All Hail Trumpkin I

It's been almost a week.

I'm not going to say much, just note that progressives don't seem to have learned anything from Brexit, and seem poised to repeat this amazing intelectual feat after Trump. From what I've been reading, with some notable exceptions, progressive answer is to double down on the intolerance and hate (all the while pointing out the Other's intolerance and hate) and wait until the demographics ensure the "defenders of diversity" (as in "Where I live 98% voted Clinton") can ditch the rest of the country.

It might work, and nothing screams "progressive" like "Let's ditch those f*ckers and abandon them to their fate".

But I'm finding it much more ironic to follow the "European response". Let's see...

• Merkel & Friends have been telling us (Southern European lazy bastards) "We've got the money. We set the rules. You obey". They now seem to find it intriguing that someone else comes along and serves them with their own message.

• Merkel & Friends, again, have unleashed division in Europe (North/South) to save their banks, and to save themselves with their own electorates. Then, in an ironic twist, they were served their own poison (East/West) when we were hit by the migrant crisis. At that time, Merkel & Friends lamented Europe's lack of unity, apparently unable to realize that you reap what you sow. Now, they're going again for the mirage of an united European response to Trump. Will Merkel & Friends ever realize that, after their destruction of European unity, they will never achieve it again?

This week's elections in Moldova and, most especially, Bulgaria, show the explosive success of Berlin's plan. Most of the pundits on "our side" claim Putin has been sabotaging the West. I'd say he hardly needs to. The Elected Accountants in the West have shown their complete lack of vision. That could, of course, be caused by the fact that they have their heads so stuck up their belly buttons they can only see their own behinds.

• The most hilarious scene I've seen this week was our old buddy Juncker saying we need to teach Mr. Trump what Europe is. The man whose country robbed his European partners of taxes by giving under-the-table sweetheart deals to big corporations is going to teach the con artist what Europe is.

Dunning-Kruger FTW.

A remarkable week

The IMF has, again, been confronted with its remarkable level of competence in dealing with the crisis in Europe. Nothing new, I'll just note that, in this context, the IMF was not alone and the other two heads of the troika are also worthy recipients of this report's conclusion.

Which brings us to the EU sanctions voting, and Dieselbloke's disappointment that Portugal and Spain didn't get a new one ripped open. It's always good to remember that it's assholes like this that directed the plan that had such impressive results in solving the Portuguese crisis.

Meanwhile, across the pond, this week has shone a light on why I'm done with the so-called progressives:

1. The problem with the Democrat mail leakage was Russia's meddling

Absolutely. The problem was not that the party has wilfully and deliberately chose to sabotage a candidate. These remarkable people seem to believe that the problem is not stealing, it's getting caught.

They've just proved the system is rigged. And Bernie Sanders went along with it. Let's see how his supporters will take that.

Incidentally...

2. Grow up, Berners

Yeah, stop with your childish fits. Adopt some more grown-up behaviour, like

• getting a camera and taking pictures of disappointed Bernie supporters and then making an article mocking them; or
• writing an article where you elevate the discussion by calling Bernie supporters "attention-seeking dead-enders", saying they're "mostly white men" and having the aforementioned "childish fits". There was probably more in this article, but my BS-meter exploded at the words "communicate subconscious phallic fears of Clinton’s ascension to power" and I had to stop reading; or
• ... at this point, I should have something else to say, as per the Rule of Threes, but I won't even bother. Let's just say the remarkable people at the Democrat mouthpieces that like to pass themselves as "media", "press", or "explainers" were at their most remarkable. Perhaps we can say they have achieved a new height on their race to the bottom...?

The Democrats have confirmed (if confirmation was needed) that they're the exact same shit as the Republicans - the party where money rules.

On a more serious note, Sarah Silverman has finished her ongoing journey from my list of "Not Assholes" to my list of "Assholes".

3. Rule of Threes

This time, I do have the required third item to go here. And, come November, maybe there'll be a relevant third item in the US election, as well.

I'm very curious to see how things will go for Trump, but, especially, for Gary Johnson. No, neither of them will solve anything that actually needs solving - Gary Johnson is more credible than Trump, but while the libertarians are somewhat sensible on their social positions, their economic arguments are mostly cherry-picked success stories dressed up as dogma. I.e., more of the same.

The question is - if Johnson's base grows, where will this growth come from? Berners? NeverTrumpers? Both?

Very curious, indeed.

IMF, Turkey, and Doping

IMF

The remarkable people at the IMF have again excelled themselves with their latest piece of financial wisdom: Portugal's banking system is a threat to the world economy.

The country that represents little more than a rounding error in the world economy, the country whose greatest problem is a war waged against it by the so-called Eurozone, is a threat to the world economy.

Congrats, IMF. You've achieved a new level of BS.

Turkey

So, what about Turkey?

Well, the current drive against such terrible extremists as, say, teachers, clearly shows the direction Turkey is headed. And I can't say I dislike it.

How can I say this? Don't I realize this is terrible for the Turkish people? You mean, the same Turkish people that poured into the streets at Erdogan's call and risked their lives to confront the military?

The majority of the Turkish people has spoken. They apparently stand with Erdogan and his religious concept of state. So, while I agree this is not good for the Turkish people, the Turkish people respectfully disagree.

However, when I say I don't dislike it, it's for a more encompassing reason.

A deeper trend towards authoritarianism may isolate Turkey from Europe. Which may allow Turkey to seek other allies. If that is the case, this may create the threat to the EU I mentioned in previous posts. Which, as I already said, may be a good thing. Yes, too many maybes, I know. That's life.

So, as much as it pains me to say this - so far, so good, in Turkey.

Doping

I find it amusing that anyone still believes in a clean competition in sports.

Anyone with a brain cell count greater than 0 can see that the state of affairs in FIFA and UEFA is the rule, rather than the exception, in any sport. If you believe the IOC is any different, I may be able to interest you in the purchase of a few bridges in prime locations.

And yet, when these doping "scandals" break, everyone puts on their "outrage" hat. Suddenly, everyone is clean and innocent, except for those that were caught.

In this case, we have a sort of "Olympic Panama Papers": It's the bloody Russians, they're the ones to blame! Ban them, and everything will be all right!

Yeah, right!

In memory of Nice

As much as I've come to abhor Europe (good job, Germany), in days like today, I stand with Europe.

However, I will still qualify this sentence, I don't stand unconditionally with the whole of Europe.

1. I don't stand with any European so-called leader; and, even today, I'll still call them "Elected Accountants", because there's absolutely nothing any of them has done in more than a decade that shows any sort of leadership competence.
2. I don't stand with any European person (here I'm including what we usually call "the people") who supports in any way, shape, or form, any divisive strategy to address a problem.

Confused about point 2? Yes, I understand. Let me elaborate.

But first, if you're grieving from the events at Nice, you may want to stop reading here. I could say I feel your pain, but that would be a lie - I've never been through anything even remotely similar, I can't begin to imagine what you're going through. I hope you can find comfort and pull through, but I have nothing to offer, other than my sympathy.

About point 2, then. I defend Portugal should leave the Euro and the EU. How can I bash "divisive"?Can we get more divisive than that?

Yes, we can (TM).

Sometime ago, Ana Gomes, a Portuguese MEP, stated a controversial opinion, by citing the European austerity as one of the causes facilitating the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo. She was immediately crucified, especially by every right-wing idiot out there.

Granted, Ana Gomes is not the most articulate person you'll ever come across. And she did seem more interested in creating a sound-bite, rather than giving the subject the serious analysis it merits (which was also the case with most of the left-wing idiots who agreed with her).

However, unfortunately for all said right-wing idiots, she was right - austerity played, and still plays, an important role in all this.

Yes, I know the argument, we had attacks before 2008, before the crisis began. Our right-wing buddies repeated this until they went blue in the face, and it's quite typical of their world-view. Because, for these idiots, before 2008 everyone was having a great life. Hey, they were having a great life, so surely everyone was also having a great life, right?

Inequality didn't begin overnight. It didn't even begin in 2008. It just accelerated, but it has been going on since the 80s (I suspect the groundwork was laid out before that, but the evidence I found is still flimsy). Under the argument of "pulling people out of poverty" (meaning "getting people from $1/hour to $2/hour, whoop-dee-fucking-doo") in developing countries, we've been slowly grinding lives elsewhere.

The trickle-down bullshit has failed. The currently-discussed helicopter money bullshit will also fail. You don't need experience in Economy (or Astrology, its twin sister) to assess the high risk of failure these ideas carry. These ideas excuse the State of its functions, are akin to self-regulation, and we know how often that works.

"There is no alternative" the karma goes, "There is no money". Actually, there is. It's just getting "redistributed". Not by some modern-day Stalin, but by all the ideological heirs to Thatcher and Reagan.

This redistribution means the sentence "there is no money" is actually correct, just incomplete. Let's complete it, then, here are a few examples:

- There is no money for unemployment support.

- There is no money for public healthcare.

- There is no money for pensions.

- There is no money for special-needs education.

- There is no money for the integration of different cultures.

Oh, yes, integration is expensive. Very expensive. It demands education, social support, proximity actions. Not just on the immigrant communities; in fact, all this is especially required for the "native" (not the best word, I know) communities. Integration is a bridge - everyone must come half-way, the receiving nations must accommodate for cultural differences, up to the point these infringe on the law and individual liberties.

Again, this is expensive. And there's no money... for this. Because the private initiative doesn't give a rat's ass about this. You see, it has a terrible RoI (actually, it doesn't, but, hey, what do I know?) and there are "better" ways to invest that money. So it's up to the State to spend the money required to get these actions going.

And this is where we get to the "divisive" part. The people currently in charge of the EU (i.e., Germany) have been driving a divisive strategy, based on austerity. If you want to know how this will end, just look at Brexit. Every idiot shouting "Racism!" should probably look at the enlightened work of George Osborne, the last of a long list of creators of inequality in the UK.

This is how the EU will end - a special club for the "hard-working North", where the "lazy South" (the pigs, right?) may be tolerated and allowed to stay if it does what it's told and obeys the commands of its "betters". And these commands will, invariably, mean destroying the State, deepening inequality, and the alienation of a few more million, by throwing them into the life-grinder.

The Northern officials support this, and so do vast numbers of their people. And I don't stand with any of these persons, not even on a day like today.

So, the next time an attack like this happens, we'll find, yet again, someone from some ghetto neighborhood, unemployed, with a history of petty crime, and, faced with the questions "How was this possible? How do we prevent this?", we will answer: "Moar surveillance!" Because, hey, it's been working great, so far, right?

A final note: I couldn't finish this without a special mention to all the people whose remarkable level of competence has given a big push to this current status quo: From Blair and GW Bush to Merkel (not so much for her response to the refugees, but more by the EU's role in the Arab Spring) and Obama (our most wonderful Nobel Peace Prize), I'd say: Quite an achievement, ladies and gentlemen!

More good news from the East and hillarious outrage from Europe

First, the good news, again from Turkey, where we hear they're considering the possibility of normalizing their relations with Syria. Again, given the volatility of the regime(s) involveed, this isn't worth much. But it's a good sign. Let's hope it becomes a good start, soon.

Now, for some laughs.

France and Germany are appalled at the UK's new foreign secretary. It's hilarious to see these assholes taking the moral high ground on Boris Johnson, particularly if we consider the way they lie, cheat, and apply double standards. I'd say "Pot. Kettle. Black", but I consider Boris an amateur when it comes to EU destruction, especially compared to Germany.

Our European buddies bemoan BJ's lack of credibility. But let's take a small sample of their remarkable track record:

1. Creating the plan that didn't solve the crisis in Portugal, but allowing the previous government idiots to claim a"clean exit".
2. Creating the plan that didn't reduce Portugal's debt.
3. Creating the plan that didn't attack the problems responsible for the weaknesses of the Portuguese banking system.
4. Applying sanctions to Portugal when the plan(s) they created (see points 1-3) didn't actually work.

Compared to these European "best of the best", even a rock has more credibility. Boris Johnson will actually look like a shining beacon of credibility just by standing next to them.

Some good news, for a change

Our Elected Accountants are feeling powerful, unleashing their might against such titans as Portugal. Which shows, again, that under Wheely Boy's and DieselBloke's leadership, the EU faces no problem more serious than 0.2% of peanuts.

Yes, I know, it's fucking political. These idiots will punish anyone who doesn't do exactly what they want, when they want it, regardless of the result it may have on millions of people.

Despite all the talk from the likes of Farage and Le Pen, they're not the ones destroying the EU. They just have to stand still and wait. Germany and its allies in this war are actually doing all the work.

Meanwhile, away from this kindergarten, and further to the East, some signs of hope are emerging.

• Turkey has taken the first steps to approach Russia.

It'll be a very long process, and one too volatile to predict outcomes. Neither nation will want to look too eager, even though they both need each other.

• Russia and China have announced several trade deals.

To understand why this is good news, one need only remember two points:

1. The "Western so-called Civilization" has proven that it needs something to keep it in check; and
2. it can only be kept in check by something that's both destructive and threatening.

Point 2 is important, nothing else will work - international law is useless, broad trade deals are designed to be exploited, and don't even get me started on regulation. In other words, rules will be enforced selectively - enforced for some, ignored for others.

I'm not claiming Turkey, Russia or China are any different. As I always say, I see no difference between Washington, Moscow or Berlin - each will destroy lives, as many as needed, to get what it wants.

But I still say that this building up around Russia and China is important - not because this alternative is better, but because, as long as it looks credible and threatening, the assholes on "our" side who think they run the show will have a few wild cards they can't control.

And a few wild cards are all that's required to bring down this house of cards we're so stupidly proud of.

I can only hope that's threatening enough.

Brexit - Business as usual, for those of us who're staying

Herr Schauble has just done us all an enormous favor by showing that the EU hasn't changed at all, and will carry on being Germany's playground. It's the confirmation I needed to be sure that the UK has done the right thing. I, for one, wish the UK all the best, and hope they can sort their current mess and come off better from all this ordeal.

And congratulations to Erdogan are in order. Great move, aiming to solve the problems with both Israel and Russia. My opinion of these particular leaders is not very flattering, but I have to admit that, when it comes to political vision, they're light-years ahead of the EU's Elected Accountants. Would I like to live in Turkey or Russia? I doubt it. Are they good leaders for their people? Not really, no. But, then again, they're definitely not worse than the "leaders" of the EU, and I have to admire the way they can see beyond budgets and spreadsheets.

Of course, this was all a bit offset by the horrible attack Turkey suffered yesterday, and here, too, I wish them all the best. This is a fight where we are all allies.

Brexit - The Leave campaign idiocy, generation warfare, and racism

I applaud the UK's decision to leave the EU. Not because I have anything against the UK, but because of what the EU has become.

That being said, I don't identify with any of the idiots who led the Leave campaign. Why "idiots"? Let me provide an example - Nigel Farage accused the British MEPs of never having done a proper job (in what must probably have been the most pathetic speech I've ever heard); in turn, this most-competent-fear-monger led a British Armada of fishermen up the Thames, the message being something like "Once we leave the EU, you'll be able to fish as much as you need to Make the UK Great Again (TM)".

Apparently, Nigel Farage doesn't know how it works. I can't say I'm surprised. If there's a pattern that's been repeating since Friday is the "Leave Leaders" going "Well, I didn't say exactly that"; the most hilarious was the bloke (forgot his name, and I'm sure not going to look it up) saying he never claimed the "£350M for the NHS" being photographed in front of the bus that had that exact slogan plastered all over. These idiots are among the finest specimens of Dunning-Kruger I've ever seen.

In the fishing case, it gets better.

• A significant part of the UK's fishermen are Scottish.
• There are unconfirmed reports that the fishing quotas distribution was the usual State handouts to corporations (thus shafting the little guy), and was mostly managed in London, not Brussels.

I hope the UK recovers. I'd really love to watch a good British sitcom about all these idiots.

Generation warfare

"Old people are selfish! They voted «Leave» for their own egotistical reasons!" has been the battle-cry of the British Young Turks since Friday. And what these altruistic young souls usually say next is very enlightening. It goes something like "Now I can't work", "Now I can't travel", or "Now my life is ruined". Quite altruistic, these fellows.

Old geezers should forget their wants and needs and give precedence to the wants and needs of the younger generation. I finally know the location of that "No Country for Old Men (and Women)". Apparently, old people shouldn't have the luxury of choice; perhaps they should sail to Byzantium? Actually, from the opinions I've read from a large number of British Young Turks, they should just sail somewhere far, far away. Preferably on a few dinghies/planks/kale leaves.

It seems old geezers are also very racist. There's been numerous xenophobic incidents since the Brexit vote, caused by emboldened Leave voters (a.k.a., the elderly, since this is the demography most strongly associated with the Leave vote). These old racist swines are usually described as "a group of young people carrying England flags. Not UK flags, England flags" or "a group of lads", and appear to use typical old geezer tactics, like graffiti. Some of these old geezers actually have rather extreme ages, like 30.

I'll let the game of "Spot-the-not-so-minute-pile-of-bovine-fecal-matter" as an exercise for the reader.

Dear millennials... One citizen, one vote. Regardless of race, as I'm sure you'll agree. Regardless of religion, as I'm sure you'll understand. Regardless of age, no matter what you feel right now. If you don't like it, there's a Great Nation in the Korean Peninsula where you'll probably feel right at home.

It's brain-dead beyond belief this mantra of "old people ruined my life". Where were all these fine young specimens of Humanity as austerity ruined countless peoples' lives, including a lot of their own? Yeah, I know - on Twinstabook, or Whatschat.

In fact, forget the recent past, let's ask these outraged youngsters a simple question about the present - Where were you during this EU vote? The same data that millennials present to claim old geezers screwed them also shows millennials barely bothered to show up and vote. Of course, when confronted with this, millennials act just like everyone else - they present excuses, and not very smart excuses, at that.

As for xenophobia... Yes, there are racist assholes. Of all ages, mind you. Yes, they need to be stopped. That's why we have this little thing called the Law. Catch them, prosecute them, and make examples out of them, to show all the other "Forners-Out-Of-Our-Land" idiots what's in store for them. Actually, if you want to start setting examples, look no further than these three assholes: Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Michael Gove.

Yes, I know. That's hard work. It's a lot easier going after the little guy. Don't feel bad, dear SJW. Repeating what I said above, you're just like everyone else.

Brexit - Data-based luminaries (again)

Some time ago, I wrote about one of the most brain-dead theories regarding Trump's followers, namely, that racism is their main driver (I do agree, though, that it is one of their drivers, just not the main one). At the time, I left an exercise for the reader:

Looking at the USA, try a little "What if" exercise. What if Mexico and Canada were "reversed"? Apply everything you know about Mexico to Canada and vice-versa, but keep each people's skin color - Mexicans would still be "latino", and Canadians would still be "white". 

Mexicans would visit the USA on tourism, and many would have work relations there, which would be construed as mutually beneficial. Canadians would flock to the USA in their millions, looking for a better life, taking any job available, and working for much lower wages. And with a sizable percentage of illegal immigrants. 

Is anyone really suggesting that if the USA were filled with Canadian immigrants "stealing American jobs", Trump would ignore them just because they're white?

Now, rather predictably, I see the same argument applied to Brexit's Leave campaign. However, this time, as I was reading the articles where this theory was repeated, I noticed a pattern that I'd missed the first time around. I'll show an example from the worst offender I found (predictably, from vox.com); see if you can spot the pattern:

• "Data shows that"
• "Take a look at this chart"
• "put together historical data"
• "real economic effects"
• "he found no correlation at all"
• "a 2011 London School of Economics study finds"

I'll stop here.

It's amazing how these people walk into the issue armed to the teeth with data and charts, and yet their blinders don't allow them to see the total irrelevance of said data and charts.

Repeat after me: Data are not people. If I'm unemployed for months, I don't care that data shows unemployment is getting lower. If I lost my job and got another job doing pretty much the same work, but earning one-third of what I previously earned, I don't care that data shows the economy is recovering.

Data doesn't vote, people do. Data is not important, people's perceptions are. You must address people's perception of reality before you can convince them that the actual reality is shown by the data.

Yes, I agree that data is valuable. I just find it stupid beyond belief that anyone goes about guessing people's motivations based on aggregate data. I find it stupid beyond belief that anyone tries to find a rational cause - and a collective one, at that - for the perceptions of millions upon millions of people.

Yes, you read that right - "rational". Let's go through a few more quotes of vox.com's enlightnment:

• "that people who voted to leave made a rational decision based on the real economic effects"
• "So there are lots of reasons to be skeptical that British voters’ concerns about immigration are a rational response to the effect immigration is having on the economy"
• "The key assumption of the «rational concern» thesis"
• "It only make sense to see hostility to immigration as rational"

Really? Rational? You expect people to vote based on rationality? Why? Do you happen to have any data that backs this outlandish theory that people vote rationally? I'm only asking because there have been plenty of studies throughout the years that have shown the exact opposite. Someone arguing in bad faith would just sweep this under the rug, but these people shouting "racism" about everything are fighting the good fight, so they wouldn't resort to data cherry-picking, right?

Not only is this "rational" shtick idiot, it's particularly so in this context, where both campaigns used fear as their main argument. How would anyone vote rationally? As far as I know, not even those the voted "Remain" voted rationally.

There is rarely anything rational about voting, no matter how many pretty charts we arm ourselves with. There is no "rational concern". There is a perception (correct or incorrect) that "things are getting worse", and it's that perception that drives people to a perceived solution. Read that again - "perceived solution". Is Brexit a solution to the UK's problems? I doubt it.

My perception, faulty though it may be, is that the "Union" part of the EU has always been weak, and it was completely destroyed when the Germany-led bloc decided that it had some serious money to make by destabilizing the weaker economies of the Eurozone. This led to austerity, which led to impoverishment (and also to division, but I've already said enough about that). The argument that the UK is not part of the Euro is moot, because the Tories applied the same recipe in the UK, at that same time. Again, perception.

Are racism and xenophobia a problem? Definitely. But not the problem, and as long as people continue to attack the issue from that angle, I predict a steady supply of "shocking awakenings".

Anyway, best of luck to us all. Looking at these luminaries, we'll definitely need it.

Brexit - That's not exactly what we meant...

First, we have the wedding. Then, the honeymoon. Then, we discover the unpleasant hidden details.

This Brexit Clusterf*ck should probably hold the record for the shortest honeymoon ever. Right after the Wedding Night, the Leaving Knights in Shining Armor were already backpedaling on some of their most iconic campaign flags.

You know that immigration thingie that got you all riled up and made you vote "Leave"? Well, funny you should mention that, because, you know, remember how the Leave campaign said it would "take control back", and all that jazz? Imagine that, as it happens, there are several definitions of "control". In this case, what they meant was taking "some control over roughly who comes in and roughly in what numbers".

Or, translated from weasel-talk, "There's no way in Hell we're going to stop the influx of cheap labor that ensures huge profits for the UK-based elites".

Oh, and you know those weekly £350M that were going to get poured into the NHS, now that the UK would no longer have to give it to those dreadful continental leeches? Apparently, there's been a bit of a cock-up there, I'm afraid. According to Farage, that brilliant example of meritocracy in action, it was "a mistake". No shit, Nigel, old chap. Who could've predicted that, hey?

As much as I applaud the UK for leaving the EU, this won't solve any problem for those that voted "Leave". Just as it happens in Portugal, the national elite is as much part of the problem as the European elites and the elites of the other member-states. And the UK elite won't change its money-sucking ways because of this.

Right now, everybody is wanking about the "market", the "wiped value", and a lot of other meaningless bullshit. When all this blows over, I have little doubt that the rules towards capital movement will be safeguarded, and I suspect that the same won't be guaranteed when it comes to the people.

In or out, those that actually work and create wealth (hint: it's not the elites) will get shafted.

Brexit

And there we have it.

The last few years of remarkable work by such luminaries as Angela Und Wheely Boy and DieselBloke's Eurogroup have just achieved their most impressive result to date. Brexit is the result of the hard work of these and other equally brilliant Elected Accountants.

The crocodile tears shed today by these people were amusing, as was the "good riddance" sentiment expressed by some officials, which was nothing more than the venting of some impotent frustration.

And, as expected, others are lining up for the "we want our referendum, too". They've been collecting benefits from these last few years, and these EU/Europe Elected Accountants are, in truth, The Gift That Keeps On Giving. Officials like these are a dream come true for any leader of an extremist party/movement.

Some have expressed the hope that this would serve as a wake-up call for the EU, so that the disastrous policies of these last years would be reversed.

Yeah, I know. I'll wait a while, until you stop laughing.

There's no way these Elected Accountants can turn back now. These idiots have spent the last few years securing their internal positions using a divisive strategy. Germany set the stage for the Hard-Working North vs. Lazy South. Then, it got a shot of its own remedy, via Hungary's No-Refugee East vs. Refugee-Friendly West.

This is the new image of the EU, a group of petty nations looking suspiciously at each other, progressively more entrenched in the idea that "I'd be better off without these leeches". And this is the image imparted to, and absorbed by, the European people. This is beyond repairing, now.

There will be no significant changes. Imbeciles like our Eurogroup buddies will blissfully carry on, oblivious to anything having to do with politics and to the social and political consequences of their actions.

Little has changed since the last time I said this (2012): The EU is dead. Maybe I should have prefixed it with a "Ding-Dong!"...?

Is there really hope against TTIP?

The catch-phrase of the day seems to be "The problem is not free trade, it's government regulation". I've seen it dozens of times these last few days, on conservative/finance-oriented news sites.

Some do try to fake some semblance of balance, by saying "over-regulation", instead of "regulation". Apparently this sort-of push against TTIP has all the "pundits" scrambling for a rallying call.

I suppose this is the same over-regulation that gave us:

• The 2008 crash.
• The endemic painkiller addition.
• Horsemeat-as-beef.
• The diesel emission cheating.
• Flint water.
• BP's "spill".

I'll stop here, OK?

The problem is not actually regulation, and I'll go ahead and say it - for most of these cases, I doubt we need more regulation.

I believe we have three problems at work, here. The first two concern inspection and enforcement.

We often hear that politicians and public officials are corrupt. I believe that is true, more often than not. What's even worse is the usual (wrong) conclusion most people so eagerly jump to: Remove these corrupt guys and gals and replace them with others who happen to be not-corrupt.

OK. But it takes two to play this game. One thing that's hardly mentioned is that public officials come and go, but the game remains the same. Why? Because the other side of the equation, the private entities, are not "removed". When they are caught, they're slapped with a more-or-less inconsequential fine and we're all back to business as usual. In the meantime, we get all the same familiar voices yapping about "burdensome regulations" and "private efficiencies".

So, to the third problem, which is actually the most complicated of all - punishment.

The reason why the game never changes is because, despite all the regulation, there is no actual punishment. If you can take a gamble with little actual risk, why would you not do it? Morals? Ethics? Yes, those are nice thoughts, but that's not how these things seem to work, once you find yourself in a position you can profit from.

What would be fit punishment? Well, these people are, ultimately, destroying lives. Can anyone explain why they shouldn't pay with their own lives?

Too harsh, you say? We'll just wait until TTIP is in motion, then, and we'll have this conversation again.

No, I don't believe this current brouhaha will stop TTIP. You see, the motive behind TTIP is not really trade. I spot three main themes here:

• The goal to defend against China/India/Whatever-country-you-feel-is-the-Menace.
• The goal to eliminate the European Social System once and for all.
• The goal to make states powerless against corporations.

None of the issues raised about TTIP by those who can actually decide about it (the elected officials, not the people) touches on these points. The bulk of the discussion is about limited "quid pro quo" issues that can easily be solved - protect some farmers here, some cinema there, and off you go.

So, to answer the question "Is there really hope against TTIP?", I'd say "Probably not". Unfortunately.

Extremes and scared "leaders"

Newsflash: "President Trump" scares (some) World leaders

Yes, for a very wide definition of the word "leader".

These so-called "leaders" are the main responsible party for most of the extremism on the rise. The people we now call "extremists" (from which I exclude actual extremists, like Daesh) are mostly people who felt abandoned and betrayed by their own nations, and reacted in a way that we have not yet fully grasped. There's not much to add here.

Note: My own texts on this blog qualify me as an extremist. So be it.

What I find amusing in this ongoing media coverage is the way most pundits keep ranting about "race issues": Trump has risen because of racism; Europe is falling apart because of racism (exacerbated by the refugee crisis). I disagree. That's not to say there is no racism (or any other kind of tribalism) at play. Racism is an issue; it's just not the issue.

People don't rally behind Trump because he targets non-white people. They rally behind him because he targets the "illegal scum that comes into this Great Nation and steals the jobs away from the honest-to-God-hard-working-Americans". Something similar happens in Europe. Europe began disintegrating with the 2011 crisis, with the way EU countries divided, and turned on each other. The European elected accountants showed the European people that the game was "Each man for himself". The current divisions over the refugees are just another step on that course.

Looking at the USA, try a little "What if" exercise. What if Mexico and Canada were "reversed"? Apply everything you know about Mexico to Canada and vice-versa, but keep each people's skin color - Mexicans would still be "latino", and Canadians would still be "white".

Mexicans would visit the USA on tourism, and many would have work relations there, which would be construed as mutually beneficial. Canadians would flock to the USA in their millions, looking for a better life, taking any job available, and working for much lower wages. And with a sizable percentage of illegal immigrants.

Is anyone really suggesting that if the USA were filled with Canadian immigrants "stealing American jobs", Trump would ignore them just because they're white?

No, this is not about race, or religion, or any such nonsense. That's the pretext, not the motive, and its use stems from the fact that it's a lot easier to stir up the mob by giving them an easily recognizable "other". 

This is about money. This is about inequality. This is about poverty.

This is what's getting these movements into the spotlight and, ultimately, into power. People who are already in poverty and people who perceive themselves (correctly or incorrectly) to risk falling into poverty. People who feel abandoned and betrayed; people who see no hope of ever recovering their lost income level; people who fear they will lose their own income.

I find it stupid beyond belief that so many people compare today's extreme right parties to the Nazi party, and then ignore that the Nazi's rise to power happened after the Great Depression. Back then, people didn't vote for them because of Antisemitism. That only became relevant after the Nazis took a hold on power.

I believe Trump's opponents know this. I also believe Trump's opponents use the race/religion/whatever issue for the same reason Trump uses it - because it's an easier way to stir up the mobs. Solving the actual problems - inequality, and the poverty and misery it causes - is one of the most complex problems we face today. It's a lot easier to just shout "Racism".

Add to that the business as usual of the last few decades, from both sides of the fence, both of which have brought us here, and both still eager to give us more austerity, more "pro-growth structural reforms", more deregulation... more of the same, really.

No wonder people are going for the extremes. Sure it can get ugly, but the number of people who believe they have little or nothing to lose is growing.

And those scared "leaders"? They're the ones delivering more and more people, on a silver platter, to the extremes.

"Brilliant" reads of the day

'Buy American' Hurts Americans

The point? Those who say "buy national/local products" are hurting the very locality they claim to defend.

The evidence? There you go:

Trade among perfect strangers from all over the world is cooperation, trust, mutual benefit, and peace in action. Don't we need more of it? Injecting divisive nationalism into commerce, however innocently, violates the true liberal spirit, which has bestowed incalculable blessings on the human race.

As can clearly be seen from the dwindling inequality throughout the world. Except, of course, if we take a local look at the evolution of inequality. But, as the man says, don't do that.

EU Anti-tax evasion measures

How more ironic can you get than having the Dijsselbloem bloke crowing about the EU's measures against tax evasion? This line is particularly funny: “We’ve been [so] very busy competing with each other ... that big companies tend not to pay taxes.”

Indeed, I wonder how that happened. An oversight, I suppose. I mean, it's not as if this "competition" was deliberately created to attract funds to some member states, in detriment of others. That would most certainly never happen in an organization bearing the name "Union".

But, of course, at least some of our hard-working European buddies are more honest (about their motives, that is) than others:

Austria’s finance minister, Hans Jörg Schelling, said: “I think we should not overshoot in tackling these things out of the hysteria on Panama.”

Absolutely, let's no overshoot, lest we see the money taking off and going somewhere else, when it's so much better that it stays in a select group of European countries that can then perpetuate the "narrative" that they're "hard-working" and "responsible".

The reason for Trump's success

Judging by what I've been reading lately in the media, I've got it all wrong in my posts about Trump's success. The general opinion is that race issues, rather than economic issues, are the main driving force behind Trump's success.

The reason? Just look how well Trump is doing in upscale zones. And what do these well-off Trump supporters have in common with the not-so-well-off Trump supporters? Why, their whiteness, of course.

So, the anti-racist media took a look at a group of people whose only common characteristic is race and covered all of them with one single reason for supporting Trump. How non-racist of the anti-racist media.

After all, there's no way those people can have... I don't know... different reasons to support Trump. Sure, they live in different states. And they lead different lifestyles. And they have different levels of income. But don't let unimportant things like "details" bother you, they're all white, therefore... racism.

I suspect "who could've predicted that" is going to become even more popular.

Double standards - The new normal for both sides of the social spectrum

I don't know about you, but I find double-standards disturbing. I find this particularly jarring when I see it coming from those I admired, those who were supposed to be on what I consider "my side".

Yes, there are sides, there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is when you can't see beyond your side. In other words, the problem isn't tribes, it's tribalism. Whether we can have one without the other is a question for which I have no answer. As extreme as my opinions may be, I do my best to avoid tribalism and to base my criticism of others on their words, acts, behaviours, or attitudes, instead of tribal affiliation.

I'd say the main offender is the all-encompassing generalization, the "All X are Y" thingy (yes, I know, I use it, too, sometimes - just ask me my opinion about entrepeneurs, managers, or politicians). If I were to give free rein to my tribalism, I'd probably agree that those who claim "All women are sluts" should be dragged into the street and shot, and those who say "All men are rapists" may have a point. Since I make an effort to see beyond my tribalism, I don't agree. I believe both are equally idiotic and destructive.

Also idiotic and destructive is the more subtle way of expressing "All X are Y". E.g., when speaking about online harassment, the sentence is usually "A vast majority of the victims of online harassment are female, harassed by angry white males". Note the description of the perpetrators. There are only characteristics, which are combined to create a group which is then collectively held responsible for an act.

However, point this out and you'll get an answer like "Ah, that's not what I meant, that's just your interpretation, and you got it all wrong. It's not about you, and if you think it's about you, then you're probably sexist/racist/whatever. Get over it".

OK, sure, let me have a go at it, then, I'll change the words a bit, OK?

"A vast majority of the victims of terrorism attacks are civilians, killed by angry Muslims".

There, what do you think? Ah, it's wrong because I'm denigrating a whole group based on the actions of some members of said group? Good point. We shouldn't do that. Tell me again, then, why is it not wrong in the "angry white male" thingy.

"All men are rapists" or "Harassment if carried out by white males" is perfectly acceptable, while "All Muslims are terrorists" is not. Anyone who identifies as progressive will tell you the latter is wrong, and I unreservedly agree. What I can't understand is why on Earth those same people will go out of their way to support the former. Anyone with a functioning brain and the ability to hold tribalism in check can see that the above examples are all terrible.

Terrorism isn't carried by Muslims, it's carried out by... terrorists. Most terrorists are Muslims. Maybe. The point still stands, though - terrorism is carried out by terrorists. By the same universal standard, harassment is carried out by harassers. Most harassers are white male. Again, maybe.

Then, again, maybe not. Harassment has become a tactic used by every tribe, these days, both online and offline. However, certain tribes believe harassment is justified because their cause is Right(TM) and the person they're harassing is horrible. The thing is... every tribe believes this. This argument is meaningless, and if you're piling up on someone on Twitter or Facebook, congratulations. You're part of the problem.

Now, truth be told, we've always had double-standards. So, what is my beef with the current crop?

Because the tribe that's currently legitimizing the use of double-standards is the tribe that, in the past, has rightly denounced them. That was the tribe you joined, if you believed double-standards were wrong. Suddenly, you find your tribe using the same weapons that were used against them, and still claiming some sort of moral high ground. Your tribe is harassing, all the while condemning harassment.

And you can't change to the other tribe, really. Because you look at the other tribe and it's still horrible. It's just that your tribe has also become horrible. A different sort of horrible, but horrible nonetheless.

I'll leave with a fine example of what I mean. It's from the Guardian. I didn't select it for being the worst example, mind you, it just happened to be the last one I read, while writing this.

Across the internet, we have now reached a tipping point. For women, the abuse is often violent and sexualised, with direct threats to rape and mutilate. For non-white people, the abuse is often racist; for Jews, it is antisemitic; for Muslims, it is Islamophobic. To some extent, everyone online is affected. To the extent that our lives are conducted online, this is the water in which we all swim: it’s horribly polluted and it’s making a lot of us sick.

Did you say "To some extent, everyone online is affected"? OK, that sounds fair. Let's see, then, how you define "everyone":

• women
• non-white people
• Jews
• Muslims

Oh, I see... "everyone". Carry on, then.

As editor, I think we need to act more decisively on what kind of material appears on the Guardian. Those who argue that this is an affront to freedom of speech miss the point. That freedom counts for little if it is used to silence others. When women and minorities don’t feel able to speak their mind for fear of insult, threat or humiliation, no such freedom exists.

Again, we have a strange definition of "everyone": "women and minorities". Somehow, this seems to be the only free speech threatened.

And, then, I ran into another story, also on the Guardian, the story of a woman explaining why it's OK to have an affair that's been going on for nearly a decade, build an incredible lie around her, including keeping a calculated fake friendship with her lover's wife, all for the purpose of facilitating the affair. It ends with this question:

It takes a very brave person to give an honest response, but, before judging me, ask yourself just one question – what’s stopping you from doing exactly the same?

I know my answer. Since I think differently from this person, and going by the current way of thinking, I'm probably not brave. And I'm probably sexist, because I have a different opinion.

I will, however, finish with a question of my own: How would this go if the story was about a man, instead of a woman?

Our destiny is Trump - Part 2

Note: I do not write today's post lightly. There is some pain associated with this. Mostly from seeing social causes I support being completely destroyed by people with no princicples who want nothing more than attention and power. I have little doubt a backlash is coming, and I just hope when the dust settles, we won't end up worse than when all this idiocy began.

This time, we'll look at intolerance.

Historically, we can classify social progressive movements as "left-leaning". And while actions by these movements have led to violent confrontation, they were generally based on a goal of tolerance, a desire to achieve a state of greater social justice. In fact, the violence was often initiated by those standing on the other side of the issue, as an attempt to eliminate threats to the status quo.

And, then, something... changed.

Suppose my job is to bake cakes and a gay couple asks me a cake for their wedding. That's my job, so I should just do it, regardless of my beliefs. Otherwise, I should look for a different line of work.

On the other hand, if my job is, say, being the CEO of a tech foundation and I've never promoted any homophobic practices at that foundation, then it should be irrelevant what causes I support, financially or otherwise, in my personal life. It should be irrelevant if I happen to support an anti-gay cause like, say, California's Proposition 8, provided I don't bring that mindset into the workplace.

The first hard lesson I learned about modern-day progressives it that... I'm wrong.

We went from fighting against someone losing his job solely for being gay to making someone lose his job just because he's anti-gay.

Apparently, the motive behind this fight wasn't the principle that no one should suffer consequences in his professional life for whatever private beliefs he holds (provided said beliefs didn't manifest in his professional activity), but rather the principle that being gay shouldn't be a reason to fire anyone. I won't disagree with the latter, but I find it incomplete. Social justice is achieved with universal principles, not carved-out exceptions or sectary causes.

We used to fight to give a voice to those who couldn't speak, now we fight to shame and silence those who disagree with us - even worse, those who actually agree with us, but have more moderate views.

We used to fight for improving the rights of those we called "minorities", now we harass those we call "privileged" for things as petty as wearing dreadlocks, which is now called "cultural appropriation", or wearing a sombrero, which has become "culturally offensive".

In short, we went from having Social Justice Warriors, in the best possible sense of the words, to this sad travesti we have today, where people harass and intimidate other people for the crime of... being different.

So, we have the progressives of today using what was, mostly, a tactic of the conservatives, and claiming moral superiority. Ironic, really.

But eve more ironic is that we now have equally vocal and intolerant people acting like idiots on both sides of every issue, and these drive any moderate out of said issues.

Oh, yes, I said "idiots" (belated trigger warning: I'll repeat it a lot). Does that mean I consider these people idiots? No. I don't really know them, other than their public personas, and I've always considered someone's public persona a bit like a cartoon people create.

That being said, I do consider that these people behave like idiots. I have as much contempt for the Roosh Vs and the All-women-are-sluts club members as I do for the Sarkeesians and the All-men-are-rapists club members. They are equally revolting human beings who just happen to hold opposing views.

I wish rapists would get convicted more often, and got hit with harder sentences. Most of all, I wish the police had a special branch to support (emotionally and legally) anyone who comes forward and denounces a sexual assault. The recent Ghomeshi trial shows just how much we need this. But I also wish due process to be applied to every case, instead of the brilliant suggestion for "just accepting the victim's version and giving no weight whatsoever to the «predator's» side of the story".

I understand the issue of diversity in culture, e.g., games, movies, or books. But I do not feel represented by those who are leading the fight for this diversity in any of these media. Going about defining "gamers" as "Whiny males living in their parents' basements" and using "Gamers are dead" as a battle cry is not an attack against lack of diversity, it's just behaving like an idiot. I don't call myself a "gamer" (sometimes I go through phases where I spend too much time playing PC games, and then I can spend a couple of years without playing anything) and I didn't feel targeted, but as I watched that drama unfold, I cringed as I saw all the moderates saying "Forget it, I'm outta here".

What about the death threats and harassment, you say? That's a matter of Police, not social justice. If the Police doesn't look into it, hire a lawyer and sue the State. I'll donate for this. I might even donate for lobbying to get the Law changed, but not with the current crop of movement leaders.

And, please, don't even get me started on cultural appropriation. That Native American bloke who sues people for using American Indian symbols is not acting like an activist, he's acting like an idiot.

I'd like to give a special mention to Black Lives Matter. I believe that is the most serious social issue we're currently facing. I don't know if I agree with the way it's being directed, but I do know I have no better alternative to offer, so... no criticism from me.

Now, where is the connection between all this and Trump-like candidates?

Take a look at Trump supporters. Look at the extreme views they espouse. Look at the level of aggression they display. Now, look at Trump protesters. How do they behave? How do they fight back? Other than their beliefs or their causes, what's the difference? You've got people behaving like aggressive shouting idiots on one side complaining about... the people behaving like aggressive shouting idiots on the other side.

Look at the Yale video with the protester behaving like a shouting idiot, confronting Nicholas Christakis, the master of Yale’s Silliman College. Or the video with another college person behaving like an idiot, trying to intimidate people to stop filming, or the two blokes behaving like idiots on the more recent "dreadlocks kid" video, after they found out they were being filmed, and going after the person doing the filming. What's the difference between these people and the proverbial hate-filled Trump supporters, other than the words coming out of their mouths?

Unfortunately, the vast majority of what passes up as "progressive figths" are little more than petty harassment of the "Different Other". 

The problem is that this display of idiocy not only becomes viral, but gains traction, by progressive support. Very much so. And mainstream politicians tend to pick it up, in the hope it will net them more votes. As the hysteria level goes up, once again, the moderates are left behind.

Then, one day, a different sort of Trump comes along, one with a cleaner act. A Trump who calls this intolerant double-standard-filled bigotry on both sides for what it is, but who is a more credible contender - he shows tolerance in his criticisms, he acknowledges the problems and presents solutions other than "Boy, I'm so good at this, I'll solve it before you even leave the voting booth". He shows he can actually tell the serious issues (e.g., Black Lives Matter) from the useless-waste-of-time issues (e.g., Dreadlocks Kid). Note that I'm not even saying this person will actually be sincere, just that he will put forth his act in a convincing manner. There's a very good chance he'll get the moderates. He may even have a shot at getting the extremists, provided he's the only alternative to what they see as "the Evil candidate" (which is a synonym for "the candidate of the Other", basically). He may very well nail the election.

On the progressive side, all these people creating shark-fests against the "Different Other" were (not themselves, but their demographic) the "Different Other" of yesterday, victims of conservative shark-fests. Their use of the same tactic of intolerance lends an unfortunate credibility to those who did it in the past. I can only assume they believe that they'll never become the "Different Other" again. That's a risky bet, as we'll all find out if social progress ever recedes. Because you can't really cry "foul" at someone using the same tactics you embraced for yourself.

If all we're going to do is fight hate and intolerance with more hate and intolerance, we're in for a rocky voyage. And we're opening ourselves to the day when a majority of people grow tired of this, and someone comes along who convinces them with a very simple "I have a solution". And we may not find out how final that solution is until it's too late.

"Portugal is headed in the wrong direction" says...

... Poul Thomsen.

Who?!

He's this IMF bloke who visited us often, a few years ago (you know, "Love the climate, the cuisine, the people are nice, etc..."). A very "cocksure" person, borrowing Bertrand Russel's definition.

Yeah, I know, I said I was done writing about the IMF. So, sue me.

He's quite "cocksure" that Portugal is headed in the wrong direction, that the Portuguese people should be served another dose of austerity.

He could be right, obviously. But I wonder...

This remarkable fellow came into our lives as the head of the troika, sent in when we asked for "help".

Among his current criticisms is the "high Portuguese debt". Curiously absent from his arguments was the growth said debt incurred while under the troika's program.

Another curious omission from the certainty he displayed was an opinion about our banking system. Why would I have liked to hear it?

Because the terribly efficient troika he led had, among its goals, the sanitizing of the Portuguese banking system. And a couple of years later the troika left, under what they and our ex-Dear Leader called a "Clean Exit". Meaning "Jolly good show, pats on the back to everyone, there you have it, off you go".

And now, a couple more years later, what we found out is that everyone involved in this "jolly good show" has been tremendously productive at nothing but under-the-rug-sweeping and belly-pushing, and our banking system is worst than when the troika arrived (BTW, so is our debt, did I mention that...?)

So, this fine example of Dunning-Kruger, no doubt based on the remarkable results he has achieved here, keeps spouting certainties, taken out of some part of his body best left unmentioned.

He could be right. It's just that, so far, he hasn't.

Panama Papers - The Finale

Yesterday, we had another predictable step in the winding-down of the Panama Papers - the enacting of new rules, aka, the Silver Bullet.

These new rules will be a "hammer blow" against tax evasion. Yay!

Let's see...

Will it put comrade Juncker on the spot for Luxembourg's sweet deals? Ah, no. OK...

Will it take care of the EU fiscal-bargain zones? Ah, again, no.

Will it, at least, have any sort of impact whatsoever on the UK territories and on the US (places like, say, Delaware)? I'll leave the answer as an exercise for the reader.

And there we have it. Ladies and Gentlemen, this was the Panama Papers, I hope you've enjoyed it.

I expect a few more innocuous names, some more lip service, and then we'll forget about this.

Until the next leak, where every pundit and his 3rd-cousin-twice-removed will go "Who could've predicted that?"

Oh, you probably didn't notice it, but yesterday Oxfam published another one of their report thingies... yeah, I know. How boring can you get, right?

Panama - Update #2

The "business as usual" is definitely setting in.

• The Panama Papers do not reveal a problem with the global finance system or tax evasion. No, the problem is government corruption.

• Likewise, there is no problem with the system because the countries that actually respect the rules don't show up on the leak - e.g., USA.

• We're still getting plenty of people from the "Them" club. The last I saw mentioned Azerbaijan.

• From the "Us" club, we get plenty of "celebrities" I've never heard of, and those that are actually, you know, celebrities, are inconsequential.

• All the banks that were/are used to get "Them" to move "their" money to "our side" have, obviously, denied any wrong-doing. And since they say so, it must be true.

I particularly enjoy the argument in point 2, as it uses a tactic that I've known for a long time - the Conspiracy Theory. You see, if you suspect something (e.g., no one "respects the rules"), but can't prove it's actually true, therefore it must be False (perfect "logic", obviously). And if you raise the point that "unknown" is not the same as "false", you're just one of those fellows conspurcating the Wonderful World Around Us with your Filthy Conspiracy Theories.

It's pointless debating with someone who goes for this tactic, because they know two things:

1. They have no arguments.
2. They are Right(TM).

And don't bother mentioning Snowden, Volkswagen, or horsemeat, unless you want to hear some Non-Filthy Conspiracy Theories that the Anti-Conspiracy Theorist just knows is True.

Anyway, as far as the Panama Papers are concerned, I expect this will be it. Plenty of smoke, and nothing else.

Our destiny is Trump - Part 1

Yeah, I know. Maybe I should have written "fate" instead of "destiny".

Scale makes us focus on DT. The scale of his unexpected ascension. The scale of his "eccentricity". The scale of the consequences of his victory.

This last point is important. We already have, at least, two victorious Trumps in Europe (Hungary, Poland), but we don't focus on these. And if we consider these are already ruling and making decisions, that's not very rational of us. But then, rationality is a fairy tale we like to tell ourselves in order to feel better.

To their credit, there is a difference between our European Trumps and the US "certified original" - our Trumps tend to do this peculiar thing, before opening their mouths, called "thinking". Still, DT's results will show us how important this "thinking" business actually is.

Right now, everyone is looking for someone to blame for the Trump phenomenon. We're in a deluge of brain-dead media articles telling us who's to blame (hint: If the title begins with "Everything you need to know..." or contains the words "Here's why", you might be better off giving it a miss). Funnily enough, the media often blames Trump on... the media. But, naturally, on the "other" media, because "our" media is caring and responsible, and would never contribute to this Harbinger of Hatred, right?

Yeah, right...

I'm not a man of many certainties, but there is one thing I have little doubt about: Our destiny is Trump. Probably not this Trump. Probably a more credible, nuanced Trump. But some sort of Trump, nonetheless.

There have been many comparisons between Trump and Hitler. In most such comparisons there's usually one useful detail that's lost in all the noisy "Dooooooom" hype - the possible (probable) effect of the rise of inequality throughout the world. I, too, will be comparing these "fine" specimens of Mankind, but I will be more interested in the context, rather than the actual persons involved; it's the context that matters, not if we're comparing DT to Hitler or Donald Duck.

Context, then...

When we talk about the currently rising inequality, someone always mentions there are more and more people being pulled out of poverty. True. However, when you earn next-to-nothing, getting to earn second-next-to-nothing is not as much of an achievement as it is made to appear. And that's what we're talking about, in most cases - people who earn their salaries by working in factories with a wide assortment of working conditions (yes, it's an euphemism), with no financial safety net at all, and who won't be able to create such a safety net, based on their low income. We're definitely not talking about people coming out of poverty into a sustainable long-term middle-class; and I'm definitely including the so-called "Developed/First-World Nations" in this description, even though, for these nations, I do put things in perspective - as bad as we are getting, we're still in a different world, compared to countries like China or Bangladesh.

So, what's the point behind all this? If you look at Hitler's path to power, you'll see two note-worthy details:

1. The first step along that path was achieved by democratic election, not a coup or a German Spring.

2. The Nazi Party went from 2.6% (810,127 votes) in 1928 to 18.25% (6,379,672) in 1930. I'll let you figure out on your own what was the Big Event between 1928 and 1930.

So, you see, the problem isn't someone shouting at the top of his lungs "Jews are evil". The problem is when a significant part of the population falls on hard times and someone says "I can solve your problems! Oh, and by the way, not only are Jews evil, but they're also the cause of your problems".

We won't get leaders like Trump because people are actively racist/chauvinist/whatever, anymore than we got Hitler because people were actively anti-Semitic. We will get leaders like these when enough people fall on hard times and someone comes along and says "I can solve your problems". Regardless of whatever else they say.

And, right now, this is what an ever-growing part of the population perceives as its major problem - inequality. Not so much that there are a few people getting richer, but that there are a whole lot more getting poorer. Yes, I know, there's a lot of sound bites to counter this "conspiracy theory":

• Trickle-down. I won't even address this BS, other than to ask "Is this still a thing?!"
• We're taking untold millions from abject poverty. Riiight... and where exactly are we putting them, pray tell?
• The times are changing, life has become more precarious, and people have to get used to change. Oh, they will get used to change. We all will, in fact. I just think that, sooner or later, we'll all regret the change that "people" will choose.

When we mention "inequality", the first thing that comes to mind is income inequality. But there's more to it than that.

Legislative inequality

This one is easy. The push to rise the minimum wage is met with cries of "Doooooom". The push to lower corporate tax is lauded by pretty much every pundit and "independent" financial institution/watchdog. Even "better", the tax evas..., er, I mean, "avoidance" schemes are considered "good management".

Executive inequality

A major bank is on the brink of collapse and the taxpayers "volunteer" to step in with a bailout. All the usual suspects applaud.

The government says "Well, the State will now take over the bank's management, since we're paying for it". All hell breaks loose, with "reasonable" statements such as "The State cannot interfere with the management of a private corporation".

Judicial inequality

There's no need to say much here, as it's obvious from the current cost of "Justice" that it's completely skewed to favour those who can afford it.

At the end of the day, all this means is that more and more people are being pushed into precarious situations, more and more people are getting out-priced - or even scared out - of what should be ordinary life choices, all the while watching the "chosen few" living it out.

In fact, we can make a final comparison to illustrate this uncertainty gap:

• Entrepreneurs (whatever that means) and business owners will usually cry out for fiscal stability, demanding to know the "rules of the game", which usually means "rules that suit them".

• However, when it comes to those who work for them, they'll parrot out the "Times are uncertain" line, and push people into precarity, denying them the same stability they so vocally demand for themselves.

This, I believe, is the main reason why some sort of Trump is our future. Not the only reason, but definitely the main reason.

More about this next time.

Panama - Update #1

So, we're now entering day #2 of our Panama roller coaster, and damage control is definitely ramping up.

• Yesterday, I saw on TV some big name in the EU structure (too lazy to look it up, sorry) saying that his Panama company has been shut down for years. And I'm sure there was a legitimate reason for opening it in the first place.

• Our good friend, the Newly-Elected-Argentinian-President (did I mention I was feeling too lazy today?) said there was nothing illicit in his Panama activities. Ah, OK, thanks for clearing that up. I'm sure if there was anything illicit, you'd immediately disclose it.

• All the usual suspects are scrambling to assure everyone there are plenty of legitimate reasons for using offshores, such as "confidential dealings between parties", "paying less taxes using totally legal mechanisms", and... I guess that's it, really.

• Some of the more "creative" usual suspects have put forth a refreshingly new angle - we should not demonize those who use offshores to avoid paying taxes because we all do it anyway (pay as little tax as we can, not use offshores), and so there is a fundamental difference between, say, a drug dealer and a footballer, or a leader from a slavic country located to the East of Europe and a leader from a latin country in South America.

This last point takes on an amusing twist, when the argument becomes "if we demonize these tax-minimizers, then we will be demonizing everyone" and "the Big Bad State" will swallow us all as criminals.

So, for now, my prognostic is - nothing will change.

And not necessarily because of Panama, or our good old Cayman comrades.

It's more because of Switzerland, and Luxembourg, and Holland, and Austria, and Ireland. Mind you, the first two are seen as prosperous European nations, examples to follow.

And because of the nations that also do it, but don't appear often in the headlines, such as the UK or the USA.

And because of everyone who has money and power to decide.

Yes, I said "everyone". I'm most definitely not buying the "legitimate reasons" excuse.

After all, I'm sure there are "legitimate reasons" to gather up untold numbers of human beings and putting them in camps where they can't leave, without a trial to determine why they should be put there. I just can't think of one.

Hype? What do you think is the result of all these assholes stuffing their money on offshores? Destroyed lives. The drug dealer destroys the life of the young man who is addicted, and the tax evader destroys the life of the old man who waits months or years for an NHS exam, because "there is no money" and "there is no alternative".

Panama Papers

Let's see what these next few weeks will bring us.

While the headlines talk about "the celebrities and the powerful", so far I've only seen mentions of Putin, the Arab Spring "notables", and other members of the "Them" group. Then we get David Cameron's dad, if I understood correctly (and my apologies to the gentleman in question if I didn't), as the oddball of the bunch. Let's see how many more names from the "Us" group will we get.

The Fonseca comrades (funny that we should get a Portuguese-sounding name here; should I feel proud?) are already full gear into damage control mode, casting doubt on the papers, albeit in a rather... how shall I put it... ham-fisted manner. But it's still early days, I'm expecting more subtle and effective plans to cast doubt and create deniability.

And I'll leave you with one of my favorite sentences:

Who could've predicted this?

Congratulations are in order

I'd like to congratulate Turkey for a fine display of true European ideals. The blackm... er, negotiation, carried out this week shows an admirable perception of the lessons put forth by Angela Und Wheely Boy.

I, for one, withdraw my previous objections to providing full EU membership to Turkey. The totally remarkable way in which human life was used by both sides in these negotiations shows Turkey is clearly "one of us".

Gentlemen, welcome to the EU.

European disappointment

1. Mother Merkel is disappointed with the European response to the migrant crisis. She also believes the refugees will return home, after the war is over.

Where to begin...?

- The "European response to the migrant crisis" is the same "European response" to pretty much everything in these last few years - Me, me, me, me, what's in it for me, who cares about you? In fact, Merkel and Wheely Boy Schauble are the main responsible parties for this mindset in the first place. They enjoyed it when it suited them. As can be seen with Portugal now, they still push it unabashedly (more on this below). I fail to see where's the cause for disappointment. As the saying goes, you reap what you sow.

- Return home? To go through the hardship of rebuilding a destroyed shell, in a land that will remain dangerous and that can become outright deadly again with a flick of the switch? When they just have to stay put and enjoy a much less dangerous life? Tough decision, hey? I don't know, I could be wrong, but this seems like a very long shot. I'd say we just have to wait and see, but... just see the next bullet.

- "After the was is over"? Are you serious? Do you really expect this to ever be over? Those with power have been killing each other for more power for as long as I can remember, all the while using the Shoe and the Gourd as a pretext to stirr up the mindless mobs. Where does the "over" step in?

Of course, when the most powerful individual in Europe is allowed to say "after the war is over" and the result isn't collective laughter from the Atlantic Ocean to the Black Sea, it just goes to show that we're no less mindless. I'd like to hear Mother Merkel mention some details of this brilliant plan to get the war from "raging" to "over" before she gets to the point of telling me all about the "happy ending".

2. Portugal is on the brink of destruction. "Says who", you ask?

- Rating agencies, with their remarkable competence-backed predictions.

- The European Comission/Eurogroup/IMF, the minds behind the remarkable austerity programs and all the remarkable recoveries these engendered.

- The remarkable geniuses who ruled Portugal for the last 4 years, and whose Budgets have been as criticized as the current budget, by all the above-mentioned parties, with a remarkable difference - the sky wasn't ready to fall then.

We can forget the rating agencies, these are unsupervised entities whose past record of sucess clearly shows it's not competence that guarantees their continued survival.

Our ex-Dear Leader and his cohorts are equally dismissable here, as we would not expect any sort of honest behavior from them. That is something they have in common with our current Dear Leader and his cohorts, obviously.

As for the IMF... heh, I've talked about their "remarkability", already. They haven't stopped being a dogma-spouting organization, so no news here.

Now, as for our European Overlords, here lies the interesting part of this story. Remember when they presented a united front against Greece, last year? The issue was not the money, just like the issue with Portugal now is not the money.

The issue is always the same - There can be no alternative. This is especially true now, with Spain hanging on the balance. Greece served as an example to Portugal, and Portugal will be used as an added example to Spain.

It's Berlin's way, or the highway (paid with European subsidies, I expect).

I've been choosing the latter with my vote (minus the subsidies), and will continue to do so. Who knows? Maybe someday we will win.