Category Archives: politics

Americans and nukes

Posted on by
8

I was recently asked (in person) why I think the Americans are considering starting a nuclear war if nuclear weapons are obviously world ending. I answered that the Americans don’t see it that way, and this article shows I was right:

“Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability” said new DoD doctrine before it was taken offline (Steven Aftergood)

What was the reasoning behind my argument? I said that the danger posed by the nuclear weapons was incredibly overstated by the anti-war activists during the 1980s, for instance the entire “nuclear winter” argument is incredibly overstated and there is no reason whatsoever to assume a full nuclear exchange between three superpowers would produce global cooling effects that would be worse than the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, and mankind has seen much worse, for instance “the year without a summer” caused by Mt. Tambora eruption. The people who actually do the thinking for Pentagon have much better information than normal people do, and even better than I do, and I consider myself quite well informed in that regard.

The Pentagon analysts know the data obtained by long-term studies of the participants of Operation Crossroads:

The increase in all-cause mortality was 4.6 percent (relative risk [RR] = 1.046, 95% confidence interval, 1.020–1.074) and was statistically significant (p < 0.001). For malignancies, the elevation of mortality was lower—RR = 1.014 (0.96–1.068)—and was not statistically significant (p = 0.26). Similarly, leukemia mortality RR was elevated to 1.020 (0.75–1.39), but not significantly (p = 0.90) and by less than all-cause mortality. The increase in all-cause mortality did not appear to concentrate in any of the disease groups we considered.

TL;DR version for people with American-levels of attention span is that the Americans did a series of nuclear weapon tests in Bikini 1946, to see how nukes would influence surface ships. Everybody was exposed to radiation and all kinds of fallout including un-fissioned Plutonium, and when you read articles about it you expect everybody to have died from cancer within five years from the experiment. However, it turns out that, to quote Wikipedia, “one study showed that the life expectancy of participants was reduced by an average of three months”. In the time-span of half a century.

The data from other nuclear mishaps including Chernobyl shows similar, quite surprising outcomes. Stress from relocation is the main cause of death. People who didn’t evacuate from the exclusion zone had better health outcomes than those who were evacuated. The data from the Soviet K-19 submarine, nicknamed “Hiroshima”, where the officers decided to re-route radioactive coolant of the reactor through an external pump, spraying everybody on the ship with super-radioactive coolant, stuff got into the ventilation system and everybody was exposed to high levels of radiation. Of the crew of 125, “twenty-two crew members died during the following two years” (Wikipedia). Having in mind that they were sprayed with and/or inhaled radioactive substance while sealed in a metal container, one would expect everybody to have died of cancer; however, I’ve seen survivors living to very old age.

Essentially, you can even survive the levels of radiation exposure causing acute radiation sickness and live to die of old age in your 80s. Radiation is quite deadly in extreme doses, but those extreme doses are actually extreme, the kind Pripyat firemen received during their unfortunate attempt of putting down a reactor fire in Chernobyl. However, there are strong indications that both wildlife and humans can be exposed to quite high levels of radiation in the Chernobyl exclusion zone and live quite normally.

Also, the amount of radioactive fallout released during the Castle Bravo fuckup was so large, it’s what one would expect from a limited nuclear war with dozens of atmospheric MIRV warhead explosions, and guess what, we’re still here. So, having in mind what I know, there are very good reasons to believe that the Pentagon people know more. Knowing more, they fear nuclear war less. However, the potential for miscalculations is great. They may plan for a limited nuclear exchange within a tolerable range of outcomes, and things may escalate wildly and end up as something altogether different.

 

YouTube is fucking everybody

Posted on by
Reply

Apparently, I’m not the only one noticing that YouTube is putting all but the extreme leftists content creators on a roller-coaster ending in a place where nobody wants to be, because waters of the Shit Creek are a treacherous expanse.

Let me put this in very clear terms. The reason behind this is not and can not possibly be commercial. Why? Because YouTube (read: Google) is promoting content everybody went to YouTube to avoid. They are promoting the “main stream” media which is deceptive, worthless, uninteresting, stereotypical and boring, and nobody wants to watch it. On the other hand, they are burying the super-popular channels that make them a shitload of money in ads. People call what they are doing “disneyfication”, but I don’t see it this way. You can’t make money by promoting things everybody hates and suppressing things everybody went to you to watch. It’s how you commit financial suicide. The motive, therefore, must be political.

The way I see it, people in power (basically, people nobody voted for but also people who pick whom you are allowed to vote for, and people who tell the elected people what to do, or else) were scared shitless when Trump won the election due to a huge support from Infowars and independent popular YouTube channels, who broke CIA’s information blockade that is present in the “main stream” media. Now, in order to stop the “problem” of actual democracy repeating itself, they are asserting their influence over YouTube and other forms of social media, and that’s very easy to do, because if you’re CIA, and you want to do something, it’s much easier to pressure one or few individuals on top of a huge corporation, than it is to pressure thousands of individual creators/reporters. Basically, you either threaten them or bribe them, or both. If they don’t obey, you make an example out of them, like Assange.

We are heading to a very, very dark place, where “dark web” might be the only place that’s safe for expressing thoughts and opinions, because everything exposed to the light of day might also be exposed to outright persecution. And when I say “might”, I mean it might actually become obvious to the ordinary people soon. I understood where this was going at the point when I saw Facebook’s user interface, which is designed to make humans interface in computationally friendly ways. Also, I know what all the cameras watching the streets are for, and what the financial KYC enforcements and “prevention of money laundering and financing of terrorism” are for. We were very carefully and meticulously trapped in a surveillance state, where we will be bred for taxation like cattle, and every possible way of engineering a successful revolution is being cut off in advance. However, it’s not like that hadn’t been tried before. Every totalitarian state tried intimidating the populace against a revolution by letting them know what odds they are facing, and how many of them are still around to brag about their effectiveness and their power? People invented democracy as a trick exactly because this kind of shit doesn’t work. The only way you keep people from staging a rebellion is by convincing them that they are already in power. You can’t do it by making the price of rebelling too great. That’s the first thing that’s been tried by every single dictatorship in the past, and none of those are still around. When people feel they have been tricked and someone is controlling them, it traditionally never took very long for them to just kill everybody in power, regardless of the fact that people in power always had the military on their side, or so they thought.

 

UnGoogle

Posted on by
14

I just uninstalled the Chrome browser, after many years of use; I use Firefox now. Also, I have been using the DuckDuckGo search engine for months. This is my response to Google persecuting non-leftist political voices and acting as a hostile political force. Also, I consistently use adblock, and will do so for as long as they censor and demonetize my favorite youtubers. It is difficult to stop using them completely, for instance I still sync contacts, notes and calendars through google, but it’s a start.

The problem is, the entire Silicon Valley is a leftist cesspool and to really get away from that, one should slowly stop using American services. This would be quite unpleasant to attempt all at once, but honestly, the sooner the better, since everything American you use is just another thing that holds you hostage. Android and Windows were already used as a weapon against Huawei, x86 CPU architecture is a weapon, ARM is a weapon, Internet and GPS are weapons. I get it, everybody got hooked and it will take time to get out of the trap. However, one thing at a time.

How to improve civilization

Posted on by
2

The first thing I would do is order everybody by level of victimhood, descending, which means the biggest most whining and pathetic victims on top, and then I would take the top 10% out on some meadow and shoot them. Alternatively, confiscate all their property, sell them on a slave market and ridicule them endlessly.

That would put an end to all that victimhood bullshit and whining and everybody would be permanently and powerfully motivated to get their shit together and improve their position from a position of agency and personal responsibility. Essentially, delete from mankind order by victimhood desc limit 10%;

There is a very old custom in Croatia where all sins of the past year are put on some puppet called “Princ Fašnik”, and it is then ritually burned. If the greatest victim and whiner in every village was identified every year and ritually burned on a stake in a public square, that would be the most effective possible instrument in ridding civilization of victim mentality and social parasites. He who is the most pathetic dies. Each year. The prize for whining is shame and death. That’s my solution.

 

A fig leaf

Posted on by
6

There has been lots of talk lately about the need to embrace the gold standard for currency again because of America abusing the dollar. There are two issues that need to be separated, and the answers are not as simple as it might seem.

The reason why gold functioned as currency for the majority of history is that mankind had a solar powered economy. This means it was restricted by the amount of agricultural land that was used to convert solar energy into carbohydrates. Also, solar power was used for energy, in form of wood and coal. This made the total supply of energy available to mankind more-less constant. Also, technology was primitive and constant. This made the economy constrained, and its volume could be represented by another constrained resource, gold. Essentially, you could dig out just enough new gold to match the eventual growth of the economy. However, the problems started with the industrial revolution, where new inventions could multiply the size of the economy, and the monetary supply remained constricted. When petroleum use freed mankind from solar restrictions on energy by tapping into a huge energy buffer of oil reserves, invention of electricity broke all restrictions wide open, and Haber-Bosch method of synthesizing artificial fertilizers allowed for a huge increase in food supply, the economy and population started growing exponentially, and the monetary supply needed to be expanded far beyond the constraints of any single constrained resource. So, having in mind that the supply of gold couldn’t successfully cover the expanding economy even in the times of Tesla, Westinghouse and Rockefeller, and needed to be supplanted and eventually replaced by mechanisms based on mortgage loans and GDP calculations, suggesting an introduction of a currency backed by gold at this point reveals lack of understanding of the constrictive effect that would have on mankind. With gold, the totality of everybody’s wealth always equals the totality of gold in supply. With a gold standard, if you invent something that grows the economy by 30%, the supply of gold doesn’t grow by 30% to match, which causes a shortage of money in circulation and artificial appreciation of gold, favouring those who already hold the most gold, instead of giving power to the inventors and “new money”. Of course, if gold-backed paper money is used, the state will print more money in order to keep up with the economy, but then this money will lose convertibility into gold. This is the reason why gold standard was removed: it was a problem rather than a solution. When economy grew, for instance by the size of petroleum reserves, it was much better to use petroleum reserves as basis for currency than to try and dig out enough gold to represent the value of all the oil in the world, or to artificially inflate the value of gold to the comic proportions. Also, when someone came to the bank to request a loan, the bank could either say “sorry, but there’s not enough money in circulation to give you a loan, because we didn’t dig out enough gold this month”, or they could say “we can take the mortgage papers as backing for a low-interest loan we can get from the central bank, which will use this guarantee as backing and create new money which we will then sell you at increased interest”. Guess which turned out to be more acceptable for a growing economy.

However, when you allow someone to print papers saying “this paper represents a gold coin”, you will inevitably get more papers than gold coins, because the position where you can create money out of thin air is incredibly tempting. The first experiment with paper money in ancient China ended for exactly those reasons. But that is a separate matter: you can’t say that abuses of the fiat currency system justify returning to the gold standard, if the gold standard was not viable even in the 1930s, due to its restricting hold on economy. You can only make a currency that is required to be backed by actual physical resources, such as metals, petroleum, electric currency production, foreign currency reserves, and mortgages on physical assets. You can require solid backing for all newly printed money, but gold, there’s just not enough of it in existence to cover the value of our economy. It can’t even cover a minute fraction. And even if there were enough gold, it would work only if our economy remained constant. For a 5% growth in economy, you would need to have 5% of increase in total supply of gold, which is utterly unrealistic.

There is that other matter of dollar being an instrument of pressure and abuse, which warrants its removal from the position it presently holds. This would require the United States to relinquish a position where they can print new money out of thin air, and have the rest of the world pay for it; essentially, that’s what you get when everybody is forced to pay for petroleum in dollars. Instead of the normal inflatory effects you would get from increasing the supply of money in circulation, you get the situation where the rest of the world is artificially impoverished and American economy is artificially boosted. If you think America would relinquish this position without a very ugly world war, I have some real estate on the Moon to sell you.

However, there is a reason why America might actually find it preferable to have dollar crash and burn, despite all its obvious benefits. You see, all American debt is denominated in dollars. Also, American debt is so huge, it approaches the point of being unserviceable. There is a very easy and tempting solution for this: America can just print trillions of new dollars without any backing, and use them to cover their debts and thus reset their situation. Of course, that wouldn’t sit well with all the nations that hold American state bonds denominated in dollars, and would basically crash the world economy and monetary system in an instant, producing an avalanche of consequences, and that’s the reason why other great powers have been diversifying their assets, from US bonds to gold, rare earth minerals, etc.; because they see this coming. Either America will cause a world war to cover its naked butt, or remove any semblance of a fig leaf by simply resetting its debt to zero using the aforementioned method. Of course, having in mind that this would wipe out all retirement funds and personal savings of their citizens, this method would be hugely unpopular and would need to be covered up by some fabricated external factor. This is why I find a war to be much more likely. They will stir the pot so much, nobody will pay any attention to the little man behind a curtain pulling the levers and pressing the buttons. The plan seems to be to provoke Russia and China into a war, suffer a limited nuclear strike, introduce martial law, and then reset their debt and thus hide their plan behind some external villainous force, playing the poor victim of evil in the world. There is too much propaganda to that effect already in place for me to have any confidence in the possibility that I might be wrong.