Friday, March 16, 2018



The Sith Lord approves.. that seals the deal for me (That is a neocon supporting a celebrity as a  Democratic president BTW. Wut?)

The first commenter rocks.

Also this

Thursday, March 15, 2018

Q&A - 15/3


I still don't understand why there was so much polarization in US during 90s..

To recap..

Let's rewind to the beginning.. The Berlin Wall came down in 1989, capitalism had won, the Earth would become flat, globalization (i.e. Pax-Americana) would advance unimpeded, English as the lingua-franca of the world etc.

These developments hit the Dems in US particularly hard. After their loss to Bush 1,  and 1989, US Dems made the decision to mirror Republicans almost exactly bcz they were "lost in the wilderness",  so they nominated the Southern Ronald Reagan for 1992. Clinton defined the party around centrists (i.e. crypto-Republicans in the Democratic Party). He created his contrasts only in execution (we'll deliver prosperity better), and secondary issues such as guns, abortion, climate.

Republicans were watching Dems closely, the wall came down, what will they do? They saw in horror as the other side is taking up their issues muscling them out of their base. They are thinking, I come back home and find this guy sitting on my couch, watching my TV, eating my cheetos.. This is not okay... They were like "you don't pitch a tent in my front yard, mucker" and immediately went to war. They took a look at the Dem's roster of issues, and they ticked off the secondary ones almost immediately. Gun control -> second amendment. Abortion -> protecting life. Environment -> Chinese hoax!

But that would not be enough. Since they could not fight "the new Dems" on primary issues (they agreed after all) they had to fight them on a more personal level. This is when things got real ugly. Clinton waffles, he is a thief, a liar, a philanderer. In one case they even indicated he was a murderer I think.. They were wrong on most of these counts, right in some.. but it didn't matter.

They did all that, however the first mistake comes from the Democrats. Sure 1989 was a big deal, it is kinda understandable they did what they did, but insisting on that mistake today is senseless. Look at where US is now: Reps are not touching the secondary issues with a ten foot pole. Reagan was pro-gun control. Richard Nixon founded the frickin EPA, but Reps today are not going near gun control (even after all these deaths) and the EPA chief is a guy who wants to abolish the EPA.

The secondary issues grew and grew due to neglect and they became much bigger. Corporate Democrats are not getting anything for their about-face - they are rarely elected, they even get muscled out of their base now most recent example being a billionaire shitting in gold toilets running on left (sorry "populist") issues and crushing them. Dem failures gave Republicans a wide swath of ideological landscape, they can freely roam about there, they can do right, left, everything in the middle - all corporate Dems can do is sitting on their ass and watch. They try to fight as being "exampler citizens" with their token diversity initiatives token candidates, but it isn't enough. It will never be enough. Until the ideological void is filled, this "shitshow" will continue.


But who defines what the primary ideological divisions are?

It is ancient

First ideological division was between "landed interests" and the foragers. The latter fought through religions (Moses, Jesus, Mohammed), then through modern left, the former tries to co-opt religions (Catholicism, Ottoman Caliphate), tries to push for "law and order" (i.e. jail anyone who is not like us). Private sphere expansion, more and more property belonging to someone, is their thing. They are all about that patch of land, a fence around it, they put a goat on it, and they go to work - "what my name ??!! what's my name....?!".. Beeeeee..

BTW, the AR-15 BTW is a defensive weapon, or most see it that way, which is used conciously or subconciously to "defend their land". It is a favorite by rednecks in the south - this is no coincidence. The fact that they're used for "assault" as of late is the biggest irony here.


The Clinton Presidency was an important marker in history then?

Of course

This was the first Democratic president after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Everyone watched closely what they would do.. Dems started something with him, I guess it is fitting that era ending with another Clinton.


Should there be no privatization?

I did not say that

I am not for government running companies. But u have to draw a line somewhere, protect the public from excessive privatization. Ever since 1989 things got out of hand.


Why would a farmer like capitalism?

They want a good price for their crops

But then when things go wrong, they also want to be bailed out (we are needed to feed people, we are too important to fail). I guess their bad habits still persist in the financial class today.


Is finance related to farming?


First futures contract was for rice trading in the Far East.


Worst examples of trampling of public sphere in any country?

Go to Goatfucker HQ

Farming started around Hilly Flanks, so this region even today suffers from an absence of public sphere. Go to the "richest" area in Istanbul, and look at the sidewalks, how narrow they are. This only happens when property owners extends their sphere by any means, at the expense of the public.

The Gezi protest in TR, BTW, were not primarly about protecting the greenery. It was about protecting one of the few remaining public spaces in that area.


But isn't the Jesus myth still weird?... Having no father all that...?


Farmers, villagers at the time were praying to bones, let's not forget, to their "ancient ones" (bcz inheriting land is all-important). "The man without a father" in this age is great sales pitch - whether created by divine intervention, or a smart politician.