The real issues with IMF

I’ve been reading this article and I think it misses the point in several ways.

First of all, IMF treaty is completely obsolete today: you don’t need ground based intermediary-ranged rockets to threaten targets in Europe. The Russians demonstrated how they can easily do it from the Caspian lake ships, they can do it with the Baltic fleet as well as the flying platforms. So threat level doesn’t necessarily increase with the same weapons mounted on stationary ground launchers.

Second, the weapons themselves don’t define the threat level. The political situation does. So essentially the American program of demonizing, threatening and encircling Russia is what’s increasing the threat level.

Third, and most important, this doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with Europe, it might all be about arming Taiwan with rockets that can reach mainland China with nukes. This way America can create a scenario where it can wipe out China while not using its own ICBMs and risking retaliation in kind. Of course, it would be really crazy to expect China not to retaliate against the actual culprit, but everything America does lately is just that kind of crazy. They piss on people and don’t even have the decency to say it’s raining.

Fourth, if it comes to the point where Europe is threatened by the intermediary nuclear-tipped rockets, it means it’s global nuclear war, and Europe is fucked however you look at it, so again this doesn’t increase the threat level.

Fifth, the intermediary-ranged nukes were never about threatening Europe, they were about shortening the reaction times in a first-strike scenario against Russia. Europe was never a target, it was a missile launching platform pointed at Moscow. So if you want to kill Russia in such a way that it can’t retaliate, you first surround it with anti-missile defenses, so that you can shoot down anything they retaliate with, and then you bring in the short reaction time weapons, such as the nuclear-tipped stealthy cruise missiles which aim at the Russian command posts and nuclear sites. That’s what the Americans seem to be doing, which means they are confident they can take out Russian submarines as well. It is my opinion that they, as always, missed several crucial things that will bite them, but they themselves always act as if nothing can go wrong. They are practically cornering the market of baseless overconfidence at the moment. Almost everything they do is more harmful to them than it is to the intended target, and yet they do it, again and again.

Scorched earth

I was thinking about the current American-orchestrated coup attempt in Venezuela.

Something there doesn’t make sense, and not in ways one would expect. The fact that America violently interferes in other countries’ affairs is expected, especially so if it’s in Latin America. It’s almost normal, and certainly not out of the ordinary.

However, removing the Chavista regime from power doesn’t make sense from an American perspective, because it’s the perfect showcase of why socialism sucks and should never be allowed to take power. It is the most effective proven method of reducing a prospering country to utter destitution in a very short time frame. Having in mind that one should not interrupt his enemy when he’s making a mistake, or showing everyone why his way should not be attempted anywhere else, why the hell are Americans trying to interrupt Maduro when he’s proving their point regarding political and economic systems?

Also, Maduro was at a very desperate point before the attempted coup. It is obvious that the Chavista economic model brought the country and its populace to a desperate position and that more of the same is not an answer. Essentially, the only way this designated heir of Chavez could stay in power is through support of a foreign power, and apparently, that’s what America just provided. The Venezuelans who would otherwise have considered rebelling against Maduro for his failed economy will now support him to the death just to defy the American attempt to take over their country. The way to falsify this hypothesis is if the Americans actually proceed to depose Maduro. That would lend credence to another interpretation, which I will now attempt to formulate.

The second interpretation is that the Chavista regime in Venezuela is a cute and useful tool for Washington to demonstrate the perils of socialism, but only if it remains safely contained. However, if it is used by Russia and possibly China to establish a foothold in the American back yard, then it becomes another matter. Also, Russia and China could stabilize Venezuela with trivial ease, and then proceed to establish their military, economic and political presence in the country and the region, essentially creating a stationary airplane carrier right under the America’s soft underbelly. A chaotic and unstable Venezuela is greatly preferred to a stable, recovered Venezuela allied with Russia and China. So, America had to choose between the situation in which Maduro got so desperate by his economic and political position that he invited Russia to fix his economy, which will likely succeed in a timeframe of a few years, during which Russia will establish a strong, possibly nuclear-armed military presence there, and having Venezuela completely reduced to a failed state, using Ukraine/Libya model. The international policy price of choosing the latter would have been deemed high in other circumstances, but as things stand now, America hardly has any soft power credit to lose, and is reduced to controlling the press and the politicians in client countries with more direct methods. This indicates that they are preparing something nasty enough that all of this will be swept under the carpet and forgotten, or, alternatively, that it will not matter.

The third, least likely interpretation is that American actions are non-strategic and resulting from the internal chaos within the CIA and the Pentagon. Albeit possible, I don’t find it likely. I think the chaos in their system exists only on the outward layer and is a result of the CIA using its assets (including but not limited to the entire press corps and the social Marxist groups) to sabotage the President. The core of their actual non-elected government seems to act strategically, but the level of urgency and desperation in their moves indicates that they understand the state of their economy and they seem to be executing a short to mid-term scorched earth strategy.

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.

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.