Category Archives: politics

About calling Hitler a Nazi

Posted on by
Reply

Imagine accusing Hitler of antisemitism. Imagine accusing a Ku-Klux-Klan member of racism. Imagine accusing Stalin of communism. Imagine accusing Jack the Ripper of misogyny.

Ridiculous, eh? They would either laugh at you or stare blankly at you not understanding what the fuck are you trying to do, or confirm proudly. In any case, you wouldn’t accomplish jack shit.

And here we have the leftists who continuously go around accusing white men of racism, misogyny, bigotry and all sorts of nonsense, with the purpose of making them feel guilty enough to vote for a black poseur or a female criminal, tax them and drain them for all kinds of unfair benefits.

Is this shit for real? Let’s say the white men really are misogynes[*] and racists. Guess what’s the probability of a woman trying to do a follow-up on a black guy in a party that was founded by Dixieland in order to oppose abolition of slavery (look it up). Where the Democratic party was Sinn Fein, the Ku-Klux-Klan was IRA. So basically, if a party that used to hang blacks on trees if they looked at them the wrong way ended up electing a black candidate for president, and he ended up winning two terms, it’s proof that white racism doesn’t really exist in America as a realistic thing. Black racism, that’s a different matter entirely. The blacks are allowed to be as racist as they feel like, because whites are the only ones who can be influenced by this kind of guilt. A black person will go around all day saying how he hates white people and how they should all be killed, but if you tell that person he’s racist, he’ll just laugh at you the same way a KKK member would laugh at you if you accused him of being a racist. They would both think you’re an idiot.

If some label does in fact apply to someone, you can tell it by the fact that using it to induce guilt in that person doesn’t work. You can’t influence a true racist by telling him he’s a racist. I knew a true misogyne, a closet-homosexual who used to openly rant about how women are disgusting. If you told him he’s a misogyne, he’s just blankly stare at you, because it doesn’t work. Of course he is, he just told you he hates women and finds them to be disgusting subhuman trash that should be kept on a short leash. Of course a KKK member doesn’t have a problem being called a racist, he’d confirm and go on about how those damn niggers need to be hanged from trees and kept in fear and submission. Calling such people misogynes and racists is like trying to make me blush by calling me a yogi. I’d just look at you and try to figure out what the fuck are you about.

So basically, wherever this kind of debate tactics are used, they are self-canceling. If you use it on someone, it obviously doesn’t apply.

[*] A linguistic correction: a practitioner of misogyny is a misogyne, not a misogynist, just like a practitioner of misanthropy is a misanthrope, and not misanthropist. The French got this right, the Americans as usual fucked this up, because the fake scientists on their liberal colleges don’t really know Greek, they just want to use enough of Greek-sounding words in order to sound like scientists.

An analogy with tech

Posted on by
Reply

I was thinking about the similarities between the groupthink in the political sphere and its equivalent in the consumer technology sphere, and it dawned to me that I could more easily explain the political conundrum if I illustrate the problems in the technological equivalent, which might be less emotionally charged, at least for some parts of the audience.

So, let’s see the stereotypes.

1. An iPhone user is a stupid sheep who blindly follows trends and will pay more money for an inferior product.

2. Android is for people who want to customize their device.

3. Android is for poor people who can’t afford an iPhone.

4. A Mac user is a stupid sheep who will buy the overpriced shiny toy because he’s so stupid even Windows are too complicated for him.

5. Windows machines are virus-ridden, unstable, blue-screen-of-death displaying boring gray box.

6. Mac is for creative people, Windows are for accountants.

7. Windows are for poor people who can’t afford a Mac.

8. Linux is for poor people who can’t afford Windows.

Need I go on?

Now, let’s go through the list.

1 and 2: There are many reasons why one might want an iPhone. One is because he really is too stupid to understand that there are alternatives. Another is because he’s too busy doing whatever is his day-job to fiddle with a device, and just wants something that works reliably. His day-job might be “astrophysicist” or “doctor”. He doesn’t have either will or time to fiddle with a phone or to install an alternative kernel. He just wants speed, reliability, good build quality and, occasionally, he wants to run very specialized apps that are available for it. Someone who will “customize” his phone is more likely than not to live in his mom’s basement, because that’s the profile that’s likely to waste time on non-productive shit like that. If you have things to do, you use the phone to make calls, to google something or to find your way around on a map. You’re too busy operating on people’s brains, designing a new rocket engine, analyzing data from the Kepler telescope or getting that call informing you how that million-dollar deal went through. If your phone is all you have to deal with in your life, you’re either a phone designer, or someone who has too much spare time on his hands.

3: Yes, in many cases people who opt for Android phones find iPhones to be too expensive. That might be because they are poor. On the other hand, they might just want to buy something good but affordable and not too fragile for their kids. Or, they might decide that the iPhone just isn’t worth the premium; it does basically the same thing as a much cheaper Android phone, so why would you overpay for the same functionality? Essentially, you may have several good options and once you’re satisfied with the fact that any of them will do a good job, you pick one based on both preference and estimate of cost-effectiveness.

4: Yes, there are people who buy a Mac because they find Windows too complicated (although, it is difficult for me to figure out how that is possible, since both systems are more-less equally trivial to master). On the other hand, there are people who will buy a Mac because Apple’s laptops have great battery life, great screen, excellent touchpad, or because they can run open source tools via macports or homebrew, allowing them to have access to the same toolkit they would have on Linux, but with better reliability, better battery life, less bugs, and with the ability to run Adobe apps. Those are excellent reasons, and it’s easy to understand why one would get a laptop from Apple, and in fact it might explain why Apple laptops are outselling everything on the market, and why they are especially popular with technology and science professionals, who certainly aren’t using them because they find Windows intimidatingly difficult. I, for instance, migrated to a Macbook Air from a Thinkpad running Linux five years ago, simply because it was thin, light, had a great battery, had an SSD, and one of the best displays on any laptop. Also, it ran Unix natively and I was so at home with Linux command-line tools I would have great difficulties re-organizing the things I do in a way that was doable on Windows. So, the options for me weren’t Windows or OS X, but OS X or Linux, and I couldn’t run Lightroom on Linux.

5: Windows machines exist in a wide range of price, capability and performance. Yes, there are the basic Windows boxes, both laptops and desktops, that are indeed quite cringe-worthy. Then again, I’m writing this on a i7-6700K PC, with very high-end components, and it’s incredibly fast, it’s as reliable as a toaster, and my monitor has the same LG-Philips matrix as a 27” iMac, only with matte coating, so I get no reflections from the window beside me. Essentially, it’s the performance equivalent of a 6-core Mac Pro, with a better graphics card, better cooling, and at half the price. Basically, it’s as far from being a bland beige box as you can imagine. In most things, it’s equivalent to an OS X machine, except for the fact that I have to run a virtualized Linux machine in order to get the Unix functionality that I need. That’s less annoying on a desktop than it would be on a laptop, but essentially, the reliability, ease of use, performance etc. are so similar between the two I don’t really care which one I use. I do have a mail archive manager that works only on the Mac, and that does determine my preference in part, because although I did write a proof-of-concept portable alternative in Java, I would hate to write and maintain something that already exists and works great, and I wouldn’t get paid for the work. I have better uses for my time, honestly. As for the viruses, I have a simple rule that had served me well so far: don’t click on stupid shit. As a result, I don’t get viruses. The last time I got a virus I was running Windows 98 or something, and it happened because I mistakenly clicked on something. I do use an antivirus, as a precaution, but honestly, if you’re having problems with viruses, you’re more likely having problems with porn sites and stupidity.

6: As for Mac being for creative people, I used Windows 3.1 for desktop publishing with Ventura Publisher software in the late 1980s, I use a Windows machine for photo editing and writing books, I even used Linux machines for photo editing and writing books. I can basically make anything work for me, and if I’m not counted as a creative person, nobody will meet the requirements. This thing about Macs and creative work is basically propaganda. Windows machines are used by some 95% of all computer users, which basically means they are used by both the most creative people and by most accountants. It’s just that creative people tend to configure their machines differently, that’s all. A programmer will have different requirements than a photographer or a graphics designer.

7: Try configuring a dual-Xeon 24-core, 128GB PC workstation with two Titan X Pascal graphics cards and tell me it’s for poor people who can’t afford a Mac. I personally can afford a Mac laptop because it’s good, and I can’t afford a Mac desktop because it’s worse than my machine and for more money. Essentially, I can’t afford overpriced, underperforming shit of any kind.

8: Since Linux runs basically on all servers everywhere, and since Google uses it on all workstations for their developers, there are obviously good reasons for very rich people to use it in a production environment. If you’re a developer, a good Linux distro might be the best thing to have on your desktop in terms of getting things done efficiently, basically being able to use your desktop as a test-environment for the software you’re developing. Personally, I prefer having the Linux development and testing environment virtualized because Windows makes better use of my hardware, but it’s a matter of preference and I could very easily see myself running Linux on the hardware and doing everything from there if it became more convenient for some reason.

You can see how there are many reasons why someone might have a certain opinion, reasons that differ significantly from the stereotypes. One might use something because he’s too stupid to know better, and another person might use that same thing simply because it works better for his usage case. One person can have a certain political attitude because he’s stupid or evil, while another person can have a very similar position but on a far higher intellectual octave, because he knows much more than you do, has better insight, greater intelligence and, in the end, you might not have any arguments that could disprove his. So tread lightly. The leftists can’t fathom why anyone with IQ over 150 would vote for Trump or have political opinions in the right political spectrum; due to their stereotypical understanding of the opposition they are facing, they are simply unable to either comprehend it, or to argue against it, or do anything constructive about it whatsoever, which leaves them with the option of smearing fake blood on their faces and chanting slogans. This doesn’t differ greatly from the shock some people experience when they get to know an IT expert and a technology enthusiast who uses an iPhone. It’s not that the concept itself is unfathomable, it’s just that they painted themselves into a corner with their closed-minded stereotypes and inability to understand different positions and scenarios.

On anti-Trump protesters

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve been observing the anti-Trump protests in the USA, and here are my observations.

First, protesting the result of the elections is inherently anti-American. The American way is to have the whole circus during the campaign, but when the elections are done and the results are known, the circus stops, the losers concede and everybody pledges loyalty to the winner, because the winner now doesn’t represent only his political option, he represents the will of the people and the nation itself. To protest the election results, not because there is doubt about their validity, but because your candidate didn’t win, it’s the property of the third world, of questionable quasi-democratic countries who are manipulated by various foreign-funded interest groups. With these protests, America basically joined the third world and became a banana-republic.

Second, the protesters are not really protesting against Trump, they are protesting against America and everything it stands for. They are ripping and burning the American flags, raising the flags of Mexico and communist movements, they are openly Marxist and, essentially, their main objections to Trump is that he is pro-America. Essentially, I don’t know how those people even have American citizenship, but for all I know, they might not.

Third, Trump is defamed in the same way the neo-Marxists traditionally defame their strawman opponents. He’s basically their list of politically incorrect things – he’s racist despite the fact that he was praised for hiring a record amount of blacks, he’s sexist despite the fact that he treats women wonderfully and his daughter is the shining star of American business world, he’s basically whatever they don’t like, backed by lies and nonsense. Essentially, those leftists are completely irrational.

Fourth, there’s that aspect of not being able to understand how someone can make choices different than yours or have opinions different from yours, and not be an idiot. You can see that when that mental profile can’t understand how somebody can buy an iPhone – he must be a stupid sheep who’s unable to think rationally and just follows the herd. Those people can’t understand the fact that there are people much smarter than themselves who use iPhones, because they are simply unable to listen to the arguments of the other side and instead represent the other side with a stereotype. It’s the same with politics – the leftists never seem to hear the actual arguments of the political right, and instead they prop up the strawman Hitler caricature who’s also a toothless redneck who rapes livestock for fun and whose mother, sister and wife are the same person. That’s the reason why they perceive Trump’s victory as a victory of subhuman scum and a demise of all that is good in what they perceive as their world. It’s not that they don’t have the opportunity to hear the super-smart proponents of the political right, but they choose not to listen – they put fingers in their ears and chant “lalalalala, I don’t hear you, you’re a bigot and a racist and I’m not giving you a platform to speak, lalalala”.

The problem is, the leftists don’t understand how intellectually deficient they really are, because the Marxist attitudes are all they are hearing all the time, from both their peers and the professors at the universities, so they tend to think that the opposing attitudes have been soundly defeated in the intellectual circles and remain present only among the unwashed masses. In reality, it’s the Marxist attitudes that have been defeated in the real world and retreated into the academia, where you aren’t contradicted by the hard wall of reality and you can live in imaginary worlds of imaginary realities, where failures of blacks are due to slavery and racism and failures of women are due to patriarchy, and white men are the obstacle to realization of an ideal world (which would be a lesbian version of a combination of Latin America and Africa, so basically a shithole).

The fundamental flaw of the leftist worldview is that it is egalitarian. It assumes everybody is the same and ascribes perceived differences in outcomes to oppression. That’s why they are opposed to the founding principle of America, which is not egalitarian, but a free market republic. The political right, essentially the free-market fundamentalists, say that they don’t know whether everybody is equal or if everybody’s different. You do whatever you are capable of doing, offer it on the market of goods and services, and if it’s good, it will sell. The free market doesn’t give a damn whether you’re a man or a woman, whether you’re an African or an European. It gives everybody a fair chance, and allows the demand-side of economics to separate the winners from the losers. And that’s the position that isn’t heard at the American universities. You don’t get to hear the intellectual content of the arguments on the other side. You don’t get to hear how laissez-faire market is essentially an implementation of natural selection and evolutionary biology in human society, and allows the good things to float and bad things to sink not by judgment of some central committee, which would decide how much do you need and what you need to do, but simply through economic feedback. Sure, the system has weaknesses, but those weaknesses are orders of magnitude less than those in any socialist or egalitarian system. Those weaknesses are not discussed in context, and no kind of science is actually applied in those “social sciences” that are being taught. If you don’t have the ability to disprove the basic concepts, it’s not science, it’s doctrine. Just try to argue against any doctrinal concept that is taught there and see what you get – counter-arguments that reports facts, or emotional yelling and screaming. If you think I’m joking, look at those protesters. They are all about emotions, virtue-signaling and quasi-intellectual posturing. Every single one of them is an idiot who functions on a sub-human level of herd mentality, emotions that signal herd-membership and intellect that merely rationalizes prejudice – essentially, they are much worse than the strawman-Trump-voter they imagine in their make-believe world where socialism is progressive and borders are evil.

You could deport all those protesters to Mexico, and conditions in America would improve measurably, while conditions in Mexico would remain pretty much the same.

I shit on climate science

Posted on by
9

The main-stream media presented us with the “scientific facts”, in form of the polls showing how Donald Trump lags significantly behind Hillary Clinton and has no chance of winning the elections. They laughed at anyone questioning the scientific accuracy and validity of those polls. They presented themselves as someone who speaks from the position of science, truth, evidence and reason.

All of that proved to be bullshit and propaganda. The polls were intentionally cooked up by oversampling Democrats, by intentionally oversampling target groups that were more likely to vote for Clinton, basically, they started with the desired result and cooked up a scientifically-sounding brew of horse shit.

But stay assured that every other thing they have been telling you is spot on, like the global warming, which is so incredibly discredited that its advocates are using progressively stronger magnifying glass to find any sign of the supposed climate change, at the times where the original theory predicted that all coastal areas of the world should have been under water already. God fucking damn it, even Venice, which is built on water, still exists. Krapanj island in Croatia, whose highest point above sea level is 1.25 meters, is still completely untouched by the supposedly rampant sea level rise. We have more green areas in the previously arid parts of the world (because CO2 is plant food, and the plants immediately responded with accelerated growth in response to its increased availability), so no desertification, and no climate-caused exodus from the endangered areas. Antarctic ice cap is actually showing the overall increase. Arctic ice cap is also increasing in the recent years. Analysis of data from the NASA satellites shows no reduction in polar ice since they started recording the data in 1979.

It’s all horse shit, the entire supposed science behind the global warming theory. The scientific part was extremely poorly done, doesn’t hold up to even the slightest scrutiny and I lost all confidence in it a decade ago, when the predictions started to prove false.

But yeah, President Trump is a joke and climate change is gospel. Believe in it in order to get more likes on Facefuck and have more hip friends who fucking love science, bitch.

Because education, and shit.

Unrests in America

Posted on by
9

I have several observations. First, the color revolutions are coming home. It’s all Soros funded, like the shit he attempted in Russia, Ukraine and other places, with varying degrees of success. Also, the method he used here in Croatia to destroy our culture, by purchasing the media in order to control the public narrative, and financing all sorts of shitty NGOs that promote anti-civilizational values (when you ignore the meaningless buzzwords such as “democratic”, “open” and “tolerant”), it’s all come back to America. There’s no longer a difference from the psyop used to subjugate other countries, control and subvert their election process and their governments, and the psyop that is used in America. America is now merely another victim of the shit it used to export to us. The only countries that are completely resistant to this are the Islamic countries, which export their own variety of bullshit, and Russia, which figured it all out and outright banned Soros and his propagandist servants.

Second, although they usually use the buzzword “democratic”, those people are everything but. Whenever they don’t like the result produced by the actual democracy, they bring thousands of people on the streets to paralyze the society and cause chaos. The thing is, the amount of votes those protesters could cast in the elections is negligible. They already voted, and turned out to be a minority. The interesting thing is, Americans themselves defined terrorism as an attempt by a political minority to influence the society by non-democratic means. That is exactly what this is: a minority that lost the elections wants to overturn the result of the election using non-democratic means. They are terrorists.

Third, a country with so many stupid, irresponsible crybabies might be completely incapable of actual recovery. It might even turn out to be so dysfunctional as to simply descend into chaos and violence.

Essentially, that’s what you get when you indoctrinate young people with completely unrealistic ideas, such as group identity politics, human rights, sensitivity-based speech and actions, and basically the concept of big, over-reaching governments that is supposed to “right all wrongs”. Essentially, the Americans first invented that bullshit as a method of pressuring other countries, but they also kept teaching that in their schools, and when the children indoctrinated on those lies and illusions grew up, they turned out to be entitled, irresponsible, crybaby idiots with demands.

If you want to see why the extremely conservative, Christian positions on society are correct, just take a look at what happens to society when you try to remove them and base the society on atheism, entitlement, sensitivity, group identity, and the concept of rights instead of duties. You get a dysfunctional society full of people of low intelligence and high indoctrination.