American circus

I’m back from Hvar, and I must admit I’ve been naughty and occasionally went online to check the news, or, to be accurate, to check how the American civil war v.2.0 is going. Honestly, the amount of outright madness I’ve seen was enough for even me to grab my head in “what the actual fuck” moments.

One of the biggest WTF moments was the realization that the stock prices are in inverse proportion to the state of the economy, basically the worse the economy is doing, the more the stock prices are surging. That’s because the federal reserve bank essentially promised to buy out the failing companies, so the greater likelihood of a bankruptcy, the greater the likelihood of a fed bailout, which is then expected to raise the stock price and people are buying in anticipation. However, that’s the point where America kissed the free market goodbye, essentially transforming their entire economy into something so entirely state-controlled and regulated, that China looks like free market heaven in comparison. Essentially, they broke the fundamental of the free market capitalist economy, which is that stock prices reflect profitability of the company itself. As of now, the stock prices reflect only the expectation of state intervention. However, if everything on the market is broke and requires state intervention, it reminds me of something I’ve already seen before, which is the state of the economy in Yugoslavia before the collapse, where the main points of political contention were the big companies that employed lots of people and couldn’t be allowed to fail, so state money was continually pumped into them to compensate for the losses, and since the state itself was not productive, meaning it couldn’t come up with enough actual money for this process of fixing broken industry instead of being propped up by the productive industry, it resorted to printing money, which caused a devastating hyperinflation that at least contributed to, if not outright caused the collapse of the Yugoslav state. People can point at nationalism as the cause of the breakdown all they want, but, as in the Soviet Union, the surge of nationalism was preceded by a serious economic crisis – currency collapse, shortages and the basic inability to make a living from honest work, because prices were adjusted daily, and salaries were adjusted monthly. After a few years of survival in such a devastated economy, people tend to just throw in the towel and say “fuck it, I’m done with this”, and they want things to change. Basically, the nationalists say that the big federal state is to blame for all this, which is of course true, and promise to make it all better by tearing it all down and reclaiming the statehood on the smaller, national units, which of course is a fallacy but at that point of economic exhaustion the people just aren’t interested in that kind of nuance. They want things to change, and immediately, because their condition is unbearable. Essentially, when you have a situation where the economic condition of the majority of the population is unbearably bad, any sufficiently organized political force that offers some way out might cause complete breakdown and disintegration of a large federally organized state, especially if one part of the federation has reason to believe that the other part is taking advantage of them and causing their problems, so political solutions are no longer possible. In Yugoslavia, Slovenia and Croatia had good reasons to believe that they were being systematically economically degraded by Serbia, which controlled the central government and used their productive economies to prop up unproductive parts of the country, basically bleeding them for money that should have been used to improve their own infrastructure and living conditions. In America, there is a very narrow segment of the population that lives in New York and California, that controls the entirety of the flow of money, and is perceived to bleed the rest of the country dry, creating the impression where work of an investment banker is worth millions of dollars a month, while work of a normal middle-class person is worth a few thousands a month, and the situation is getting even more extreme as a function of time. You can’t convince me that the work those stock market people are doing is actually that much more valuable than work of some engineer that designs sophisticated machinery or electronics; rather, they are the ones in the control room of the financial system and they are exploiting its weaknesses to make most of the money that’s in circulation circulate in dead loops where they bleed this mass for percentage points, and this money never gets to be invested in the actual economy, because that’s seen as “risky” and slow. This makes the entire economy ungrounded, like a tree that’s all branches and no roots, because roots are seen as “unproductive” and the branches are the sole measure of success. Essentially, if your company stock price is seen as the sole measure of value, and your engineers and workers are seen as a liability because they just cost money, you get started on a vicious cycle where you fire your most expensive workers, basically the engineers that design the product, and you hire marketing people to boost sales, and you get loans that are invested not in the actual development and manufacturing, but in buying your own stocks, which will raise the stock price as the sole measure of value. Then you get a company that is an empty shell containing only debt and salespeople, and the problem with this is that every single company on the market has to adopt the same measures in order to keep up with the competition that would otherwise obtain better financial indicators, thus getting preferential access to credit and, thus, a lever that would give them a huge competitive advantage. This also means that the risk-assessment in the banking sector is tuned to prefer the bigger companies, to the point where all the money is sucked into a dark tornado cloud of the biggest companies, while the small and medium sized businesses are seen as “high risk”, because they actually are dealing with the free market and they have free market issues, which the banking system sees as the messy cesspool of risk and non-compliance, so when the government wants to make an infusion of money into businesses, you need to understand what happens. The state does it through the banking system: the central bank prints money and offers a cheap loan to the commercial banks that then resell it to the businesses. Since the bank can’t just set aside its normal risk management and compliance procedures just because the politicians want to help small businesses, what actually happens is that the bank’s risk department does a SQL query on the table of companies asking for loans, sorting them by risk overhead, ascending, and spending all the money on the top 5 or 10 claimants, of 100000. Those 5 are always the bank’s existing clients, and the ones that are the biggest, and with the biggest extant loans. So, that’s why the government can’t even theoretically help the small businesses – the entire mechanism is already rigged to suck all the money into the biggest companies, and it can’t be modified just because someone said so. It’s actually illegal for the banks to go against the recommendations of their risk departments, so, whatever the politicians say about propping up small and medium businesses, for the most part they are either deceiving you or they don’t know what they are talking about, because it technically can’t be done. What can be done is to reduce the taxes, because that’s not done through the banks, but through the revenue service. However, as a rule, the taxes don’t really go down, so such measures are short lived.

So, when the communists tell you that this quagmire is evidence that capitalism is a corrupt system, I don’t really know what they are talking about, because true free market capitalism is practiced only by the group that is almost completely excluded from this entire corrupt charade: by the small and medium business owners and freelancers. They are engaged in a no holds barred cage fight with the competition, where they have to struggle through increasingly limiting and pointless “state regulations”, and they can’t get loans from the banks because what they do is “high risk”. The part of the market where all the money is, meaning the feedback loop between the federal reserve bank, the commercial bank, big business and the politicians, is a state-regulated, state-controlled fraud scheme in which companies race to go bankrupt first because then they get to be bailed out by the state, which cleans up their liabilities and toxic assets and makes them all shiny and new, and the bill for this entire thing is of course served to the general public and the next generations, because all those government bonds issued to fund all the money printing are going to mature eventually, although it’s obvious that nobody really takes the option of actually servicing all that debt seriously. Right now, they are printing money like crazy while it’s still perceived to be worth something, they are using it to suck up all the resources from the economy, and when it all collapses they’ll just reset the system. Basically, the entire thing can be seen as a financial equivalent of a thermodynamic system which pumps energy from the coldest part of the system (the poorest part of the population) into the hottest part of the system (the wealthiest part of the population). The game ends when it reaches the point where all the resources have been sucked away from the 99% of the population and the top 1% has all the worthless monopoly money, and of course all the actual resources which they obtained with the said money before it became worthless.

Perhaps the most toxic part of the entire problem is that the system collapses with some regularity, and with each cycle the politicians claim that it collapsed because there wasn’t enough state regulation, so they introduce additional layers of regulation, which is of course muddy water in which the biggest players navigate most easily because they can afford whole legal departments to deal with it, while the small businesses are increasingly crippled by the need to deal with all this unproductive administrative junk, and this also means that the banks are less likely to give them loans, because of the stringent risk and compliance procedures. This means that with each cycle of regulation, the system is increasingly more rigged to favour the biggest players and to extinguish the free market capitalist part of the economy. In turn, this means that every cycle makes it more profitable to play with money and regulations than to do anything actually productive, which basically means that the regulations that are intended to make the system less corrupt in fact make it more corrupt. You can’t explain that to the common people, who think that state regulations exist to save them from the evil capitalists who “want to break the law and thus cause the market crashes”. In fact, the feedback loop between the state, the banks and the biggest companies is the problem, and the laws and regulations are a toy for the stupid masses. Basically, what the stupid masses believe is that a private doctor needs to be “regulated” in order for them to be safer. In fact, when a private doctor is “regulated”, it means he has to spend most of his time filling forms to comply with regulations, which makes him spend less time with patients and charge them more money for it to be able to pay for the government-imposed overhead, which makes the quality of his service less valuable and more expensive, essentially making people the opposite of safe. A doctor that fills forms instead of dealing with sick patients does not improve patient health and safety. Replace “doctor” with any occupation and you’ll get the same result; the regulations degrade the quality of service across the board, making things cost more and be worth less, but they are almost impossible to remove once they are in place because people are stupid and they have been made to believe that all those evil capitalists are out there to get them, and the thick book of regulations and the government imposing them are the only thing that saves them from doom. Also, there is a huge difference between what certain laws and regulations are in their essence, and how they are marketed to and perceived by the general public. Anti-money-laundering laws, for instance, are perceived as something that is meant to prevent the mafia from using money that originated from various forms of crime, in order to finance “clean” investments. That’s how it was marketed to the general public. What it’s actually about is the state wanting to assure that it can raise taxes as much as it wants, and you can’t move the money to an offshore company where the taxes are normal, in order to avoid being robbed by a state that ran out of money due to its fiscally imprudent practices and demagoguery (basically buying voters with tax money), and decided to introduce a demagoguery law stating that the evil kulaks took and hid all the money which is why people are poor, and the good state now needs to find and bleed all the kulaks and then everything will be great. That’s what it’s actually about, and the term “money laundering” is there just to convince the stupid general public that it’s about “dirty money”. No, dirty money is the only thing that is explicitly not the target of such laws and regulations, because such money is easily dealt with by other laws – for instance, if the money was actually a result of criminal enterprise, this criminal enterprise would be broken up by the police, crime would be proven in the court of law, and the money resulting from crime would be confiscated. No, what all those laws against “money laundering” and “financing terrorism” are about, is preventing Julian Assange to get funding for his project of revealing government crimes, and for preventing “kulaks” from “hiding wheat in the attic”. It’s a Stalinist overreach in state power, designed to do all the dirty work extrajudicially, basically delegating all the spying and evil to the banks and financial institutions, so that the cases never even go to court, because then it would be obvious that the entire thing is completely baseless and a violation of someone’s rights. This way, the state and the banks conspire to rob you of your rights in such a way that you never get your day in court against them and they can basically do whatever they want, while the people in general see the name of those laws and think it’s all for the good, because money laundering and financing terrorism are baaad (in sheep voice). When the problem becomes so bad that even the general population start taking notice, it’s already too late in the game of totalitarianism for anyone to be able to do anything about it. It’s like the Nazi Germany – why do you object to citizens being routinely stopped at checkpoints and asked for papers? Only criminals would have a problem with that. The problem is, the state’s idea about what is “criminal” might differ wildly from yours. You think a criminal is a murderer, a thief or a rapist. They think a criminal is a journalist who found out and released truthful information about government crimes to the general public. Just watch the Assange case. They invented false charges against him to deceive the general public, and when those were dropped, they invented other false charges, and what is the truth? The truth is that the American state and its entire government system is profoundly corrupt and inherently criminal, and he revealed the facts that showed this quite plainly to the general public, thus spoiling the corrupt government’s public image and making its job of controlling the population harder.

The situation with the recent police violence is similar – usually, the police can hide its criminality behind a fig leaf of some actual crime they were fighting, but when they murdered a few people in broad daylight, for minor infractions, and were recorded doing it, for all to see, it became very difficult for the general public to maintain the illusion of police only doing good work against hardened criminals and having to use violence because, well, they are being forced to. The facts of the matter are different: the police was trained to be extremely violent and arrogant, to use maximum force against minor provocations and for minor offences, and they are increasingly treating the people of America the way American military is treating foreigners in hostile countries – it’s police safety first, not serve and protect the citizens.

Of course, then we get to the point where a mob of black thugs and white communists starts robbing stores to “liberate” all those Nike shoes from the stores of white capitalist oppression, and people start wondering whether police might actually have a point, and it is truly difficult to see either side as good.

In any case, the calls to defund the police can easily be understood for what they are: government power needs to be scaled down because it went too far, but of course that never happens, because once the government gets power, it keeps it until the entire state structure is torn down, and sometimes even that only changes the flag and the name.

The apparently racial background of the issue is completely fake and is the result of deep racism of the American black community – I recently watched a video where a white guy describes his experiences with the police in the recent decades, and those experiences are as violently abusive as anything a black American could point at. However, he rightly notices that the problem is the militarization of the police force and a major change in its attitude, where police started actively looking for trouble and acting violently without any good reason, while a black person would immediately point to race as the cause. Why, because American blacks are the most racist people on Earth, who hide all their own failures behind the veil of imagined racism, while it is a fact that other blacks are the main problem a black person needs to overcome if he wants his life not to suck.

The problem with Israel

As you might already know, I like the Jews. Their ratio of capital achievements in science, arts, literature etc., to their population size, is staggeringly high, making them the single most advanced ethnic group in the world. I also like them because all the cowardly scum targets them because they are too scared to address the real problems, and the Jews are somehow always a handy target-substitute for cowards.

The Jews are, for the most part, a European culture. True, they originate from the Middle East, but they’ve been in Europe for 2000 years, which is probably longer than they’ve existed in the Middle East as a nation, and this made them Europeans, for all intents and purposes. They have more similarities with the Germans than with other Middle-Eastern ethnicities, which becomes quite obvious when you take a look at the state of Israel. It looks like a manifestation of Europe within a typical Middle-Eastern shithole, and therein lies my problem.

The state of Israel looks like a very bad idea. You’re putting an advanced culture inside a very primitive and hostile region, and the only true protection Israel can count on comes from America, which has serious problems of their own. When all your neighbours are trying to kill you, and your only source of protection are the lobbying groups influencing the fundamentalist Christians in America to protect their “sacred lands”, and America is increasingly influenced by counter-lobbying by Saudi Arabia and other wealthy Islamic countries, as well as the neomarxist postmodernist scourge that is overwhelmingly hostile to Israel, the entire picture looks very much like you’re putting all your eggs in one basket in a place where it’s raining axes and hammers, and your only protection is a glass roof. It’s not the greatest idea anyone ever had.

Also, the very effective ways Israel is using to handle the Arabs are undermined by the concepts of human rights and democracy, which are making it impossible to defend yourself as a nation because the very concepts of race, ethnicity and nation-state are anathema to the paradigm of universal human equality in rights. Israel did a very good thing by shoving the Muslim immigrants into Europe, because now Europe will either have to see and accept Israeli point of view and methods, or there will be no Europe to pontificate and annoy Israel with their bullshit, always taking the Palestinian side and making it extremely difficult for Israel to function.

I truly hope the citizens of Europe are very quick to adopt the Israeli point of view, as well as their methods, because the alternative is absolutely unacceptable. Unfortunately, the way things are going, the good outcome is increasingly unlikely. It looks more probable that both Israel and Europe will be overwhelmed by inbred savages from various shitholes of the world, and our civilization will be extinguished. Of course, once the Muslims become a majority due to the idiotic ideology of human equality, they will promptly change the laws to abolish it and proclaim an Islamic caliphate. This ideology of equality will thus become the sociological equivalent of the machine that turns off its own power switch.

Coronavirus with HIV traits

There are some interesting developments regarding the SARS-like coronavirus epidemic in China.

On the Saker’s website, the majority in the comment section believes the virus is an American bioweapon.

This sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory, but it’s not that crazy once you look into it. First of all, the virus genome was analysed and it turns out it looks like someone combined SARS virus and HIV. I don’t know if that stuff can happen in nature, but it looks very much like something you would cook up in a lab if you wanted to make something deadly. Also, it supposedly preferentially attacks Asian males, which is what you would want a bioweapon to do, and Americans very notoriously collected samples of Russian genome, which is what you would want to do if you wanted to create a virus that would preferentially attack Russians, and then pretend it’s not a weapon of war and instead somethin’s wrong with the Russians if the virus is attacking them. If it’s actually a bioweapon, which can be proved or disproved by DNA analysis, it was very carefully designed and released to mimic a natural thing, and in the flu season when such things are expected.

The goal of such a thing would be to weaken China’s economy and to facilitate international isolation. Also, it would seriously harm China’s military. However, if this actually is a bioweapon, of which it’s hard to be certain because I’ve seen nothing conclusive so far, this is the form of genocide attack that’s answerable with nuclear weapons.

Gold and silver getting scarce

Essentially, things are moving more slowly than I expected them to, but they are following the predicted pattern. The spot prices are completely fixed due to the fact that most “metal” being traded exists on paper only, but physical metal is getting scarce, especially since the central banks mopped up majority of it. Having in mind that only a small fraction of the population actually has physical metal, and the majority didn’t wake up and smell the coffee yet, you can imagine what will happen when the majority tries to convert their paper savings into gold and silver, only to find out that there isn’t any on the market.

In Germany, a small “gold rush” in the order of magnitude of 200 people daily per retail store was sufficient to completely exhaust the amount of metal available for sale.

About exceptions

There are several things I saw people do in online conversations that annoy me, because they think they are using arguments, and they are in fact committing logical fallacies.

The first one is citing exceptions to disprove a rule. They will cite a smart black man and a retarded Asian in an attempt to disprove statistical findings about race and intelligence. They will find a woman who managed to give birth in late 30s, or one who is happily unmarried in her 60s, they will find a quiet Italian and a loudmouth German, or a Lesbian that actually doesn’t hate men, and say “gotcha”. To that, my answer is that sociology isn’t mathematics. In mathematics, if you state there are no even primes, and I cite number 2, your theory is disproved and that’s the end of it. However, even in mathematics, there’s statistics and probability. In statistics, citing a sample of 1 in order to invalidate a rule is worthless. Let me use an example.

This is a dark image. It was intentionally shot as such, and histogram shows a statistical distribution of pixel luminance values. On the left side are the pixels with values closer to 0, which means black, and on the right side are the pixels with values closer to 255, which means white.

What the political left wants us all to believe, under threat of violence, is that you can’t say that an image is dark just because the luminance values are grouped in the left side of the histogram, as long as there are any white pixels on the picture. You can’t say that a cat is black if they can find one white hair on it, basically. But on the other hand, if you disagree with them about absolutely anything, essentially if your agreement with their ideology is less than the perfect 100%, you are a Nazi. That’s fundamentally intellectually dishonest; essentially, they are using logical fallacies and counting on the fact that most people are only vaguely familiar with logic, and they heard somewhere that you can disprove rules by citing exceptions, only they don’t understand that this doesn’t necessarily apply even in mathematics, because statistical analysis was developed exactly for the purpose of dealing with exceptions to rules. That’s why sociology uses statistics to formulate statements about human groups. Similarly to that picture, if some human group has a median value of 6 in 0..255 range, you can say it’s very “dark”. It’s basically how the biblical God saw Sodom. It’s the case where white pixels don’t disprove the rule, they prove it, because if you can basically count them all by hand, it says something.

The second thing that irritates me is citing your personal experience to disprove some general rule. It’s statistically worthless because it’s a sample of 1. Also, every substance addict I talked to used the same argument: I’m drinking alcohol or using drugs all the time and I’m feeling great. First of all, your subjective experience is most likely just your personal delusion – the consequences might just not have caught up with you. Second, even if it were not, you might be a severely abnormal specimen – for instance, some people are resistant to AIDS and never contract the disease because they have a genetic mutation that renders them immune. Third, it still isn’t necessarily a good idea. For instance, someone can say he was drunk and jumped from the hotel room on the second floor, landed in a pool and was fine. That doesn’t prove it’s a good idea. Rather, it proves that some people have more luck than one should reasonably expect. So, essentially, I shit on your personal experience.

The third thing is that some people think feeling is an argument. They feel something therefore it must be true, or I must at least accept that they are validated in their feeling-based opinion. That’s actually true in some cases, for instance if someone isn’t sexually attracted to you, that’s all the reason they need in order not to have sex with you. Asking them to provide evidence is actually a fallacy, because you assume evidence is needed. It is not. If someone doesn’t like you, they don’t need reasons to not like you. But this is an exception to the general rule. You can’t use this argument for medications, and say that a certain substance comes in an ugly box that you don’t like, and you’ll therefore not take it. You can’t say your school professor rubs you the wrong way and you therefore won’t accept his grades. You can’t say you don’t like police uniforms and you will therefore not obey the law. In most cases, your emotions are irrelevant and nobody should care about them. Your idiosyncrasies are your problem, and have no place in a discussion. If you think something is true, you need to be able to provide arguments in favor of your opinion. Feeling a certain way is not an argument. So, essentially, I shit on your feelings. If you have strong feelings in favor of a demonstrably false concept, it’s not evidence in favor of it, it’s evidence that you’re a fucked up person.