Tuesday, 26 July 2011

Norway Terror: the Aftermath

Pretty cheesy title, i know. I love cheesy titles. Cheese is good.

So, some time have passed after the viking attack. I've been watching Euronews for past two days, reading blogs and overhearing stuff, and i honestly can't be bothered to prooflink every statement i make in this post. Now, there are still differing reports on how many he actually managed to kill, who did he kill, how did he kill them, and of course why did he kill them. With how many it's pretty much a technical issue - the numbers differ between about 60 and up to 90. This will be settled eventually, so we'll leave it aside.

Now, who did he kill is an interesting question. Did he kill only muslims? Did he kill everyone in sight? There's still not much concrete information about that. Some say he killed only non-white people (that is, niggers, sand niggers etc.), some say he killed non-white people but preferred to start with beautiful girls first, some say he killed everyone he was able to kill. This still has to be layed out properly before any conclusions can be made. Also, there is a report that he was actually going to kill a politician, former someone of Norway. I take it as a "good" sign, because turns out the guy has some dignity after all, and through some perverted logic those 70+ dead can really be seen as "just" collateral damage, contributing only to weight of his statement, not to the actual message. His target, however, "luckily" didn't make it to the island and thus remains alive and well.

How did he kill them remains to be cleared up too. Some say he had just a pistol with shitload of ammo, some say he had two pistols with a shitload of ammo, some say he had a rifle, or a machine gun, and of course a shitload of ammo. Some reports say he ran out of ammo and just sat there waiting, some reports say he still had shitload of ammo and sat there waiting. One detail is in common, and that is - he done shootin', and just sat there waiting for the police to come and arrest him i.e he didn't do the Marvin Himeyer thing. But all in all, same here - things need to be cleared up before we can say anything meaningful.

Finally, the question of "why". Now this is where all the fun is. First of all, whenever something like this happens, there are plenty of folks who try to use this to further their stupid and potentially harmful agenda. Let's pick out some of those folks. First, some say that he was playing Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 to prepare himself, and is said to be using World of Warcraft as a cover for his seclusion. Aaaaaaand, as one can expect, violent video games are the root of all evil again. The anti-game agenda people even disregard the fact that he never actually played World of Warcraft, and Modern Warfare 2 arrived long after he started his preparation for the attacks. But anyway, facts don't matter to these guys. There are also reports that he was listening to "Lord of the Rings" original soundtrack while he killed people. Now that's a welcome difference from the usually demonized heavy metal music. At least the anti-metal guys are confused.

However, when people talk about why he did what he did, they usually say something along the lines of "he's a nutcase", or "he's a nazi", or "he's a terrorist", or something like that. Nobody wants to associate him with something better than things that are almost universally condemned. That's understandable, because under no circumstances such big pile of corpses is justifiable means for the cause. But still, people, as usual, look in the wrong place. The guy is perfectly sane (just overly political), and he is not a nazi. In fact, if you read his manifesto, he actually makes a lot of valid points (though so far i made it through 40 pages only) which are not nazi or insane in any way. What people don't look at is the message that he delivers, and the problems that he's indicating.

That reminds me of the Colombine High School incident, which i already referred to in my previous post. Again, people blamed video games, heavy metal, Internet, USA firearms policy - everything in the world, really; however they completely missed the point of why did it actually happen. I like how Marilyn Manson has laid it out: when Michael Moore asked him what would he tell to those children, Manson responded that he'd listen what they have to say, and that is what no one did. People, listen to what the guy has to say. It's useless to concentrate on the symptoms of the problem. You have to look deeper. Find the cause of the problem. This is where it is appropriate to look for the answer on the "why" question.

And don't tell me there's no cause and no reason, and the guy is just a nutcase, because apparently he's completely sane and the problem is really there. Why is it so much people secretly agree with and support what he did (even if they never admit that in public)? Because we have a nazi society? No. Because people see the problem, and they want government to do something about it. And it doesn't, and in fact does quite the opposite.

I would also like to make some remarks, related to the story. First, there are reporters. Funny thing is, they just fly above the island and film how Anders kills people. Why didn't they do anything? I don't know, like taking a police officer on board and landing him on the island? This is seriously fucked up. Another question is regarding policemen. Why did it take so long for them to just get to the island? As multiple reports point out, they just didn't have a boat big enough to carry a SWAT team, and the nearest heli was 50 miles away. Well, actually the nearest heli was right above them, it just happened to be the helicopter of reporters who don't give a fuck. Why SWAT? Well, turns out the Norway police just doesn't carry any weapons. With 29 murders per year that's understandable.

Another thing is that politicians immediately said that despite this happening, they will respond not with tightened security (which isn't a good idea anyway) and more control, but more openness and "more love". Now correct me if i'm wrong, but this policy of accepting everyone is what got them into trouble in the first place. Statistics show that in about 50 years, non-europeans (muslims mainly) will outnumber the white population of Europe. And then it's only a matter of time when Kosovo happens again - "we are the majority, so fuck you, Europe is now under Islamic law and we want to separate". These people just don't know what they're stepping into. I'm all for immigration, but i don't want Europe being the trashcan of the world.

The Canadian or Australian system seems way more reasonable - in order to emmigrate, you need to match a certain criteria. That is, immigration is only good when there is a necessity. Europe doesn't need people who live on benefits and contribute only to crime rate and the number of unwanted children. Accepting everyone without filtering is a BAD idea. Especially from problem zones.

Yet another remark - today Anders's father spoke up. He said something about him being ashamed of his son, and that he'll never go back to Norway for that reason. Now, i'd like to take a stand here, and say FUCK YOU to the old man. Yeah, he better shut the fuck up, the asshole he is. He's ashamed of being the father of a man, whom he shamelessly left as a child? What kind of a father is that? And he has the nerve to say that he's ashamed of being his father?

And finally, an important (and funny!) thing to note is that at first, when these attacks happened, numerous US news channels claimed that it was another act of Islamic terrorism. That's what you get for being so islamophobic, i guess. Now, ladies and gentlemen, the million dollar question: was it an act of terrorism?

And the answer is - yes, it was. Lotsa corpses, political motives and a clear political statement. It was a definite act of terrorism. You muslims better learn from this guy - this is how it's done. And USA and my fellow americans, take note - this is what terrorism is, and this is how it's done. There is a clear goal - murder big number of people, and leave a clear, precise political message of why you are doing so. He didn't do it for the Allah, or because of Jihad, or because he hates us for our freedoms, or some imaginary god, or whatever other bullshit USA is feeding people. No, he did it to send a message to Europe - and that message was to stop mass immigration from bad parts of the nearby world before it's too late. He acheived his goal (though he didn't kill his initial target), and he is indeed a successful terrorist. This is a welcome difference. Finally, a real act of terror.

Sunday, 24 July 2011

Kill muthafuckas!!!

A peaceful Norway, where there's only 29 murders per year on average (29 per year). And then...



A guy picks up a machine gun and goes on a rampage. If it happened in USA, that at least would be understandable - that sure happens once in a while even in schools, let alone places where us grown ups hang out. But Norway? Possibly the most peaceful country on the fucking planet? Something's not right here.

But, turns out, it's not that simple. He wasn't just a disgruntled employee, or some trenchcoat mafia dude. No, he was a normal-looking guy. In fact, he doesn't look like a terrorist at all. He kinda looks like Julian Assange, but that's beside the point.

So anyway, what happened there? Official version is that a radical nazi dude has gone nuts, picked up a gun and shot a bunch of people. Unofficial version is a little more elaborate. A dude, who was peaceful, nice and everything, over time has become more and more radical, seeing the disgrace the Europe is turning to with help of their too-liberal government and its policies on accepting immigrants, and has become so outraged with their behaviour that he devised a plan, and slowly but surely implemented it. It wasn't an act of rage, it wasn't an outcry for something. It was a well-planned, politlcally motivated action. Yes, horrible, but still he had the balls to do what he believed was true. Not many people could have done it.

What was the reason? As i already said, it was all about immigrants. What's wrong with them? Well, according to some radical websites, the problem was that the government was acting against its citizens in favor of alien culture and alien people. Muslim-related rape had spiked, muslim-related crime had spiked, blablabla, the usual nazi stuff. What is different about myself is that i prefer to listen to both sides of an argument, and try not to pick a side unless i really believe i should do so.

And i did. And i pick a side coherent with this guy. Now, don't get me wrong - i am not a nazi, i'm far from being a racist, i'm anything but a radical. If anything, i was always actively against any kind of discrimination. But the way i see it - this had to happen. It may not be the best way to do it, but it's certainly is the most effective. What could be more alarming than a mass-murder in a safest and quietest country in the world? He was definitely the right guy for the right time. He did it all on his own, and for that i admire his courage in pursuing his beliefs. I am yet to see that kind of courage in the rest of humanity. I have also got hold of a copy of his manifesto, and i'm sure i'll have a read to see what this guy has to offer.

But anyway, back to the point - why did it have to happen? Well, for starters, just come to London and look around. How many actual englishmen will you see? Probably not many. The only area they will prevail is richer parts of London like Baker street. I don't equate poverty with moral qualities, but i think i can safely say that the poorer the area, the more crime rate it has. If you add inter-cultural frictions in there, the problem becomes orders of magnitude higher, because now there's more to disagree with apart from whose dick is bigger.

Also, the problem with another culture is that, well, it's another culture. Something that is considered normal in our culture (like eating pork) is viewed upon as a deadly sin in others. And while this is clearly a problem of muslims (if we take pork as an example) not having enough common sense to view it as an archaic tradition that should go away rather than a requirement for making it to heaven, it is still a problem (don't bother telling me that eating pork isn't a deadly sin, that's not the point). And bringing muslims into Europe makes it Europeans' problem too, because muslims don't like it and try to tell Europeans that it's supposedly bad. Of course, Europeans don't have a problem with muslims disagreeing with them, but that still leaves muslims disagreeing about that. In fact, some view it a disagreement enough to hate on people, or commit crimes, or do other things people won't normally do.

Some muslims even go as far as saying that for a woman walking around with her hair uncovered is asking for rape. Seriously, what the fuck? They come into my country and tell me what i should wear in order not to get raped by foreign immigrants that really shouldn't be there in the first place? See, that's another problem. In the western world, we have all these notions of humanism, feminism, equal rights and all that stuff that tires to make us civilized. Muslims are mostly living following the Sharia laws (well, at least, these are the laws they are demanding to introduce in the whole Europe). There are many documentaries about how muslims treat women (a guy even got killed for such a documentary), and these things surely point on the mentality of these people. They think the woman who doesn't cover her hair somehow deserves to be raped. Now i'm sick and tired of that European promisciousness and half-naked girls walking around everywhere, but seriously, raping a woman for not covering her hair? That's exactly the problem. They don't have a problem with certain things we consider being "bad". I know there's no absolute "good" or absolute "bad", but for fuck's sake, if you come to Europe, better respect local culture and what Europe considers "good" and "bad", or get the fuck out.

Why is this so much of a problem? Because they invade. There are growing numbers of muslims in Europe, and USA, and even places like Russia. They don't come to Europe, they invade it. They surely have a reason to get the fuck out of their poor countries, right? So why make Europe another Albania if they fleed from there in the first place?

Another problem with all these small and hot-blooded nations is that they don't seem to be able to hold a dialogue. They can't just say stuff in a civilized manner. They have to kill you, rape your wife, slaughter your family, curse all your ancestors and all your descendats and piss on your grave if they disagree with something that you say or do. They don't accept the fact that there can be an opinion and belief different from what they have come to know, believe and understand. We have a free society, but freedom of one man ends where others' freedom begins. Somehow they miss that. Bear in mind that i'm not talking about Islam exclusively here, i'm talking about a pattern of behaviour of many alien cultures.

For fuck's sakes, we don't come to Japan and tell them how to live. We don't come to UAE and tell them to dump their stupid Sharia laws and implement European laws instead. We don't rape women that wear these stupid ninja suits. Why should we? It's not our land, it's not our culture, it's not our fucking business what they do or don't do in there.

Now, someone might argue that we actually do exactly that, but the reason "we" (the white population) invade Iraq and tell all these other Middle Eastern countries what to do and how to live is not because we want them to have democracy, or because we somehow care for oppressed people. No, the reason is, and always was, money, oil and power. This has nothing to do with "telling them how to live". This is an unauthorized, unreasonable and absolutely fucking wasteful and bullshit military action that should go away.

Another someone might also argue that there are good people, and there are bad people. I don't see how this is an excuse, but at least our position is understandable - we built our world, we have our own scum, and we don't want any foreign one contributing to scum numbers. It's like as if you're going to a wedding and shit on the wedding cake - not only you disrespect the fact that it's a wedding, it's also not your wedding.

The main point of this whole chaotic piece i just wrote is the question - is it feasible to have a multicultural society? My opinion is - yes, it is possible, but with a big big big limitation. Cultures should be compatible with each other. If i was a european, and i went to USA - i would perfectly blend in, because i won't be so much different. I can have certain disagreements with how USA deals with copyrights, i might originate from some obscure place like Russia or Canada and thus have some cultural heritage in that area, but otherwise i'd still be very much a potentially well-behaved US citizen. Why? Because we share common values.

But what if i come from a culture, in which it's OK to rape a woman, or slap a woman in a face in case she does this and that? What if i come from a place where having several wives is fine? What if i come from a place where killing the whole fucking family just because one of them said a bad joke about my mother is considered normal and is encouraged? Would i have a place in the Western world? As much as i would like to say otherwise, no, i wouldn't. That ain't happening. In order to integrate well into the Western culture you have to thing the Western way, or at least learn not to interfere with whatever cultural surroundings you are living in. That means you have to be well educated in the first place, which isn't happening as long as these "other" cultures remain so fanatically religious.

Monday, 18 July 2011

Suicide solution

Ah, the drama. World economic crisis hasn't really ended, it has only started. Why? Because nothing really changed. Bunch of people received bailouts, whole lot of people didn't and lost their jobs, houses and lives, but did anything really change? No. Because to really change anything, you have to change the entire system instead of trying to patch up gaping holes in one that is already present but is inherently broken and will crumble sooner or later anyway.

But what is the problem with global economy? It's not really a problem with economy per se, it's got more to do with the trading system. The thing is, the very system encourages greed and actively discourages any kind of long-term thinking. Thus, in order to cure the problem and not the symptoms, one has to entirely replace the whole mechanism of global markets. And to be honest, the solution is really simple and consists of a really small number of things.

And no, before you start flashing your MBA's and economics doctorates, telling me that this thing is not that simple as i try to portrait it, i tell you - it is. If you think of it, any system, however complex it is, has a few core principles in its base, and if you change those principles - the system will adjust accordingly. There's no need to make a lot of adjustments, they will follow naturally as the market will try to adapt to new mode of operation. So fuck you and fuck your economic degrees. Here's what we gotta do:

  • Kill the derivatives

Yes. Kill the derivatives. This is just legalized gambling, only difference being that really powerful players can actually influence the outcome. One can bet on Microsoft's stock falling and then assasinate Steve Ballmer - and win a whole lot of money on that. This is just not right. Derivatives are just money out of thin air.

  • Kill the money market

Trading money for money is the worst kind of thing you can imagine. The money itself does not have any value, it's just a convenient method to exchange goods. It isn't a commodity. Again, money out of thin air.

  • Forbid stock sales for 1 year after purchase

This will be a little confusing to most people, however it's really easy to explain. Stock was meant as a way for companies to make money by inviting investors to buy a part of a company. Investors will get some kind of rights, too - governance of the company, dividents etc. So basically, it's a win-win situation both for the company, and its shareholders - company gets shitload of money, shareholders get return from profits. However, nowadays no-one buys stock as an investment and as a way to make money. They buy stock to sell later sell them at a bigger price. In other words, the long-term nature of stock market has been overshadowed by narrow, short-sighted thinking nature of human greed. If it was forbidden to sell shares until a year after the purchase - there will be more healthy, long-term decisions made and way less market bubbles.

  • Forbid money-making machines

Let the humans run the show. No, really, that's ridiculous - we now have machines that automagically make money, thereby making any human trader inherently on a losing side in short term decisions, because the machine is able to analyze and do stuff way faster than normal human can. The real advantage of human lies in the long term, because the machine has no way of knowing the outcome of this or that decision made by a company. It will, eventually, but anyway, the market should be run by people, because coupling infinite mental resources of a machine with human greed will result in disaster - with humans we at least can limit the impact of our greed.

These four simple things need to be done. The rest of the market will follow. If you boil it down to one basic principle, here it is - encourage long-term thinking and limit the impact of our greed.

Friday, 15 July 2011


Having just watched "Sucker Punch" (and finding it an insanely cool movie with hot chicks and top-notch soundtrack), i went out on the Internets to see if there's anyone else thinking it's cool too. To my disappointment, i found that barely anyone actually enjoyed the movie. By the way, i could say the same about e.g. Coen Brothers' "Burn After Reading", which i found absolutely fantastic (and use lotsa quotes from there in real life) and on par with Coens' other works (Lebowski being my all-time favourite right until Burn After Reading came out). "Burn After Reading" didn't appeal to the majority too - as if people don't understand such elaborate (if black and ironic) humor and prefer dick jokes instead.

But anyway, not many people actually enjoyed the "Sucker Punch". At least a lot of critics didn't. Not that i trust critics - quite on the contrary, i try to always have my own opinion - but anyway, if almost everyone is saying the movie sucks - well, it's either something wrong with me, or they just watched it with their eyes closed. Or maybe it's just taste, with which i'm perfectly fine by the way. I don't care for people who didn't like the movie just because, well, they didn't like it. Either it didn't appeal to their precious selves, or they are gay and have no desire for hot chicks, or something else - whatever, it's fine with me.

What is not fine with me is all these reviews focusing on feminism, on female empowerment, revenge, sexual violence and whether this movie represents this or that in bad perspective... You know, talks from all these people that walk around trying to find something to be offended about, and whine at us normal people until we put their whining into legislation (which we shouldn't, but sadly we do). All these feminists, psychologists, all these fat mommas that have nothing better to do than to tell me which movies i should watch and how should they look like.

What these people don't quite understand is really simple - it's a fucking movie! It's not a psychology educational film, or a manual of some sort - this is form of entertainment. Hell, i'm not racist, sexist or anything, but i love racist jokes, i love sexist jokes, i love boner jokes, i love nationality-related jokes (a good example is Hitler or jew jokes to German people), i love hot chicks in movies, i love violence, i love over-the-top bullshit. I love them not because i'm violent sexist, but because it's enterntainment. It's fun. I don't watch Kill Bill and then go out and slice people in half, because i do actually understand that a movie is a movie, and reality is totally different. I watch movies precisely because i want to get away from reality and i want the director to tell me an interesting story. If it's full of hot chicks, violence and racist humor - that's even better, because it's fun to watch. When i watch a movie, i don't care a single bit about if it objectifies women, or if it makes a statement on feminism, or if it discriminates against jews, or if it makes killing kittens look like a right thing to do. I just don't care. I know it's a movie, and i'm not dumb enough to be needing a "don't try this at home" sticker on it.

And guess what - i didn't need that sticker back when i was 6 years old. I grew up watching those cool movies like Wraith, Rambo, Terminator, and guess what - i didn't suddenly start killing anyone, or "objectify women", or whatever. If your kids repeat what they see on TV - get them the fuck away from TV and buy them books, for fuck's sake. Don't blame the TV - blame your stupid kids. If some muslim dork finds Allah caricatures offending - that's his fucking problem, because apparantly he has no sense of humor or is overly sensitive to certain subjects. If some fat bitch sees blood in a movie that's supposed to be violent and goes batshit crazy about it being bad influence on her kids - that's her fucking problem, not Tarantino's.

People don't seem to understand that anymore. Everyone's trying very hard not to offend anyone. Oh, let's not offend blacks. Oh, we have to account for muslims too. Don't forget the jews. And also Native Americans. And single moms. And feminists. And gay people.


Why is this a problem to me? Well, because at the end of the day, it's me who gets that politically correct not-offending-anyone bullshit they call entertainment.

Thursday, 14 July 2011

Oh the conspiracy!

Recently, there been a series of over-the-top events - TSA abusing people in the name of security, Righthaven going on a rampage and is well on the way to destroying itself into oblivion... Somewhere in between those there's MPAA/RIAA, music executives getting charged with corruption... Then there are some patent wars between Apple, Microsoft, Google and Oracle, then there's Sony suing customers for modding their shitty console... Then there's this judge who says that WiFi is not radio communication, a debate of whether or not the monkey can hold the copyright... No shit, these cases are SO over the top it's way beyond ridiculous, and any human being with slightest bit of common sense will see that this is complete bullshit.

...But maybe that's exactly the point? What if people suddenly realized that if they don't do that, if they don't carry the intellectual property debate to the point of when it's beyond any common sense by any stretch of imagination - then we will end up in even more bullshit? Because, you know, put a frog in hot water - it'll jump out, put a frog in cold water and slowly warm it up - it'll boil there. We tend to get used to things. And recently there's been a gradual process of tightening the ropes around our necks, and somehow the majority misses that.

Maybe all these people are martyrs, who destroy themselves just to show how ridiculous it all has become? I would seriously want to believe that - actually, this would completely restore my faith in humanity.

Tuesday, 12 July 2011

The age of Me, Myself and I

People has always been selfish. In fact, self-preservation is our most primary motivation to whatever we do. It helped us prevail in battle against nature, and we sort of came out as winners. The problem is, there are two types of self-preservation - smart, and dumb.

Smart self-preservation is, well, smart, because in this case the entity in question tries to preserve itself in a way that is feasible in the long run. For example, take mushrooms. Just plain wild forest mushrooms. They are symbiotic organisms, meaning that when they attach to, say, a tree, they don't kill it. They don't eat up all the resources the tree has. Instead, they take some and give something back. Almost all the plants on earth are symbiotic in a sense that they, while certainly consuming oxygen and producing CO2, on the other hand use sunlight to consume CO2 and produce far more oxygen than they consume in their normal breathing process.

In other words, nature, for the most part, is symbiotic. It preserves itself. All the elements are interdependent, and, more importantly, serve a common goal of smart, long-term self-preservation. Even when an animal, or a tree, or whatever else dies, it becomes food for other surroundings. Everything is recycled, everything is highly sustainable and efficient.

In case of dumb self-preservation, however, the entity in question behaves more like parasite. It enjoys itself while it lasts, grabbing everything it can and can't handle, and is not concerned about long-term benefits, putting short-sighted parasitic self-preservation ahead of everything else. What is self-preservation in the short term becomes self-destruction in long-term, because killing your own habitat, your source of life force is not the smartest thing to do.

And no, this isn't another environmentalist rant, i hate environmentalists no less than politicians. This isn't about environment. This is about us. People.

Very few of us engage in self-preservation in a way that is even somewhat sustainable in the long run. And i'm not talking about nature, no. I'm talking about how we treat each other. We lie. We cheat. We steal. We destroy. We squeeze out every single drop of whatever we need, exhaust and move elsewhere to do the same.

Why is this such a big deal? After all, we've been doing this for milleniums, and somehow we're still alive. What's the problem?

Well, the problem is that while people don't change, our possibilities do. We can do more than we could do fifty years ago, hundred years ago, thousand years ago. Now, with modern technologies, globalized economics and weapons of mass destruction, we can cheat, steal and destroy on a much bigger scale than we ever could dream of just a couple of decades ago.

Bank crisis in USA crushed global economy. Just think about it - the whole fucking world has crashed into oblivion because some dumbass bank executives made whole lot of short-sighted decisions that are beneficial in short-term, but disastrous in long-term. European industry is dying because a few assholes thought that it's cheaper to outsource everything to China or India. Yes, it was cheaper in short term, but in the long run it killed what was left of European industry. Neither Europe, nor USA are major goods manufacturers anymore - all we "manufacture" is intellectual property, which while being a good thing is absolutely useless as a long-term investment. You can't build a spaceship with a bunch of software patents.

The problem is that we are moving towards our own self-destruction, disregarding both our past, and our future. All that matters for most people is now. And that's really sad, because they don't seem to understand that "now" once was the future. If we continue doing things as we do them now, in a few decades there might be no "now" anymore. It is such a shame that we're given so much power, and we waste it on useless bullshit and to take advantage of each other.