Land of confusion

I am apparently now old enough to start my writing with “you young people might not remember this, … “, and there is indeed something I want to bring up to your attention. There was a music video in the 1980’s, a leftist progressive political commentary of the day, where Ronald Reagan was seen as a senile unhinged old man who is out of touch with the realities of the world as the young generation perceives it, and they are worried the crazy old guy is going to destroy their world, either deliberately or, more likely, by accident.

Watch it carefully. Observe how the same pattern repeats today with Trump. The leftists think they are so smart. They think they understand things. They think they are the ones who will take care of the world the best, so we would all be wise to leave it up to them. The right-wing, anti-communist, rabidly pro-American conservative in power will ruin everything. They are concerned. They are scared. Something needs to be done. And it wasn’t just this video, this was the zeitgeist.

Next scene, in real life, this same Ronald Reagan, who was portrayed in this video as a bumbling senile old man completely out of touch with the realities of the world (notice the similarity?) ended the cold war and came to an agreement with Mikhail Gorbachev.

The right-wing politicians who were the targets of the “spitting image” mockery, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, actually saved the world, and the “progressive” leftists were the ones completely out of touch with the realities of the world.

I am old enough to have followed all this in the newspapers and on TV as it was happening. That’s why I recognized the pattern with Trump so immediately.

The difference is that nobody in the 1980’s even thought of accusing Reagan of being a stooge of the Kremlin, Andropov’s man in the White House. This is what gave Reagan the option of extending a friendly hand to Kremlin and negotiating a peace. This is the thing that actually saved the world.

What we have now is the situation where this option is denied to the President by virtually all political forces. If he attempts to broker a peace, accusations of treachery will be rekindled with increased force. Only conflict is acceptable. Only war is a patriotic option.

Which means America is firmly on the collision course. Everything else is in a state of flux.

The Mueller report

So, the report being released, what did we learn?

Me, not much, since I already explained the state of affairs much earlier. Others, perhaps, learned what it takes for a free country to turn into a dystopian hellhole – hire Marxists to teach your children at schools and universities. Wait a couple of decades for the kids to grow up and build careers in media and politics. Put trust in media that feeds on scandal in order to attract attention to ads. Have your intelligence agencies control the media in order to propagandise the populace.

If you think anything will change now, I have real estate on the Moon to sell you. You see, they absolved Trump of guilt, but nobody really told the Americans, and the Europeans for that matter, that they have also been fed a diet of lies about Russia for the past few years. The Russians are still vilified, they are still lied about, and they are still under sanctions. Being in favor of war with Russia has been the criterion of political correctness in America, because if you were sane, you were suspected of working for Putin. Which, when you look at it that way, kind of makes sense, since the sane people all over the world assembled around Putin, who is essentially the only leader of a country who will tell you what he thinks and intends to do, and then actually do it. That’s why the Americans see him as a total enigma. Apparently, the truth is currently the best way to conceal, because nobody will be able to see it.

Trump is very good for the world, because in his own way, he reveals the naked truth. He wants America to be first, and he makes clear what that means: America is going to dictate the terms, and everybody else will accept those terms, or be punished. If America doesn’t win, it means that the terms were not fair and need to be re-negotiated so that this injustice is remedied. Also, apparently it is dangerous for America if China is to control the China sea. This means freedom and democracy have to be brought to that part of the world, so that America controls the China sea. Then all will be well.

We also learned that America is trying to introduce democracy in yet another country, by proclaiming some guy who didn’t even run in the elections to be the legitimate president, and the guy who won the elections to be illegitimate. All the democratic allies of America instantly repeated this phrase in unison. If this teaches you something new about the way America sees democracy and what it means to be America’s ally, it means you haven’t been paying attention for the last few decades, but better now than never, right?

We also learned that the most American of all American presidents since Reagan was attacked in the exact same way Reagan was attacked by the media; both were characterised as stupid and reckless cowboys who were going to cause a nuclear war. It’s interesting how all Republican presidents get to be stupid buffoons, and all Democratic presidents get to be charming and intelligent. At least that’s how the media portrays them. It’s also interesting how when a Republican president tried to spy on the Democrats, it was the biggest scandal of the modern political history, known as Watergate, but when the Democrats paid some nefarious character to fabricate a dossier about Trump which was used as justification by the Democratic president to spy on the Republican presidential campaign, nothing was made of it. In fact, the victim of the scandal is universally portrayed as the villain, and the guy who explained us all the dangers of Iraqi WMD’s was charged with making a very long investigation in order to find out the truth, so that all the fake charges would be given legitimacy during that process, and the President would be reduced to a lame duck that can only quack out more sanctions against Russia, but everybody sees that, in his heart, he only truly quacks for Putin.

As for myself, I will keep watching the Russian media for information, and Western media for clues about the true intent of their puppet masters in Langley.

The real issues with INF

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

First of all, INF 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.