Same geographical pattern
NYC has been fucking America up the ass for 400 years and getting paid for it.

Over and over and over, NYC builds up bubbles, gets rich, then pops the bubbles. NYC gets rich again from shorting the pop or extorting bailouts from the government, and the rest of us lose jobs and money and freedom and life.

Until recently the biggest example was Madman Lincoln's literal holocaust. He burned down 1/5 of the country and killed 1/5 of the people to preserve the share value of his NYC railroad baron bosses.

There are exceptions. Well, AS FUCKING ALWAYS there is exactly one exception. FDR took over after Hoover had done the usual, and turned things around. FDR actually helped the rest of the country more than NYC.

The last three "events" are not exceptions. 9/11, TARP, Flu Coup, all have the same shape. In each case an "event" turned out to be mainly in NYC, and the rest of us lost everything to re-enrich NYC.

9/11 gave FBI and CIA massive new surveillance powers over everyone, and restricted travel for everyone.

TARP stole the houses and jobs and savings from millions of Americans to reward NYC with trillions and trillions. We never knew if there was an actual "event"; we just heard vague rumors that something threatened the Derivatives, so everyone needed to lose our jobs and houses and savings to preserve the Derivatives, WHICH WERE ILLEGAL FOR MOST OF HUMAN HISTORY.

Now the Flu Coup is an actual event, but it's an ordinary event, an epidemic that happens several times each year in one place or another. Because NYC seems to be handling the epidemic poorly, for reasons that we will never learn, the entire country must lose EVERYTHING. Jobs, food, freedom, life. We must all die to preserve NYC. The real event, of course, is the inevitable pop of the giant bubble inflated since TARP. NYC couldn't think of a way to justify yet another repump, so the rebranded epidemic became the "event". As always the repump goes along with a genocide to satisfy NYC's blood fetish.

Events that primarily affect America instead of NYC never cause genocides. Floods and tornados kill thousands in non-NYC places, and the Feds slowly and reluctantly offer little bits of help, but never require the WHOLE COUNTRY to lose its savings or jobs or freedom or life.

The Savings & Loan mess in 1990 was similar to 1929 and 2008, except that it happened in America instead of NYC. The bankers in Texas and Okla were forced to take their own losses, as they should, and many of them ended up in jail for fraud, as they should. Because NYC wasn't affected, justice was served.

Labels: Constfucts and variables

  ¶ 11:49 PM

  Better response
Earlier I posted a ferocious HARDASS response to dysgovernmental genocide. Deleting doesn't make any real difference; NSA has undoubtedly cached the original. But I didn't like seeing it here and didn't need to be reminded yet again of the monsters.

I need to obey Kadyrov's advice and focus elsewhere. Focus on duty, not anger.

Later, more reassurance about the sanity of normal people. So far 2000 comments on Monster Inslee, the vast majority just as HARDASS as my earlier comment here. Unfortunately sanity doesn't make any difference. All of the ruling class is genocidal.

Well, not all. Actually we have a balanced experiment. Part of the Spokane metro area is in Idaho. The governor of Idaho is NOT crazy. He has NOT shut down everything that makes life possible. The Post Falls schools will close down for a couple days to disinfect, then resume normal operation, while the Spokane schools will close down entirely for six weeks. Same people, same geography, lots of commuting between the two areas. Which side will end up with more deaths? The side where people can't carry on normal life, can't work, have to make special arrangements to stay alive.

Labels: Constfucts and variables, From rights to duties

  ¶ 10:03 PM

  Not the only difference
Twitter item from a Californian:

Leaving my dark, cold house where my capitalist power company can’t keep the lights on to go pay full price for a prescription my capitalist insurance company refuses to cover. Tell me again how socialism is bad.

Well, capitalism vs socialism is exactly the problem in medical care for sure. But it's not the only problem with utilities. Before the privatizing fashion and the Enron laws of the '80s, electric utilities were either municipal ("socialist") or tightly regulated private. Power was more reliable and maintenance was better, BECAUSE IT HAD TO BE BETTER.

But the same comparison divides SHARE-VALUE capitalism from REAL-VALUE capitalism. The comparison shows up around here in the Valley, where SHARE-VALUE Avista covers some areas and REAL-VALUE Inland Power and Vera Power cover others.

Note the comments in this Spokane-News FB item about an Avista outage in the Valley. Inland and Vera customers smugly note that last night's brief and minor windstorm didn't knock out their power. They usually keep their power when Avista goes dark.

Real-value companies seek profit, which means they want live customers. A dead customer isn't paying. Share-value companies seek rising share value, which means they prefer dead customers. A dead customer is a burnt sacrifice to Gaia. A live customer is a NEGATIVE EXTERNALITY.

Labels: Constfucts and variables, Deadthink

  ¶ 5:56 AM

  One Shannon unit
We know that we're not going to get meaningful revelations from the Epstein mess. The overall picture is absolutely unsurprising to anyone who knows history. Absolutely constant over 10000 years. Whenever and wherever an aristocratic class was able to take hold, the aristocrats have been infinitely wicked beyond all imagining, and completely unpunished. Think of the recognized meaning of Mandarin, Brahmin, Pasha, Sultan, Eunuch, Emperor, King, Queen, Pope, Bishop, Priest.

Everyone knows what those monsters do.

Every monarch of England until Elizabeth 2 was infinitely wicked. For some reason E2 decided to break the sequence by living clean. Her sons and grandsons have resumed, as we know from the partial Epstein reveals.

Russia had a fairly long stretch of exceptions. Nicholas 1 was frugal and competent, and his son and grandson continued the exception. Lenin resumed the norm, which continued until Putin broke it again, returning to Nick.

= = = =

We have exactly one piece of REAL INFORMATION that contradicts previous definite knowledge. It was a casual remark quoted yesterday about the tech monsters, Elon, Bezos, Zuck, etc.

Previous definite "knowledge" is based on the carefully crafted reputation of the tech monsters. We "know" that they are ascetic TypeA+++++++ workaholics, slaving 26/9/367 to raise share value and slaughter Deplorables, never stopping to have fun.

Nope. Epstein told us that they spend most of their time and money doing Epstein things, just like all other aristocrats. They're not ascetics, they're EPicurians, devoted to every conceivable type of dissipation plus an infinite number of inconceivable iniquities.

That's INFORMATION in the Shannon sense.

Labels: Constfucts and variables

  ¶ 8:36 AM

  And the survey says.....
The WhatCar website surveyed 18000 owners of various cars to get a sense of reliability.

Here's a quick chart, made with my clumsy Poser graphing gadget, from the specific data on Electric Cars. How does Tesla stack up against its specific competition?



The first 10 are in the 90% decade. Renault is 83%. Tesla is 50%.

This is what happens when you value THEORY over EXPERIENCE. Elon's explicit guiding principle is: Avoid doing things that work. Only do things that fail. Failure increases share value, which is the only thing that matters.

But in the real PHYSICAL world,

EXPERIENCE WINS. THEORY KILLS.

= = = = =

Semi-related afternote: Now here's an EV that I'd buy in an instant if somebody built it. The Russians made an electric version of the Lada (basically Fiat) in 1979. They didn't go into high quantity production, but it's a neat practical-looking car, with practical and safe nickel-zinc batteries. (The idiotic explosive lithium cells hadn't been invented then, and should never have been invented.)

Labels: Constfucts and variables

  ¶ 3:25 PM

  WMDs prove the opposite
Back in 2008 when I was STARTING to open my mind but hadn't gone all the way because I hadn't unplugged the TV, I wrote this piece on non-intervention.

= = = = = START REPRINT:

Here is a three-minute segment of a CBS news program in 1951. Ed Murrow took bits and pieces from Robert Taft and Harry Truman, the probable candidates in '52, and created a "debate" on our role in the world. Taft was the last major candidate who believed in supporting America's direct interests. Of course he didn't get the nomination in '52, and we haven't had a real nationalist since then.

Today the parties have more or less reversed, though both sides have become blurry and squishy. In general the Bush-McCain side wants us to intervene everywhere all the time, while the Obama side wants us to intervene almost everywhere for a slightly different, and perhaps slightly smaller, set of reasons.

Transcribing Taft:

"Either we have to assume that the Russians are not going to attack Western Europe, or we have to assume that they are. If they are not going to attack, then our buildup is unnecessary. If they are planning an attack, why should they bother to wait three years while we build up a great army to oppose them? They would attack now."

Thinking in terms of modern Russia or Persia, we have to remember that these countries know how to play chess. If we are doing something that makes emotional sense but doesn't make strict military sense, perhaps we should ask whether the opponent has led us into this move. If we are spending our military into bankruptcy for a purpose that looks good but is strictly unachievable (eg a Young Democracy In The Broader Middle East) perhaps this is exactly what Russia wants us to do.

= = = = = END REPRINT.

I won't reprint the whole thing because I was still making some lethally stupid media-driven assumptions about Islam, which I couldn't shake off until I unplugged the TV in 2010. I was also falsely assuming that Russia was a real enemy.

The Taft argument is still powerful. When TV and politicians fearmonger about a "threat" posed by an "enemy", you have to ask why the threat hasn't been implemented yet.

I was thinking about this in connection with "cyberthreats" and EMP. "Cyberthreats" are pretty much this decade's rerun of EMP, which was a popular "threat" in the 80s and 90s. Some people are still convinced that Russia, or other Current Enemy, is getting ready to set off a small nuke in the air.

EMP and its relative the 'dirty nuke' have always been achievable. There's more than enough enriched uranium outside of official channels to make these weapons.

EMP has been possible and achievable for many decades but it HASN'T BEEN USED. In fact it hasn't even been THREATENED.

The same goes for "cyberthreats". Hacking is certainly a weapon, and it's certainly achievable. Lots of small criminals use identity theft and blackmail tricks. Some of those criminals are in Russia, some in US, most in third-world countries. But the only nation-level cyberhacks have been made by NSA. First against Russian oil refineries in the '80s, later against Persia's uranium factories.

Taft conclusion: There are no enemies who want to use these weapons. The "enemies" are false-flag hobgoblins constfucted by the crappy magicians of Deepstate.

= = = = =

** Constfucted: Beautiful accidental portmanteau word! I won't correct the typo.

Labels: Constfucts and variables

  ¶ 11:22 PM