Monday, February 23, 2015

Putin's Ukraine End-Game

Putin's war in Ukraine goes worse than he hoped but better than he feared:  he can capture his strategic port objective of Mariupol and Odessa by the Spring.  However, he will need to mobilize heavy weapons, marines, and air and naval support to crush the defenders:  this means certainly provoking NATO into a coherent "response".

Here's the trick, though, and here's how Putin still wins (pay attention):

Assume Putin murders, oh, 50k Ukrainians between his Odessa and Mariupol assaults and manages to occupy both ports, perhaps even establishing a perfunctory land-bridge to Crimea.  Putin will also risk some units to occupy other key cities, neither one of them a strategic port, as chips for a future "concession" deal.

Now, with the EU in a tizzy about the war, Greece driving Germany away from "neo-liberalism", and America seen as an obtrusive interloper, Putin can prepare his finale:  precisely when the US exhausts itself cohering some sort of NATO response, at great political cost within Germany and France, Russia will, precisely at this moment, offer a credible PEACE deal, including a Eurasian trade zone!

Yes, a peace deal, "ex-nihilio":  frustrating, isn't it, to be a second-rate intellect responsible for a sovereign?  Well, it gets even better:  With McCain and other "hawks" offending French and Germany sensibilities, it will provide free fodder for the anti-US factions in both Germany and France to gain further political power: the war in Ukraine is not only a Russian civil war projected West, but it's also receives positive energy and support from frustrated protest factions in the Western EU, who ascend.

There won't be a WW3:  precisely when it seems inevitable, at the darkest hour, Putin will 'save the world'.  He receives an indulgence from the Holy Roman Empire, sanctions lifted, some perfunctory concessions granted to Ukraine, and that, my cherished reader, will be the end of this war.

Whether or not Putin makes a rush for the Baltics only depends on the terms he achieves in this peace treaty:  if not suitable, he'll have little choice but to invade them, but not for another year or so, at least.

Friday, February 6, 2015

The Beginning of the End: Socializing and Control of Internet Data

A major theme of this blog has been the "socialization" of data in the EU, in accordance with Evgeny Morozov's thesis.

Let's start with the first coup, "the right to be forgotten":

"In considering whether to apply delisting to versions of search targeted at users outside of Europe, including globally, we acknowledge that doing so may ensure more absolute protection of data subject's rights," the report said. "However, it is the conclusion of the majority that there are competing interests that outweigh the additional protection afforded to the data subject."
Google has reluctantly been scrubbing search results of unwanted content upon request since June, erasing links from the European versions of its site, including in Germany and in France. Those results, however, still appear on
 Why did the European Commission, which has a Soviet attitude towards the European people, down to regulating the type of hair dryer they may purchase (because of a Malthusian concern for the ecology), advocate on behalf of the "privacy and dignity" of a private person?  This is VERY un-European and most certainly uncharacteristic for the European Commission, the Supreme Soviet.

Recall:  the top administrators in the EU are lawyers or have legal understanding:  to properly end US data monopolies in the EU and with EU trading partners requires a very robust legal predicate and supporting social philosophy.  Then, how to best shephard the cultivation of a "personal data law"?  How about by using the "human rights" argument, with the first case about some humiliated and impoverished Spaniard.

Let's look at the logic, here:  if I can assert that Google can not share data that incriminates me, publicly, by giving me protection through a "right to be forgotten", then how is it consistent to maintain this right and NO OTHERS?  By asserting a "right to be forgotten", the EC has established the key anvil upon which she can beat "new laws" that, if not created and enforced, would contradict the letter and spirit of the "right to be forgotten".  More importantly, there exists the possibility to create new laws which would, with the existing "right to be forgotten", also further constrain the exclusively private retention of internet search and commercial data.

Let's look at an example:  if I have the "right to be forgotten" on the principle of human dignity, then what if I claim that using the internet is a "human right".

In March 2014, the European commission recognised access to drinking water as a human right, and recognising access to the internet as a human right should be the priority of the EU digital agenda.
This would be the best possible starting point from which to implement the bridging of the European Union’s digital divide - the digital agenda’s next priority.

If access to the internet is considered a "right", something indispensable for quality life in our society and an essential tool, like running water or roads, then, because I've already established that the internet must be "humane" in how it treats a private citizen, it must also now play a PUBLIC role, since it is a right.

Before, we assumed the internet was a private interaction, and so we could only attack a public effect that would harm a private person.  However, by considering the internet a "public good", we now have the mandate to impose our "welfare consideration" upon the internet.  This means if a fat man keeps getting ads for junk food, a drug addict for synthetic opiates, or a pedophile for atrocious media, then the State has a mandate to intervene in the private person's interaction and forestall this Public Evil resulting from a Public Good.  However, if Google can no longer provide "directed advertising" that will maximize its return on the search data(i.e. "exploit the public in its use of the Public Good"), how will it make money from the search?

Ok, perhaps Google (and now Facebook) can sell it's "synthetic person", your profile dervied from your web acticities to private entities who seek to maximize their marketing return from your expected consumption:  BUT WAIT!   If it is MY HUMAN RIGHT to use the internet, then as a member of society, I can justifiably expect to have the same model as for other consumption-related human rights, such as water and food:  I may consume it from private parties, but in all cases, the State superintends the transaction and regulates every component and step of the trade.

Here comes the key problem with the internet as a human right:  if I elect to use a non-monopoly service, I suffer:  because everyone uses Google and Facebook, they are the only viable services as they depend on being used to be useful (pardon my mutilated English).  Therefore, if I have NO CHOICE in service, at all, then it's like saying water is a human right, but I can only drink sparkling water, or water that tastes like paint thinner:  can you have a human right without choice?  If I say you can eat at any restaurant, as long as it's Chinese, does the ABSENCE OF CHOICE, itself, not inherently vitiate your rights?

Note:  we could argue that water utilities, railroads, and roads don't "allow choice", and that to enable "choice" for these utilities would reduce their inherent value, which is TRUE:  however, there is no physical constraint in the case of the internet, and the data can be stored and computed anywhere without any loss of value to anyone:  we can maintain the existence of this infrastructure without "losing choice", but there's no viable way to do this without, like most public infrastructure in Europe, socializing the asset to make it coherent with the political and cultural imperatives of the EU: because I CAN'T move the railroad without destroying it, I must SOCIALIZE the wealth effect to justly distribute its benefit to the public while maintaing a fair return for the good operation of the utility.

Hence, to make the internet a true "human right", I should be able to elect ANY vendor without undue punishment, otherwise, my assertion of "human right" is a contradiction, since "free will" is an indispensable component of "human rights".  Therefore, the EU must apply a data policy that...  eliminates monopolies, and as Evgeny Morozov wisely concludes, the only sensible path is a "data socialization" model:  let the society as a whole, as best it can, benefit from the publics' own data, rather than realizing windfall profits for a handful of data and determination feudal lords.

We all know Europe:  the State "needs to protect the public" from "abusing" this public good, just as it doesn't allow unregulated sewage systems nor badly-paved roads:  public safety is for all our good, no?  The power of data is total:  there's no room for "sharing" it, and so the EU recognizes the need to end this American incursion once and for all.

Germany is Sick of the EU, and the EU is Sick of Germany: Eurasian Vector

To force growth in the EU is squeezing blood from a stone.  Germany needs new markets and new borrowers, not these moribund, crappy, refractory EU states.

Wouldn't it be great if somehow, Germany could win access to previously closed or highly protected markets, apply all its infrastructure, manufacturing, and engineering capacity, and in the process, put her banks back to work to finance all of this, too?

Why, yes, she could, and with better terms than the last time Germany blew a credit bubble.

The solution to a failed credit bubble is a bigger and better one. Why not give Eurasia a try?

Of course, they'll need a Russian partnership, but that's expected.

Update:  German-US relationship already coming undone:,var=a,view=conversionToLogin.bild.html

Monday, February 2, 2015

Mega-Confluence: Critical Economic & Political Paradigm Shift Imminent

We're witnessing the confluence of, heretofore (I got to use this word!), disparate trends and developments.  They are the following:

  • Google behemoth finally provoking existential terror amongst German manufacturers, not just auto manufacturers:  through its data-determinism, it'll reduce German engineers to glorified "Uber drivers":  Siemens, ABB, and of course the automakers will face annihilation under Google dominance.
  • EU facing further austerity backlash and moribund economy under ancien regime: even Germans are becoming fed-up with their self-denial so they can export cars to Americans who really shouldn't be buying them at all.  The appaling birthrates and ethnic frustrations attenuate support for the mercantile paradigm used from the end of WWII till today, forcing Europeans to finally address the problem of domestic consumption.
  • Russian Holy Empire ambitions seeks to help galvanize opposition to US leadership in both political and economic affairs:  the German Wise Men are quite happy to use Putin and Snowden as their foil in sloughing-off the Google/Facebook Medusa, in addition to condoning a Greek "arbitrage" opportunity to smuggle Russian goods in order to cover their German debts.
  • The EU itself is facing existential metaphysical crisis and an acute lack of purpose, especially after allowing Russia to depredate Ukraine with abandon.  If, and this is a big IF, the US provides military support to Ukraine, Putin will smile with glee as he brutally escalates the conflict and can, he hopes, finally drive the fatal wedge between Germany and the US.
I need to emphasize the "data socialization" plan of Evgeny Morozov, an influential and well-respected intellectual with logical, concrete proposals that will preserve the EU market and protect it (the key word) from American domination.  In fact, under his propose solution to "socialize data", the EU could expand that protocol to her trading partners, who could then deprive Silicon Valley not only of windfall profits, but preserve their data for their own industries, to be distributed by the State rather than oligarchs in spaceships.

I'm staking my claim, here and now:  Google can't get bigger without destroying the EU.  The EU must defend her interests, and Putin is acutely aware of this economic menace to the European economy.  All of these threads are finally reaching confluence and will come to a head, leading to a massive market disruption:  yes, "data socialization" in the EU will cause a catastrophic crash in Silicon Valley.  This is the German Wise Men's dream, and they are willing to not only sacrifice Ukraine but the Baltic States, if necessary, to achieve it.  Do not underestimate the self-interests of the Western European establishment in protecting their market share:  after all, isn't the French Foreign Legion nothing more than the "enforecement" arm of TOTAL SA?

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Israel: Ukraine's Southern-Front and Obama's Underbelly

Israel plays a key role in Ukraine:  much procurement, financing, and even manpower comes from Israel to support the Ukrainian independence war.

Obama's trying to keep Israel at bay while Valerie Jarret fornicates with the Mullah's in some asinine nuclear deal.  Naturally, Putin interposes himself somewhere in the process, giving aid to Hamas or Hezbollah, as needed, and also bribing key Mossad members who are pro-Russian into trying to divide Israeli public opinion.

Fair or not, the "Western alliance" has a very soft belly, and it extends all the way down to Eilat.

"European-Eurasian Union: A New Vision for European-Russian Co-Prosperity"

A perspicacious observer would ask why Germany and France demonstrate such an apparent reluctance to "punish" Russia.

This is a good observation and raises a profound question, the answer to which eludes anyone without an appreciation for the tenuous trade situation between Germany, France, and the US:

  • The US dominates Europe with respect to both wealth and technological innovation.
  • There's no apparent change in policy that will end European subordination to the US.
  • There is a substantial elite in Europe that believes "policy" can curb US economic dominance and technical innovation (German "Wise Men").
This elite is Putin's target audience:  he needs to convince them that without Russian patronage, they can not maintain their power, let alone increase it, and that without Russian protection and alliance, the US will "swallow" Europe and reduce it to a backwater.

With every Mars rocket launched in Silicon Valley, the idea of "using" Putin to curb American economic dominance gains appeal to these "Wise Men".  Putin knows the deepest fears of his European colleagues, and it isn't Russian tanks in Latvia:  it's Amazon, Facebook, GE, and Google.

Of course, Snowden was the first pawn to move in this game:  break the "trust" between EU and US in matters of data and inspire "data resource nationalism".


In an interview with newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Traffic Minister Alexander Dobrindt stressed that Germany intends to be a world leader for digital vehicles and not dependent on Google technology.
"We have to achieve a digital sovereignty, independent from America and Asia," Dobrindt said.


Saturday, January 3, 2015

Eugenic Function of Feminism

I generally think so little of "feminism" as to not even deign to discuss it, but I feel compelled to articulate my understanding of this social excrescence:

The founders of feminism were, to a man, eugenicists, by way of humanism:  second-wave feminism issued from an economic analysis of the workforce during and after WWII.  Again, read this carefully:  an economic analysis impelled the movement, not an apeal to God, and not an appeal to the "inherent dignity" of Man(that was earlier).  The earlier feminists appealed to humanistic sensibilities of self-fulfillment and self-determination, with the eugenic payoff of a fully-realized, cosmopolitan woman who can contribute far more than the trammeled breeding and homemaking machine.  That one could fully realize himself was the objective, and this concept of self would take us to Sennet's discussion of public/private man, and this digression would make this blog post unduly turgid.

The purpose of all institutions in the West, today, is to further the eugenic goal:  why is that the "progressive movement" has the support of all major academies, corporations, and oligarchs?  Simple:  progressive movements yield a capital gain (theoretically) and provides a "stable" environment in which oligarchs and the establishment may enjoy their prizes for generations. 

The bulk of the White population is stuck in an orbit of trash:  they're not escaping the lower classes quickly enough for the Machine to tolerate their dominance of society(not enough capital gains per capita), and so a new, progressive order, guided by Capital, academies, and bureaucrats, determined to replace it.  That the white race is slowly facing extinction is only a result of its own decadence:  the pious communities of Mormons, orthodox Jews, Amish, &c continue to grow.  Therefore, there are some kernels of truth in the progressive nihilism towards "traditional culture", and if it weren't "progressivism" to destroy this weak and flawed system/religion, it would've been something else.

Then, the question is, "If Progressivism destroys the 'old, decadent ways', then isn't it also a religious movement?"  The answer to this should be self-evident:  have you ever seen the eager martyrdom of a progressive?  They will shake hands with a dying ebola patient, if they think it will advance the "eugenic cause".

We've lost focus on an already discursive blog post:  with the motivation and provenance above, the progressive religion, the eugenic religion, seeks to destory the "decadent, old forms" and yield a superior system of "higher returns" in both "capital and justice", whatever that means.  Feminism, then, isn't a movement:  it's an excresence on the face of the progressive god, who demands all infidels consumed by Moloch's fire.  Feminism only exists by accident, as a weapon in a greater war against the "old ways".

Today, the latest Feminists decry all male sexual expression as "rape":  they even admit to the purpose of this "rubber-law":  to castrate all non-elite (using whatever metric one desires) men.  Their argument is that there are too many men populating the world, that men are obsolete because of automation, and so, again, to "improve" the world, they must eliminate surplus men and their "bad blood".

It's ironic how the most "radical" feminists of today have the same eugenic beliefs as the most patriarchal, racist, and bigoted thinkers of the 19th century.