunity to get out of abject misery they lived in before, trying to catch rats on rice fields as a source of protein, or taking part in the sex industry. Making shoes for you for 2 dollars a day is a way out for them. It’s what makes the local economy going, and then other functionality will arise from that, the same way it did in Japan, Korea and China. They all started on a similar level of poverty, and look at them now. So, help people by buying stuff from the factories that “exploit” them. That’s the best thing you could possibly do. Don’t donate to humanitarian aid; instead, buy stuff that’s produced by “exploiting” the poor in some African shithole. If people there are exploited by someone, that means they are worth more alive than dead, and they are worth more healthy than sick. This means someone will be motivated to make the area secure from violence, and to implement health care. It also means there will be need for some literate locals in administration, so schools will be opened. Basically, when you create an economic need for someone by exploiting them, you included that person into the global economy, and when someone is useful, when he creates profit for someone, someone influential will care if this profit is compromised by some machete-wielding gang. Paramilitary security contractors with guns will go there and take care of the problem.

Capitalism. That’s essentially how you solve the issue of poverty. You can’t solve it altogether, because there will always be those who are part of the problem and who can’t be part of any kind of solution, and they will have to live in abject misery and die as a warning to others, but allowing that is absolutely necessary, and if you try to prevent it out of “compassion”, you will destroy the entire social structure and produce universal misery, as was always the case when any kind of communism was attempted.

If you want to make a train move, you pull. Bill Gates did more good to the world when he created Microsoft, than with all his “humanitarian” efforts, which will all prove to be counterproductive, because trying to help the poor is essentially paying people to be poor. You need to pay them to be useful. You don’t get a good economy by improving healthcare, you get healthcare by improving the economy. You need to create an economic incentive for healthcare, and for that, people who live there must be worth more alive than dead, they must be worth more healthy than sick. And honestly, if they’re not worth more alive than dead, if they don’t contribute anything of value to the world, so that someone would be motivated to protect them, just let them die.

Another lever used by the manipulative in order to pressure the emotional is the assumption that all people are equal, and that you should identify with everybody’s situation because it could be you. Well, no, it couldn’t, you see. I just described those kids who go to the same school, have similar financial difficulties, but hugely different outcomes, because all people are not equal. Some are just just better. That’s what free market and capitalism are for, to show who’s better without being judgmental. It allows the least useful ones to die, and it directs the flow of resources to those who are the most useful. And don’t tell me that capitalism will eventually make everyone but the few on top poor. That’s bullshit. Capitalism “wants” everybody to be able to afford a car and an iPhone and a 1000 EUR gaming PC, and a house and a lawn mower and a fridge and a microwave, and a vacation in some fancy expensive place. You know why that is? Because when people can afford things, they spend money, and that makes the entire machine of capitalism going. If only the top few have money, nobody can buy the products manufactured in their factories. The factories will then go bankrupt, the stock market will collapse and you will get the great depression of the 1930s. So, it’s in the best interest of the manufacturers to pay people well, because those people will then be able to afford the products on the marketplace, and increase the consumer base. Increased consumer base means more consumption, ergo more profit for the shareholders. Everybody wins, except that kid who decided it’s not fun to learn how to code and plays games instead. He will have to lose, and guess what, fuck him and fuck everybody who’s sorry for him.

Me, I’ll rather have a doughnut than “save a child”, because by buying a doughnut I’m keeping the woman who sells them employed. She will then have money to support her children, so, basically, by being “selfish” I’m actually helping someone’s children. By buying an expensive computer I’m keeping the factory workers employed, I’m keeping the workers in retail sales employed, and all their children will have healthcare and education and food. And I will earn the money for buying those things by doing the best I can at the top of my qualification level, because then people will find me useful and give me money to keep me doing whatever I’m doing, instead of not caring whether I’m dead or alive.

So yes, be compassionate to the world by being incredibly good at your job and earning huge amounts of money, and then spend it on good stuff, stuff that will make you feel great. That’s how you make world a better place. And when someone asks you if you’d rather have another cup of coffee or help a child, go have the best cup of coffee you can get, because that’s how you really help a child. Donating to UNICEF just propagates misery in the world. It feeds the UN bureaucracy, it feeds the warlords who sell the humanitarian aid on the black market, and incentivizes poverty because that’s what attracts money into the system.

Compassion, that’s how the manipulative sucker the resources out of the gullible. Satan’s favorite emotion, because it can use good people as an instrument for increasing the amount of evil in the world. It drives the feedback loop of misery and suffering.

On common foes

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

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

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.