Is there a point when these people stop and think "Am I the racist now?"

 If we judge by the out-roar at the election of a white woman as Miss Zimbabwe, the answer is no.

I mean, first of all, she is African. She is Zimbabwean. Her ancestors have been living there for a long period of time - she is not a "colonizer" any more, than an American Italian whose ancestors arrived in the 19th-20th century, or someone whose parents came over from Cuba in the '70s, is an immigrant. So no. She is part of that country. Denying it because of her skin color or her ancestry is racism. Unless you also agree that black, Asian, whatever people living in Europe can never be Europeans. I am sure a lot of Fascistic people would agree with you. Not sure this is your ideal company, but once you start thinking about progressive identity politics, you will find that there is a great deal of overlap between the two ideology.

Also.

She is a minority, so multiculturalism, representation, whatever should be a good thing. But apparently this is always a one-way street with these people. And in their wallowing of in their own victim-hood, which seems to be the cornerstone of their identity, while they eagerly import American-style identity politics, they simultaneously express the vilest racism directed at this woman. And this is perfectly fine,  which does not cause any cognitive dissonance.

Astonishing.

As a side-note: the fact that most of Africa is a shithole today with appalling living conditions for their inhabitants cannot be blamed on the evil white men any more.

So Trump said something remarkable: ‘states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote’


Interesting. When the shoe was on the other foot, things went a bit differently, even though in that case the above sentiment would have been a little bit more than justified. 


Some tact and empathy would have been useful, but then again: what can you expect of the Orange Baboon? In a way he is a great representation what the US foreign policy is about.

Victim blaming is fine, when it's not us

So every time you have a terror attack - 9/11 especially -, usually it's a sign of bad taste and horrible personality to suggest the country which fell victim to the attack may had something to do with why the attack was perpetrated. So the last seven-eight decades of US policies in the Middle East had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, and if you mentioned that they might, you were defiling the memory of the innocent victims, and were an America-hater, who should really just go and kill themselves silently, as they are beyond redemption. After all, claiming that the terrorists acted because of a grievance would justify their actions, right? And if we do this, then we use the lives of those innocent victims to further our agenda, right? Excusing the actions of the terrorists, that's what it is! This is not the right time to discuss these things, not while the bodies are still warm... so there will be no lessons learned. Ever.

(Which is a convenient stance because we don't need to take a look at ourselves, and it also has the added benefit of making it impossible to treat the root of the issue, hence we will always have a convenient threat we can point at when we chip away civil liberties, and bomb countries.)


The same is true with all the terror attacks that happened in Europe; saying that France's or Belgium's inability to assimilate large amount of immigrants might have something to do with what happened (they are rather be focusing on a straw men claiming the attackers were domestic born), that Germany's decision to let fresh immigrants in might have something to do with these things, that the UK's, France's actions in the Middle East and North Africa might have something to do with what happened, is an anathema. "Fringe" papers and websites (whose readership reaches into the high dozens) do discuss these connections, but "reputable" newspapers and other media outlets will never touch this topic; instead they present a whitewashed picture of ourselves, and how those scary terrorists are hating us for our freedoms.

But not when it comes to the Ruskies.

They are to be totally blamed for what happened. (Published mere days after the attack.) But, wait, the hypocrisy is not finished! After all, the Ruskies are responding with revenge (forgot about Afghanistan and Iraq yet?), and their foreign policy is repugnant... Definitely forgot about Iraq and Afghanistan, then.

The double standards are astonishing.

Addendum. Well, it didn't take long, did it? Hypocrites.

How shady statistics is used to lie -poverty in the US and around the world

So here's the thing. I lived in the US and I've lived in several European countries. I know the US-as far as you can know a continent-wide country-, and I have first-hand knowledge how poor people (one in six, apparently) are in the US and what challenges they face; after all I was among them. (I made 16K which was skirting the poverty line in the early 2000s. Later on I made much more, so I got to experience middle class standards as well.)

Same with Europe: I grew up poor, later I experienced the middle class experience, and I've obviously seen how my friends and colleagues live, and obviously talked to people.

So I have no illusions; I've seen all over Florida, South Caroline, Washington DC, New York State, Virginia; I have seen how poor poor people really are. And then you get these articles.

Especially this graph is telling:

Apparently the author thinks that the bottom 10% poor in the US live almost as good as the top 10% of Japan (and Poland?? How did Poland get to the same level as Japan? What arcane statistical methods they used?), they live about the same as the top 10% of Israel, and they live considerably better than the top 10% of Portugal.

Just let it sink in for a while. It might make someone living in a Salt Lake City suburb feel awesome about himself (time for some 'Murrica! shouts), but just stop for a second and really think. The richest 10% of Portugal apparently live on food stamps, have no health insurance, and cannot afford higher education. Really. (Interestingly the author himself admits he lives in Portugal; apparently he is unfamiliar how Portuguese people live, or he is unfamiliar how the bottom 10% of the US society lives; either way it's strange.) Let's compare how the Swedes and the Germans live. Or even Italy -you know the place where the upper 10% lives lives that are as bad as the lower American 10%'s. Child mortality, healthcare costs, class divide, prison population size... hardly seem like the Americans get the better deal. Or perhaps mention the inequality adjusted HDI. How about increases in life expectancy worldwide? Perhaps not being able to afford life-saving drugs? But let's move on, since it does not fit our agenda.

But in the meanwhile, we also have reports like this. Also stories showing people not being able to afford other food than McDonald's -contributing to obesity and other food-related health issues. (As a side note: it's really astonishing; I found that it's cheaper to buy fast food than to buy stuff for a picnic in a supermarket, for example. A sandwich with some fries and soda will cost you about 6 bucks. If you want to make sandwiches and have some salad, you'll spend about 25 for two. Which tells you a lot about healthy choices and money.)

But let's just forget the poor and how they live better than those even poorer Europeans. (Although let me tell you: I'd rather be poor in Hungary than in the US; at least I would get healthcare.)

Let's just think about the quality of life. How do you define quality of life? Does a middle class American with no maternity leave, hardly any vacation time and almost no sick leave have a better quality of life than someone who does not have to worry about his  health insurance if he loses his job? (Or she, but it would make the sentence clunky to specify.)

Does having a mortgaged house, a crippling student debt that cannot be defaulted, and an almost complete lack of social safety net really makes your life better?  How about the people who cannot get insurance because they have preexisting conditions? Does having two cars in the family and a crappy house in a suburb in the middle of nowhere make up for the choice between an expensive -and life saving- treatment or sending your kid to college? Or how about a friend of mine who did not get to see his GP about his diabetes for six months because he just graduated with his PhD and was temporarily unemployed?  Does it sound like a well-off nation? Does it even sound like a civilized nation? Has the author ever toured the slums around (and inside) big cities? Are those -usually black and latino- people really better off than the richest 10% of Portugal? Are they even better off than the lowest 10% of Portugal? I kind of doubt it.


I'm really stunned by these articles; either the authors are stupid or they think everyone else is, but regardless which option is true, it's just astonishing. The media creates a narrative which seems to become truth. Incredible.

Torture and international law in our little world

So Mike Pompeo and the Orange baboon are openly advocating torture now. Openly.

Newspapers report on this as if it was about discussing the weather, or perhaps some mildly embarrassing issue, like a herpes infection.

Nobody screams their bloody heads off about the "Freest Country" on earth advocating torture. I find this incredible. Apparently rules do not apply to some. International laws do not apply. The previous round of war criminals are still living their lives in complete safety and without being bothered by sharp questions (and I don't even mention tribunals), and here we go, the next round comes about. In other words: the US -don't forget, they are the "torchbearers of democracy, equality, whatever" can without any consequence break the law that governs international relationships. It should be discussed, it should be talked about: if the strongest nation decides the rules does not apply to them, they are essentially jeopardising the whole international legal framework, even if the whole Western world seems to do its best to ignore this. (As they undoubtedly realize this issue.) Keeping up the illusion of strong international laws does not help actually making them strong. It only shows off the hypocrisy and utter lack of moral principles of the West, enabling others to do whatever they wish to -after all, if the US does not care, why should they? Nobody is fooled by this display. You may pretend the US, the UK and other paragons of democracy are governed by laws, the stink of torture chambers and bombed weddings is still permeating every meeting room you are discussing these high-minded ideals of international law.


So let me say it again: the USA has broken, admitted breaking, and openly considers breaking international law. The perpetrators were not and are not being investigated. And the media reports it without even raising a single fucking eyebrow, as if torture was not really a big deal.


I guess you really should not be surprised that people tend to be cynical when it comes to the "bad Ruskies" or "bad Iran" routine, and cannot be adequately bothered to be outraged. I have to say I myself start to feel sorry for Milosevic and other small-time war criminals.

Interesting look on "collateral damage"

Weird. The media and the political machine is still raging about how the Syrians and Russians are monsters and war crimes for bombing hospitals, and operating in a heavily populated area against the moderate rebels. (Which is, admittedly, a horrible thing to do. I'm not trying to say that it's all daisies and rainbows; it is a brutal and quite frankly, hard to justify thing to do.)

However... let's see what the very same people say about doing the very same thing when they themselves are doing it. (I've already written about the interesting contrast about Mosul and Aleppo, so let's leave that part out for now.)

Bombing hospitals - Russia vs USA. (Or Saudi Arabia, but they did bomb a school, so it's not the same I guess.) Mind you, bombing hospitals (and their parking lots) is against the law even IF enemy combatants are hiding in it, yet Israel is quite happy to do so; again, no angry accusations of war crimes there. (Even though in this case it is a deliberate action. As is using white phosphorus in built-up areas against humans.) It seems like you cannot avoid making mistakes when fighting in a city; and the Russians hit a hospital by mistake. Still a war crime, I guess, right?

Well...

What happens when the US and its allies kill people?

Well, of course, it's unintentional, so it's not a crime. It's a kind of weird logic, since you normally can't claim this in front of a court, but let's just think about this. The US and its allies conduct operations in a sovereign country against the wishes of its legitimate government, and kills the soldiers of said government. (The US also supports "moderate" rebels fighting said government, let's add hastily.) But it was unintentional, so it's cool. It's also regrettable when they unintentionally drone weddings and innocent people in general, who happen to be in the wrong place (in their own country) at the wrong time. While we KNOW that any collateral damage the Syrians and Russians cause is absolutely intended and should be condemned.

Interesting.

Increasing tensions with a nuclear superpower - smart or not?

Weirdly the narrative of "Evil Russia" is very much alive on both the Left and the Righ. You got the odd Chomsky who actually argues for a bit restraint of provoking the Russians, but in general if you read online comments or listen to NATO chiefs and politicians, you have this feeling of collective insanity.

Everyone seems to have accepted the narrative that "The Russians Must Be Stopped", and that "provocative steps are necessary to ensure peace". It seems like there's a collective amnesia about the history of the last 25 years, and everyone is just happily engaging in their happiest paranoid Cold War mindset.

First of all- the argument that we can't let a country just do whatever it wants- the world has changed.

Really.

Iraq war, anyone? Torture? Cyber attacks against a sovereign country? (An act of war, actually.) Threat of a nuclear strike against a sovereign country? (You know, a war crime in itself.) Mass surveillance even -grasp!- of foreign politicians? Bombing sovereign countries? Supporting "moderate" rebels (aka the merry men of ISIS)? Talking about and executing regime changes? Drone strikes in areas which are outside of a war zone? Assassinations? Suspension of Habeas Corpus? Supporting murderous medieval regimes who wage horrible wars in Yemen?
These things are a-OK? If the Russians put a fleet close to US coastal waters every time the Americans exercised their hyper-interventionist policies, we would have all died of a nuclear holocaust by now.

But I digress. Let's not engage in "whataboutery", as these things are labelled whenever they are brought up as an inconvenient counterpoint.

Let's focus on Russia.

Why are the Russians are so damned aggressive, you'd ask. Well, you can ask why a guy in the pub is so darn aggressive once you took his drink and tried kissing his girlfriend.

They are aggressive, because they have been provoked, idiots.

What has the NATO been doing to provoke them, you ask? After all, they're just minding their own business, not doing any hostile moves?

Well, for one, they are expanding east, in direct violation of their promise. And make no mistake: this is an aggressive move against the Russians. The NATO has not ceased its anti-Russian rhetoric since the Cold War. (Ironically this whole Cold War thing seems to be a product of American paranoia; the Soviet Union seemed to have tried to join NATO... although don't quote me on these; and they are tangential points, anyhow.)
The Russians have experienced two devastating wars from the West, and ignoring their history and their attitude (isolationist, pretty defensive and xenophobic) is stupid. They want their buffer states around them, and if you threaten this you threaten them. It's that simple. Ask the Americans about Latin America if you want to see something similar. If you look at Russian interventions they usually were defensive in nature. Even the famous Winter War started because Stalin wanted some buffer between him and the Germans.

Foreign adventures like the war against Georgia is normally brought up at this point. Too bad the narrative is a lie, is it? Funnily the truth isn't the "evil Ruskies against the poor, defenceless Georgians" as it is still touted by the media. Weird in this era of the free press, is it?

Ukraine is being brought up. Consider this: you remove a pro-Russian government with a coup, and install a pro-Western (pretty far right) one  instead, threatening their access to their only warm water port. Can I ask you something politely? What the fuck did you think would happen? Seriously. Did you expect them to just accept the fact that their direct neighbour is a pro-NATO country, while you have been putting NATO bases, radars and other "defensive" structures in Central Europe? Have you forgotten what triggered the Cuban Missile Crisis? (Hint: something to do with the nukes in Turkey.) They wanted to keep their bloody port, so they took the Crimea. You did not have to be a genius to see what would happen.

With Syria we see a similar issue. While human rights mean nothing when our dictators are trampling them (see: House of Saud), they mean everything when we can screw the Russians over. Assad might not be a pleasant individual, but he is miles ahead of the US/Saudi supported fundamentalist "moderate" rebels who not only hate Christians, they hate Muslims, too, if they don't subscribe for their own particular sect. And in this case hatred does not mean toilet papering each other's lawn. I have Syrian friends (Christian Arabs), and they all said: Assad is the best alternative. (Even the Syrian expat community in Budapest seems to think so if the window of a Syrian shop is any indication: it has a huge poster of Assad on it.) The civil war was a horrible crime the US and her allies helped to fester. It needs to stop. And the only people willing to put a stop to it is Assad and the Russians. Trump -and it pains me to say so- is right in this. Once the war is over, then the issues can be addressed; but nothing will be gained from supporting rebel fractions whom we think are "moderate". (I wonder what the "moderate" Islamic fundamentalist looks like.) Just look at what happened in Mosul after a little western meddling: the community is completely torn apart by hate.

Pushing the Russians will not help at all. Raising tensions when both sides can essentially destroy all human lives on this planet is just fucking stupid (and I apologise for the word but this is the best description I could find). What you need is de-escalation, mutual respect and a willingness to compromise. The Russians are smart enough for that; the US and her allies so far have been unable to grasp that perhaps they can't always dictate things from the position of absolute power. It works when you're pushing over little dictators you nurtured, but it does not work with a superpower. And like it or not, Russia IS a superpower, even if the Russian GDP is low. There is more to a superpower than GDP, you know. A couple of thousands of nuclear warheads will do the trick.

Mosul's corpse

You remember how the heroic US supported Iraqis are fighting for Mosul? (And how many civilians died as an unfortunate side-effect, and not as a deliberate war-crime, unlike in Aleppo where the exact same thing is happening, only the Ruskies are helping the Syrians against the rebels there?)

Well, unsurprisingly -as it happened again and again at every single US supported coup, intervention or US lead war, somehow the communities they wanted to save against the evil dictator (many times a person they have supported in the past), evil terrorists (whom they supported), etc., etc., were utterly destroyed in the process, leaving only hatred behind. Somehow these interventions are always followed by ethnic and/or religious hatred being unleashed in the communities involved. You can say that the operation was successful but the patient died.

The funny thing is -and I'm not using this word as in "hilarious"- they keep doing it, and people keep reading about it, yet nobody raises an eyebrow about this disastrous track record; it's as if the past has disappeared. It seems like people's memories are about the same as a goldfish's.

And this is why retarded, racist morons get elected for president.

The difference between war crimes and human shields -how the media and politics see the same thing through different glasses

Weird things you can read in the news.

Siege of Mosul (incredible bloodshed, street fighting and massive civilian causalities) is something that we should look at as the forces of good fighting the forces of evil. (I think ISIS is supposed to be the evil here, but given the fact that the US has been supporting these very same guys in the past makes this distinction a bit murky.)

Anyhow. Mosul is great.

Aleppo, however... at Aleppo we see the evil Ruskies and Assad massacring civilians and attacking helpless rebels who are definitely moderate, and would not chop heads off even if they could. Also: the fact that NATO is putting troops right on Russia's borders is something that will ensure peace. Definitely. How else to make sure you have peace other than provoking a nuclear power? By talking to them? Don't make me laugh. (And let's not forget who those rebels really are.)


So. There is an interesting duality how the media (and politicans) deal with bombs that kill civilians depending on who drop said bombs. We can safely conclude that victims of Western airstrikes are collateral damage only. Also, victims of weapons sold by Western powers to barbaric kingdoms and used on civilians are fine. They don't kill civilians. We're the good guys. (Things can get a bit weird when your allies murder your allies, but what the heck. Let this one slide, I say.)
But victims of Russian bombs, however, are victims of a war crime. And the Ruskies are barbarians. Let's just forget the siege of Fallujah, and the indiscriminate killing of civilians of US forces (not to mention the use of white phosphorus against human targets, which is, you know, a war crime).


It's kind of weird when the two sides do the same thing, but they are not really the same. US (or Israel) hits a hospital: oh well, mistakes are being made, sorry. And the terrorists were hiding there deliberately, anyhow, so it's not a mistake. They were also using human shield, forcing us to kill all those people, while at the same time we hit the hospital by mistake.

Ruskies hit a hospital: WAR CRIMINALS. OMG, THEY ARE TOTALLY EVIL. Poor insurgents who are forced to hide in a city against the superior force! Let's send them more weapons!


Seriously. Do a google search. I can imagine all these people's spirit discussing how one side were murdered by an evil regime, and how the other were just collateral damage. I'm sure the victims of Western bombs take a great solace in the knowledge.


It's astonishing. It's so bad, even the Independent noticed it -after several decades too late.

US, Russia, war crimes and the infantile double standards that no one seems to notice

This is a real interesting phenomenon. The US and its Western allies are free to invade, bomb, assassinate, torture, fund and support "moderate rebels" (who turn out to be founding members of Al Quaida, ISIS, etc.), use civilians as human shields, target hospitals, target funerals and weddings, support bloodthirsty dictators and regimes, and starve an entire country to death (you know what the fuck is going on in Yemen? Well, a Leningrad Siege on a country scale, that's what), yet no one seems to care.

Russia, on the other hand cannot do anything without being condemned as worse than Nazi Germany. Literally. Even politicians who suggest that what the Russians are doing is not much different from what any other "great" power is doing get abused quite a lot. If you read the newspapers (which are essentially propaganda tools; gone are the days of journalism), you'll read that it's all Russia's fault. The new world war is beginning.

And yet the elephant is quite large in the room: the US and the UK has been responsible for countless bombings, regime changes, invasions, wars, and so on and so forth. Russia in comparison is lagging behind in this race; even  the most often brought up case -up to the Ukrainian land-grabt that is-, the war in Georgia seems to be pretty much supporting the Russian narrative. (It was more than hilarious how fast Western voices stopped criticising the war in Chechnya after 9/11...) And yet- when the US and its allies cause "collateral damage" by hitting civilians in a large scale (or just small scale by drones), it's fine. When they kidnap people to torture them, it's fine. When they ignite regional wars by supporting "moderate" rebels, it's fine. The very same people who are committing these acts, or keeping silent about them are up in arms when the Russians dare to support their own little puppet, and stabilize his country. Right now they are the only force in Syria that tries to quell the civil war, while the US and its allies is happily founding ISIS and other moderates. (And by moderates I mean people who like to behead others, and use kids to execute their POWs. You know; the nice kind the US has always liked to support.)

And everyone just ignores this; they behave if someone farted in the room, and pretend that they did not notice it. Are they aware that the very same policies are responsible for the migrant crisis and the increased terrorist activity in Europe? Nobody cares even when the chickens are coming home to roost. They just ignore it and keep spewing even more nonsense; like blaming Putin for the very same problems. Incredible. It's very rare when spokepersons are forced to confront this double standard, and the results are incredibly telling. How the fuck can anyone take these politicians, journalists seriously if their basic moral core is compromised so much they can only function as a bunch of partisan puppets for "their team"?

Lions and donkeys

This famous line is supposed to be about the British soldiers of WWI- the poor, brave souls, who suffered through hell over and over again, and died needlessly by the hundreds of thousands because of the –perceived- incompetence of their superior officers.

This post is not about these officers, and what they could have/should have done to avoid this suffering. This post is about our world leaders: politicians, bankers, and pundits.

Christopher Hitchens supposed to have said that during his first meeting with world leaders during a dinner, he realized that we are led by people who are markedly NOT smarter than we are. In fact, he realized to his growing horror that these people were more stupid than he was.

This is a sobering thought, but, if we take a look at world events, it is very much possible that it’s true. We, the little man, Joe the plumber, the plebs, sleep well, knowing that our elected (or not elected) leaders are smart, they know what they are doing, and they are with a plan. A plan that might go wrong, but they have one nevertheless. We never actually stop and think about what they are doing. If we did that, these people would not be in power for long. The sad fact is: we are (lions or not) being led by donkeys.

We can be more forgiving towards rulers who inherited their position, or were put in place by a foreign sponsored coup. They did not get to their position of power through their merit; they were chosen by either sheer luck (they were the ones who exited through the vagina of their mothers) or by the whims of their sponsor. Wilhelm the Second was born to be a Kaiser; and nobody thought of making him pass an intelligence test before he took his throne. The Sah of Iran was put into power by a British-US lead coup; nobody stopped to think about his abilities as ruler. So when these people fuck up, we can dismiss them as the unavoidable results of a non-democratic political system. (Although we’d have harder times explaining the very much effective Chinese technocrats, who were not voted on, but who WERE selected according to their capabilities.)

But the sad fact is that our elected leaders are not much better than an inbred aristocrat. To see this, it’s enough to take a look at the politics of the post First World War world, and especially the US of A. Democracy does not mean meritocracy. Just the opposite, it seems.

The US has been consistently acting on knee-jerk reactions to perceived threats, and based most of its politics on ideological grounds, rather than realpolitics; just look at how successful they were at transforming an anti-colonial struggle in Vietnam into an anti-Communist war; or how they achieved the presence of Al Quaida in Iraq following their invasion.

And not to be accused of America-bashing: the very same thing can be said about European politics. It seems like our dear leaders either act on very short-term, short sighted policies (like the constant support for oppressive regimes and “freedom fighters” abroad), or on ideological grounds regardless of facts (the fixation on austerity above all else in British politics), or simply out of general ignorance, cluelessness and stupidity (the Ukrainian conflict or the recent issues with dealing with the migration problem).

The Ukrainian conflict is an especially good case to this point. A quick recap: Russia pulled back from East Germany and the rest of the satellite states on the condition NATO (which, we kind of need to keep in mind, is an anti-Russian alliance) does not try to move East. Fair enough; the US did not tolerate any deviation from its ways in its own spheres of influence. (Just look at how they reacted to Cuba, and the misery they wrought to Central and South America with coups, banana republics, death squads and puppet dictators.) Any sane, and reasonably informed person (yours truly included) would understand this. And in fact, did.

Yet, the EU and the US (along with the NATO) has violated this agreement over and over again. They pushed further East, which obviously distressed the Russians. Don’t forget: they are a paranoid people, when it comes to the West, and with good reason. They have about 40 million reasons to be paranoid: the death toll of the two World Wars together. The Communist takeover, which resulted from the First War also did not help to make them more trustful of our conflicts. The NATO has been edging closer and closer; there have been efforts to put a missile defence shield into place in Central Europe; and lo and behold, Germany will be hosting US nuclear weapons again. Why would the Russians NOT be worried? Wouldn't you be? So when the democratically elected (albeit corrupt) government in the Ukraine was toppled by a coup, and a coup in which the US had its hand in, the shit obviously hit the fan.

The international press depicted the situation in a very pro-NATO, pro Ukraine (even going as far as ignoring the influence of the far-right light in the new Ukrainian government) - but it’s just as false as their reporting about the Georgian conflict in 2008. Both journalists (if you can call them that) and politicians ignored the crucial fact: the Russians reacted to a situation the NATO/EU has helped to create in both cases. In Georgia the NATO emboldened Georgians shelled Ossetia to try to conquer the contested territories, to which the Russians reacted with force. You did not have to be a genius to see the Russian reaction coming; yet it took both the NATO and the Georgians by surprise. In the Ukraine they reacted when they saw that the possibility of Western military bases close to their Western border –and the loss of access to the Black Sea- was becoming a reality. Again; no great surprise here. If you poke the bear, you have to expect that the bear will not roll over. In fact, you can expect just the opposite.

You can decry the Russians to be evil, to be Hitler, but the fact remains: the US would not have tolerated the presence of a Warsaw Pact nation in Latin America, either. In fact, you only need to look at Nicaragua or El Salvador to see what happens when a mildly socialist government is elected there –democratically. Or how they reacted to the presence of Russian missiles in Cuba –even though they already had more missiles in Turkey at the time.

And so we have it: the EU “sleepwalked” (not my words) into a volatile situation with Russia. A situation which did not need to happen, a situation which you could foresee –even if you are a lowlife little guy, like me, with no access to classified intelligence and international experts. And yet this shitstorm happened nevertheless, because the politicians in charge were absolutely, completely retarded, and were unable to behave like responsible adults. The same case can be made about the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, the way Merkel and others dealt with the refugee situation in 2015… it all shows an utter inability for logical thought and planning. I cannot believe but it seems like that in the Ukraine situation only Putin had shown the slightest shred of intelligence… and unfortunately in many other cases there were not even a Putin around to act as a grownup. And this is not limited to politicians. Billionaires, CEOs and other, supposedly smart people sacrifice long-term benefits on the altar of extremely short-term profits. They are happily amassing wealth, creating incredible inequality (something they mustknow will create political instability), fight the acceptance of climate change, hence delaying action, so that they get some more money (something they also must know will impact their own children, like it or not), or work hard to dismantle the welfare state, even though they must know a happy and healthy workforce is more productive than a sick and demoralized one. You can’t export all jobs to China. It seems like the “elite” is far from the evil, scheming overlords many people would think them to be; there are no Illuminati, no Free Masons or Conclave of Rabbis. They are more like egoistic, infantile little fucks, who have no real idea what the long-term consequences of their actions are.

I don’t know about you, but I’d prefer to have people who are intellectually vastly superior to me to lead us, even if they are schemers, and not bleeding heart liberals. I would prefer to have the Illuminati to these bunch. The sad fact is, we’re in no better situation than the Tommies in 1915; only our problems are not as acute as theirs were. Perhaps this is why we let these morons run amok: we don’t perceive the problem either.