Update

I’ve been sort of absent lately, for several reasons. First, I get depressed from following all the political and societal trends; observing the depraved nature of godless people only reminds me that I am far from where I want to be, and this is not pleasant, to put it mildly. Second, I put on too much weight from just sitting behind the desk and eating all day, so I had to lose weight and put on some muscle. Third, there are difficulties at work that demanded my attention. And fourth, I didn’t feel like writing because it felt redundant; many things that sounded almost crazy when I first wrote about them, became all too obvious now, too obvious for me to even say “I told you so”.

So, I had a prolonged vacation, if you can call it that, from September to mid-November, where I worked mainly on getting my body into shape: water fast, and then ketogenic diet with 8:16 intermittent fasting. Body mass went from 94.7 kg to 82.5 kg. Upper body muscle mass went up enough to replace all the fat with muscle; I can do a hundred push-ups before breakfast now. I still have problems with my back, and those might be the most difficult ones to fix because I’m still sitting most of the day, and that’s just how it is, especially during the winter. I’m off the ketogenic diet now; my physical condition no longer requires such radical interventions, and it took too much effort to maintain for me to even consider it long-term. 

My oldest kid is in high school now, and it’s quite a difficult one (MIOC) so this was stressful. Also, my car was 14 so that needed to be replaced; that was initially expensive but regular maintenance is now reduced to filling it up and cleaning leaves from the windshield. At one point when I played some music for my son on my computer I decided that I’m too old to waste what’s left of my hearing on computer speakers, so I got a proper HiFi set as my computer audio output – NAD C-316BEE V2 amplifier, PSB imagine XB speakers, NAD C538 CD, and I connected it all to my computer’s digital output via a DAC (which is actually a CD player unit my brother made 20 years ago, and since the CD drive died of old age, I re-purposed it). Now I no longer need to use headphones if I want to hear what something actually sounds like. If all of this sounds as if I’m finding inconsequential things to do so that I don’t go crazy thinking about what’s actually going on, then you’re getting the right picture. Although, going crazy might actually feel like an improvement, compared to full awareness. I don’t feel like trying it out, so I’m left with fixing inconsequential things and waiting for either a nuclear blast, or God’s mercy. Whichever comes first.

Did slavery make America?

There was an article about what made America great – a think tank concluded it was the free market, but the reaction on the social media was that slavery and robbery were the more likely cause. The reaction on the social media shows how indoctrinated with Marxism everybody really is.

No, slavery didn’t do shit. The parts of America that kept slaves were backward and poor; the North industrialised exactly because there was no cheap slave labor to compete with the machines, so those were developed, to great effect. A combination of a very simple state structure, patent laws that encouraged invention (one hoped to become rich with patents), and, first and foremost, influx of some of the most competent people from abroad, like Tesla, is what made America. However, it still wasn’t much – the difference between America and Argentina for instance, before the world wars, was insignificant. It’s after the second world war, after Europe was completely ruined, and America essentially robbed it of the intellectual cream of the crop, controlled the world’s monetary system, and had the military upper hand, not to mention the occupying forces on the ground, that America surged up compared to Europe. The reasons are complex, but slavery played zero part in them. Also, the free land didn’t mean that much, or Australia for instance would be in the same ballpark, which it is not. Slavery exists even today in some countries, and how does it affect them? They are without exception among the poorest and least developed countries in the world. So much about the Marxist analysis, stating that if someone is rich, he must have robbed someone. Exactly the opposite seems to be true – where people are allowed to rob others, this interferes with the complexity of processes required for technological and economic development.

Intermediary-ranged nuclear missiles, and what they mean

Donald Trump just announced that he will pull out of the INF treaty.

Let me explain in very simple and clear terms what this means. Intermediary-range rockets with nuclear payloads are those that America installs in Eastern Europe close to the Russian borders so that they could arrive to Moscow so quickly, the Russians don’t get enough time to analyse the situation and provide an adequate response. All the supposedly “anti-Iran” rocket “defenses” installed in Romania and Poland are going to be armed with those intermediary-range nuclear rockets.
The last time that was done, when Pershing II was installed in Western Germany, the Soviet Union threatened immediate nuclear retaliation if they are put into service, and the crisis got so bad, that after several close calls with Russian defences on a hairline trigger, Reagan decided to end the cold war and be friends with Russia.
The political situation right now is much, much worse than it was in 1983-1987. In order to counter this, the Russians would have to have all their nuclear forces either on a hairline trigger, or on a dead man’s hand trigger.
Those weapons are inherently asymmetrical, biased heavily against Russia, and are a first-strike only weapon. They have no defensive purpose whatsoever. What biases them against Russia is the fact that America can put them in Europe, and Russia can’t put them in Latin America, and geography determines the flight times. This means that America doesn’t have to put the missiles on a ballistic trajectory; they can use a stealthy small cruise missile that only has to fly from Poland or Lithuania or Romania to Moscow, not across the ocean. This means they can perform a surprise nuclear attack to kill the Russian leadership and their urban population, which of course will make the Russians extremely paranoid and trigger-happy, like it did in the 1980s, when it was last implemented. Only this time the Russians will no longer trust the West because the last time they did that, they suffered grave consequences.
My opinion is that this completely validates Putin’s objection to the supposedly anti-rocket installations on the Russian borders; if you recall, he warned that those installations can be modified with trivial ease to carry the intermediary-ranged nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. Trump pulling out of INF means that Pentagon decided to do exactly this, and those installations will probably be armed the second Trump signs the document. Putin is in a precarious situation now. He now has a huge nuclear advantage. His military knows this. He’s in a “use or lose” situation, because if he allows those installations to go online, he puts Russia in an incredibly vulnerable position, to the point where his own military might not allow this. And this is not news to Putin. Years ago he warned the West that this will inevitably happen. His countermeasures must have been so timed as to coincide with American actions.

So, you tell me what this means.

Linux: what it intended, and what it did

There’s been lots of talk about the recent development where the SJW cult apparently took over the Linux kernel development team, forcing Linus Torvalds to sign some LBGTASDFGHJKL manifesto, where meritocracy is decried as a great evil, equality of outcome is praised and white heterosexual men need to be removed in order for the world to be awesome.

To this, my answer is that communism, as usual, is eating its children, and this is nothing new. Linux was originally a communist project and a leftist cesspool, and since the SJW fraction already took over the modern communist movement elsewhere, it would not have been realistic to expect Linux to remain separate from this trend.

To this, I got a reply that Linux did some good things, and it’s not a failure: it powers the server-side, most of the mobile platform, and there are great companies making money with Linux and supporting its development. To this, I wrote an answer I’m quoting below:

Yes, there are companies that made a huge fortune using Linux – mostly those that just sell their services implemented on top of Linux, like Google with Android, but also some involved with Linux itself. If you look at it this way, Linux created both jobs and money. However, there’s an alternative perspective: Linux, by being good enough and free, destroyed the competition. SCO, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX went the way of the Dodo. All the people working on those were presumably fired, and because the competition is Linux, there were no alternative paying jobs waiting for them. Android destroyed the possibility of anyone developing a commercially sold OS for a mobile platform, other than Apple, whose position seems to be safe for now. If Android competed fairly and the cost of development was actually charged to the customer instead of being absorbed by Google and the open source community, with the goal of turning the devices into data-gathering and ad-delivery platform, competition could actually enter the marketplace and interesting things could happen, but this way, the only market pressure is on Apple, the only player who actually plays fairly, by charging money for things that cost money.
When Linux geekboys spout their hate fountains towards Microsoft and Bill Gates, and I’ve been watching that for actual decades, their complaint is that it costs money, and the users of Windows are stupid because Windows are easy to use. The argument against Apple today is the same recycled thing: the devices are expensive so the buyers are idiots and the company is greedy, and the devices are simple to use so the users must be idiots. This looks like all the bad shades of jealousy, hatred, spite and malice blended into a very nasty combination of mortal sins; essentially, they want to destroy companies that are financially successful by sacrificing their time and effort in order to provide a decent but completely free product in order to put the commercial products out of the market, because they hate that someone is rich, and something needs to be done about it.
Basically, Linux is a cancer that destroys the potentially profitable things by competing unfairly on the market, because it pays its developers in ego trip, hatred and envy instead of money, and its goal is essentially to make everything it touches inherently unprofitable. True, some managed to profit off of that, like Google who used the modified Linux to power its ad-delivery platform, as well as its server farms, but that was done by means of taking power away from the customer, because you’re not really the customer if you’re getting a heavily subsidised product, by turning the former customers into a product that is sold to the real customers: those that buy ads.
So, essentially, what Linux did was provide leverage that manages to pump wealth away from the software developers and into the pockets of ad sellers, making the customers less influential and less empowered in the process.
Also, what needs to be looked into is how much of the cloud computing boom is due to Linux, because it’s easy to have a supercluster if your OS is free; try paying Oracle per CPU for a Google or Facebook farm and you’ll get a head-spinning number that would probably make the entire thing financially unfeasible. This way, it’s another lever for centralising power over the Internet and over the end-users, essentially replacing the distributed nature of Internet itself with large corporations that, essentially, are the Internet for most people, and which, of course, are now starting to assert political and societal influence and controlling what people are allowed to think and say.
And in the meantime, the Linux crowd still hates Microsoft and dreams of a world where they’ll finally show it to Bill Gates who dared to charge money for Windows.

The facts are always in dispute

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. (Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

I’ve seen this quote thrown around frequently, in the recent “fake news” argument, and honestly, I always found it disturbing.

You see, the whole point of a discussion is that both sides have different perception of what the facts are. If you’re having a discussion between an egalitarian and a meritocrat, of course the egalitarian will think that it’s a fact that all men are equal, and the meritocrat will think it’s a fact that there are scientifically proven differences between races and genders, and in a liberal society those differences will significantly influence the outcomes of those statistical groups.

The same thing will happen when you have a discussion about the existence of God between an atheist and a religious person. A religious person will cite his personal relationship with God as evidence of God’s existence, while an atheist will consider this a non-fact and will cite absence of material evidence of God. They do indeed have a difference of opinion, but this is just a surface. Underneath, they also have a profound disagreement about the nature of reality itself, and they will selectively accept and deny certain pieces of evidence that attempts to establish what the facts are.

The difference between the “main stream” and “alternative” media is not about interpretation of facts. It’s a fundamental disagreement about what facts are established, what evidence is credible, and about the moral nature of the forces in the world – who is good, who is evil, and who is irrelevant.

That’s why the “fact checking” services are nonsense. Depending on their political and religious bias, they will cite as fact the things that agree with their worldview, and mark as false the things that put their worldview into question. The only truly unbiased fact-checker is God, because He knows what is actually true and real, and what reality is objective. Everybody else is an interested party, and not an unbiased, nonpartisan fact-checker. So, if there are discussions about what the facts are in science, where the scientists often vehemently argue about this, how can a politician state that facts are something that exists in some realm beyond dispute?

I still have problems with the second world war, because the facts were so obscured by propaganda, it interferes with my ability to pass moral judgment – if I don’t know what the actual facts were, and I don’t know in what situation someone made a certain decision, how can I judge him? That’s a serious problem. You can’t just say, a person X ordered the Y number of people to be killed, so he’s evil. Maybe the choice was such, that he had the option to kill those people, or the complete destruction of all civilization, at least in his mind. What would you do, if your options were to, for instance, either use a time machine to kill an innocent man, or wait for that man to grow into a serial killer who will kill 60 innocent people and do nothing good at all in his life? If your options are to either kill ten million people, or have the entire civilization descend into savagery, what would you do? The concepts like “violence is violence” and “love is love” are the pastime of idiots. You can’t judge someone for killing ten, hundred or ten thousands people until you know the reasons and circumstances. Maybe he’s a serial killer. Maybe he’s a war hero. Maybe he accidentally turned off the coolant circulation pump in a nuclear reactor. Maybe he’s a psychopath who seduced millions of people into evil and made them kill the other half of the country. Maybe he motivated the nation to kill an evil invading horde that would destroy everyone if left unchecked. Until you know the facts, your moral opinions are essentially worthless.

So, my problem here is that the “main stream” media basically tries to eliminate anyone who would dispute the kind of propaganda they are distributing, and which they peddle as “facts”. If I have so many questions about what the facts are, I seriously doubt some politician or a journalist is in a better intellectual position.