A Few Quintessential Problems with Rabble-Rousers Like Bernie Sanders


Well, I stayed out of it for a long time.  I snapped at the phony feminist sisterhood only 2 or 3 times and tried to ignore the offensive, nonsensical, anti-American garbage pouring out of the Jacobin of Vermont.  But he did not go away, and considering the mental state of the Union, I shouldn’t have hoped for that.  Now we are definitely on dangerous ground.  At this point, no one who understands the historical, economic, and social impact of Mr. Sanders’s candidacy should remain silent, no matter how small their voice.  

Here is what History taught me about the seemingly far-out rabble-rousers like Bernie Sanders:

1.   They are fanatics in the most literal definition of the word, i.e. they are possessed by overwhelming and unwavering zeal for their extreme causes, whatever they may be: class equality, ethnic or religious purity, condemnation of cultural traditions, intellectual ostracism, or expropriation of private wealth into the government’s treasury.  As fanatics they are dangerously immune to logic, critical reasoning, and morality.  They are absolutely intolerant to the opinions and ideas of others, and will treat their opponents as mortal enemies – Qui non nobiscum, adversus nos est (Those who are not with us are against us).

2.  Contrary to popular belief, they are not actually rebels with breakthrough ideas; they are nothing more than followers.  They are not capable of independent thinking and invariably get fixated on the ideas of others, frequently misunderstanding, misinterpreting, and misappropriating the original thesis.  Older siblings are often responsible for shaping their overly impressionable minds.  They are prone to idolization of certain historical figures.  And every one of them uses some preexisting model as a framework for their own system of beliefs: Roman Imperialism, the Reign of Terror, the Communist Manifesto, or “Danish Socialism,” to name a few.         

3.  They usually have no regard for fundamental principles and cornerstone concepts.   Private property and the creation of profit are the carrying pillars of the United States of America, as it was conceived by our founding fathers.  Anyone who wants to topple them down is nothing if not anti-American. But the delusional rabble-rousers always believe that a structure can remain sound and functional even if its backbone is completely removed.  Time and again throughout history they have found themselves on a pile of rubble, trying to put together a “brave new” world out of broken pieces.  They are oblivious to the undeniable truth that it’s easier to destroy than to create.

4.  Of course, it is quite possible that they don’t know and/or understand what these fundamental principles are.  The truth is that most rabble-rousers don’t know much about anything except the rabble-rousing itself.  Many political figures start their agitating undertakings early on in their lives and simply don’t have time for in-depth studies or any sort of self-growth.  An overwhelming number of the most dangerous historical figures were expelled from schools and universities, (Note!  This is very different from dropping out on your own volition, especially in pursuit of more adequate education. A student activist wants to stay a student activist as long as he can, and that has nothing to do with education), couldn’t hold a job, or achieve any success in their desired calling.  

The undergrad student Bernard Sanders, for example, was an avid member of several political organizations, including the Young People’s Socialist League.  There was no time to dig into books.   A few odd jobs here and there, and by 27 he had snugly settled into the life of a political campaign operator in Vermont.  Sadly, monetary matters, political economics, commercial entrepreneurship, medical and all other sciences, and especially historical analysis are the notorious blind spots of all politicians, but especially so of narrow-focused zealots.    

5.  Yet, a rabble-rousers’ occupation, by definition, mandates not just simple talking, but actual orating and expressing opinions on some lofty and important subjects.  And address big issues they do, but in absence of a solid theoretical foundation, they become surface-gliding fantasists.  They spent most of their time in meetings, travels, conversations, briefings on various issues, etc.  While doing that, they pick bits and pieces of information here and there, selectively squirreling those that fit their agenda.  Oh, you have free health care?!  That’s neat!  The government here pays for your education?  Awesome, dude!  All that childish excitement is based on quick glances at glossy surfaces.  Of course, they fervently believe that they can simply will or force their dreams to come true. The unfortunate truth is that most of the time they don’t even see the reality – they see what they want to see.  

In September 2015 Bernard Sanders declared that he liked “Danish Socialism” because “he talked to a guy from Denmark” who told him that in Denmark “it is very hard to become very, very rich, but it’s pretty hard to be very, very poor.”  This created quite an uproar in Denmark – the Prime-Minister had to go on record and explain that they are not a socialist country, but a hybrid of a market economy and a welfare state, which proved to be successful in Nordic (SPECIFICALLY!) countries.  (Well, I personally find the Nordic governments’ interference with private and personal property as well as citizens’ individual rights nothing short of barbaric, but that’s not the subject of this discussion).

6.  What they lack in quality erudition and critical thinking, rabble-rousers make up for in tautology, sophism, and all other skills of demagoguery.  As I said, they talk!  Some of them even end up being listed as the greatest orators of all times, evil-doing notwithstanding.  And with what fervor!  I watch him and I am, like, he is a raven lunatic, like the others!  And they twist every fact, every notion, and every quote to serve their cause!  They will repeat the same gibberish this way and that way over and over again, claiming that their ideas and conclusions are irrefutably true and their schemes are solidly plausible without supplying A SINGLE SHRED of evidence or valid reasoning to support their bullshit.  Everything they say is served up as “absolute truth;” no proof is required: like a politician from a state, where white folks compose 95% of the population, claims on record that race relations will “absolutely” be better if he is in the White House; not that he will try to do his best or that he has definite steps in mind, but just “absolutely better!”    

They talk this way about their ideological platforms and economic proposals; they throw brazen accusations at their opponents (“reactionary,” “not progressive,” “funded by Wall Street”); and they do it with such conviction that they are the first to believe it.  If you challenge them, they will equal themselves with true innovators and brilliant visionaries of the past – those who worked hard and actually knew what they were doing.  They will tell you that revolutionary ideas, such as theirs, have always been dismissed.  They will try to shame you as a retrograde equal to Giordano Bruno’s executioners!

7.  Because their fantasies are so deliberately populist and because their agitating rhetoric is so stupefying, the likes of Bernie Sanders invariably attract a hysterical following of ignorant crowds.  Rabble-rousers worth nothing in the absence of their rabid supporters.  Together, though, they constitute the symbiosis of encyclopedic proportions – more profound than clownfish and sea anemones.  This is where the power, and the evil of the provocateur lies.  As history shows; because the majority of humans are more responsive to simplistic slogans than to complicated logic, and cannot see the truth behind the stage decorations, the inflammatory bugs coughed up by agitators usually spread over rather large portions of the population.         

8.   All rabble-rousers are faithful students of Machiavelli when it comes to his maxim that the end justifies the means.  They are always very eager to argue that their actions can only be considered morally right or wrong by virtue of the morality of the outcome.  This is why human rights are sooner or later violated by pretty much every rabble-rouser throughout history.  This is why individual well-being becomes unimportant to these people, as they are in the pursuit of a “better future” for some abstract society as a whole.  They will stubbornly sacrifice everything and everyone for their “ideals,” including the lives of hundreds of American veterans, if you put them in charge of the Veterans’ Affairs. (As a side note: Who the fuck decided to put this career anti-war protester in charge of the veterans’ benefits?)  And of course, if you don’t believe that their ultimate purpose is moral, you become the “people’s” enemy (see item 1).  

9.  This believe that they must do whatever it takes to see their ideas realized is precisely why the rabble-rousers will accept “help” from anybody who offers it, especially if it comes from people and entities with a lot of means and real power.  Yet, they always fail to realize that they end up being puppets in the much bigger scheme of their benefactors.  The entire bolshevik revolution was financed by the Germans, desperate to weaken Russia on the Eastern Front of World War I.  In the spring of 1917, they had stuffed an ironclad railcar with money, Lenin, and 31 of his comrades and transported them from their comfortable exile in Switzerland to Russia, assuring the success of the October Revolution.  In return, the new Russian government signed a peace treaty with the Germans only one month after usurping the power.  At the end that wasn’t enough to counteract the joint efforts of the British and French troops, but it definitely cost the allies a lot of extra blood.

And so, I keep wondering, how is it that, after 23 years of political failures and then (finally!) 16 years of a lackluster career in the House of Representatives, 65-year-old Bernard Sanders was all of a sudden elected to be one of the 100 people that constitute the upper echelon of our national Congress?  And now he is in the presidential race?  Doesn’t it sound like someone’s (not Bernie’s) long con?  I have 10 different endgame scenarios fully fledged in my head, but all of them are too “controversial” to discuss even in this tiny blog.

10.  Oh, how I wish for Bernie’s supporters to sober up (or smart up – same difference!) and see that at their very core all rabble-rousers are liars.  They know that mass appeal is mandatory for their survival, and so they come at you with all sorts of impossible promises, false guarantees, and seemingly genuine care for the “real people.”  They say exactly what masses want to hear. “Free” is their favorite chant – land to peasants, factories to laborers; entire foreign countries with serving nations at citizens’ disposal; free healthcare, free education!  They are veritable Robin Hoods: expropriate and redistribute!  And “real people” are just eating it all up!  But it’s all a lie, of course.  The only thing that a fanatic cares about is the ideological victory.  They have no regard for consequences, actual realization of pledges, the morality of the methods that will be employed in the name of their ideas, or how perverted the results will be.  Open your history books, people, it’s all there already!       

11.  Here is one of the most important lessons of History:  It is a grave mistake to dismiss these rabble-rousers as a joke.  Time and time again people have made this mistake in the past and paid with their lives for it.  Right before someone, who in retrospect we define as a scary dictator, came to power, reasonable and intellectual people refused to take him seriously.  Invariably the line of reasoning went something like this: “There is no way anyone with a bit of brain will buy into this cockamamie bullshit!”  But the reality is, that precisely for the reasons listed above – their mass appeal, amoral flexibility, fanaticism, and willingness to sacrifice everything for the sake of their idee fixe, these clowns can be propelled by the forces behind them to positions with the powers to do the utmost damage.

Resist!  Resist!  Resist!                  

Quote of the Week: Gender Pay Gap


635756935070330185-MAR-GCEITF-Arty07From CNN Breaking News:

"All US military combat positions are being opened up to women, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced Thursday.

The decision allows women to fill about 220,000 jobs that are now limited to men – including infantry, armor, reconnaissance and some special operations units.

'This means that as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before.  They'll be able to drive tanks, give orders, lead infantry soldiers into combat,' Carter said at a news conference Thursday.

'There will be no exceptions,' he added."

The Frustrated CFO Commentary:

Well, congratulations, ladies!  Just as the World Economic Form has concluded that women would not catch up to men in their pay until 2133 (not a typo – 117 years from now, in some hypothetical "future"), the Pentagon has proudly declared that they are making more equal-pay jobs available for us – the ones that they themselves officially list among 8 most dangerous military jobs

And this is why I can never align myself with feminist politics.  Don't get me wrong, I greatly admire our contemporary Jeannes d'Arc (or d'Newark) and their desire to challenge themselves in combat.  But I cannot possibly agree that it's good for the country when we put in harm's way the better, worthier half of our citizenry.  

Why Do I Stay Subscribed to Quora Digest?


Quora LogoThe truth is I have no idea why I receive Quora Digest emails.  I don't recall subscribing to the feed.  Of course, nowadays one can passively "accept" electronic deliveries of bullshit by failing to unclick some hidden option box.  I am certain, however, that  I'm not registered on Quora website.  I wouldn't.   

Quora, as in plural of Quorum – in the same way as Data is plural of Datum. It is basically a blogging hub masked as a Q&A platform: one registered person posts a question and all other registered contributors are invited to answer.  Strictly speaking, this unrestricted invitation to participate clashes with the name, which refers to "select groups."  Maybe the founders confused it with fora (the Latin plural of forum).  I don't know and I don't care: The whole concept reminds me of Coffee Talk with Linda Richman, when Mike Myers would get "all verklempt" and invite us to talk amongst ourselves by providing a discussion topic.        

Moreover, many things about Quora simply creep me out.  For instance, Quora's T&C state that contributors retain the copyright to their content.  Well, it's great that they threw that in, however, the enforcement appears to be highly problematic.  Questions posted to the site are open for editing by everyone.  This includes official editors and all registered users.  Users can also submit unlimited number of suggestions for editing the responses.  Therefore, the possibilities for modifications of the original material are endless.  The apparent absence of a solution for the copyright sharing basically nullifies the notion of IP protection.

It's weird that the site demands its users to register with their real names instead of handles and go through email verification.  It's not that I think people should hide, but they must remember that Quoara automatically releases users' names to the search engines.  We don't know whether the site gets some sort of fees in return, but it wouldn't surprise me if they do.  Just like it wouldn't surprise me if they intend to sell the subscribers' lists to other marketers as well.  But these are just my speculations.  In the absence of a clear mission statement, that's the only thing one can do – guess.  

In reality, the fact that Adam D'Angelo (CEO) doesn't seem to be interested in generating revenues makes me very suspicious of his actual intentions and motivations.  It seems only logical to suggest that they are spying on the contributors, studying their interests, behavioral patterns, and tastes in preparation for eventual commercialization of the site.  Or is it something even more sinister?  How the hell did they get a $900 million third-round valuation?  What sort of potential revenue this number is based on? 

As I said, it's creepy.  I don't even open Quora Digest emails.  But I'm not unsubscribing either – because of the subject line, which always shows the top question of the day.  I don't want to give up the opportunity to glance at it.  Most of the time, what I see reeks of laziness.  I mean, we live in the Internet age – go on Wikipedia or just google this banal crap!  But once in a while some amazing shit pops up. 

The other day I read: "How can you maximize your happiness in life?"  Wow!  Is this person for real?  60,000 antelopes just died in Kazakhstan for unknown reason and half of Europe is covered in water and mud, but this human is not only happy, he wants to bring the bliss to the next level!  Even crazier, he expects to receive constructive instructions from his fellow Quora members?!  Well, good luck with that!

Actually, it's not this kind of oddities that keep me looking.  I am more interested in patterns and trends.  For instance, recently I've noticed an increase in frequency of the questions concerning material self-sufficiency and economic survival.  Well, it's surprising that people on Quora don't talk about their inability to support themselves all the time.  I'm guessing that most of them consider bringing it up under their real names in front of the strangers embarrassing.  Nevertheless, the number of such queries is apparently spiking. 

Below are three questions I found to be most typical; with my brief comments (remember: I'm not subscribed, so I don't know the answers that followed; I can only provide my own):

1.  "What kind of salary guarantees comfortable living in NYC?"  What a terribly formulated question!  It should've come with a separate note explaining what "comfortable" means to the inquirer.  Cause, what's comfortable to a person fresh out of Idaho who has never spent more than $100 on a pair of shoes and considers a $350 Michael Kors bag a chic statement may mean financial misery to someone with a different background. 

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the questioner is single and actually meant comfortable, but not extravagant, i.e. a good one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan with no roommates; year-round pleasant climate control; full range of cable and streaming entertainments; cell and land phones; a car kept in a garage; designer coffee in a favorite shop; going out for drinks at least once a week; eat out twice a week; cooking with high quality ingredients; good cheese, wine, and fruit in the fridge; mid-range ($800-$1500) outfits; 2-3 new pairs of $500 shoes a year; one new $2000-$3000 bag a year, at least one annual vacation; a play and a concert once in a while.  And the answer is – $250K annual salary should do it, assuming the drinking is actually limited to once a week. 

And you thought that those who made $250K a year are rich?!  Not in this town, baby!

2.  "At Facebook and Google, why are many new CS graduates offered 120K+ with a 30-120K signing bonus while those with a few years experience are offered a baseline salary with no bonus?"  Well, the direct answer to this question is simple: Computer Science, in a sense, is like Medicine and Pharmacology – they continuously undergo major changes and developments.  I mean, double-entry bookkeeping was created 600 years ago and it will remain fundamental as long as accounting records will be needed on this planet.  On the other hand, today's standard surgical techniques were experimental only 5 years ago.  It happens even faster in high-tech where innovations occur pretty much on a monthly basis. 

While doctors never stop studying and researching, most (not all) computer engineers and programmers are not as motivated to stay on top of the game.  Those in training are taught the most up-to-date techniques and methods; they are subjected to the most recent trends.  And that's what Facebooks and Googles want – the newest and the freshest; in order to keep ahead of the rat race.  So, it's not about whether you graduated this year or five years ago – it's the set of skills you put on your resume.  Veteran coders who can match the knacks with 22-year-olds can demand pretty much the same level of compensation. 

But what interests me the most in this inquiry is its fiscal aspect.  There is no way the $120K/year new hires of Facebook and Google will be able to enjoy the comforts similar to those listed in point 1.  These companies operate largely in San Francisco Bay area, which, according to my observations of exactly 2 years ago, is even less affordable than NYC.  Of course, high-tech nerds of both sexes go to work in khakis and polo shirts and don't carry Prada bags to the office.  On the other hand, they buy more electronic devices than any other human and their coffee is far more expensive.  So, some corners will need to be cut.  

Obviously their lower-compensated older co-workers have even harder time (hence, the exasperation and the bitterness).  Let's hope that they are smart enough to share expenses with their partners/spouses and don't plan on having any kids.

3.  "I'm unemployed, broke, balding, living with my parents, about to turn 30, friendless, depressed, and miserable.  How can I possibly turn it around?"

Ah, and here we come to the reality of the vast majority.  This boy probably forgot to mention that he has a degree(s) in Liberal Arts and no practical skills.  The horde of young people in similar situations is ever-expanding.  They are so far removed from the idea of "comfortable" living that a $120K salary seems just as fantastic to them as a $3 million book advance or a $20 million per movie compensation package.

They were brought up on the illusion that in this Land of Opportunities they have the freedom of pursuing their interests in humanities and, "as long as they work hard," their "rightful" place in the economic system is guaranteed.  They failed to realize that this clinically dead ideal has been kept on life support by the tuition-hungry education institutions for years.  They probably still don't know that the economic system in question has been deformed and became unrecognizable, just like the sociopolitical structures, environmental conditions, and human relationships.

I can just imagine the answers elicited by this question.  They probably fell into two categories: the ones from the peers ("Dude, you are totally fucked!" or "I hear you, bro!") and the ones from the middle-aged politically correct deniers of reality ("It's okay, things will get better" or "There is nothing wrong with being bold").    

As for me, only a few years ago I would've still tried to be motivational and push my entrepreneurial agenda, urging this person to crystallize his aptitudes into a small business idea and work hard on making it happen for himself.  I used to say that if misplaced children of my peers went into landscaping, housekeeping, and maintenance businesses, it would've solved both the employment and the immigration problems in one sweep.  But now we operate under the most severe government interference in the small-business matters (minimum wages, Obamacare tolls, US Treasury restrictions on borrowing, etc.) and the number of illegal immigrants became unmanageable.  So, giving such an advice would be adding insult to injury.  All I can say is – you are totally fucked, dude!                            

Quote of the Week: A Tall Order for Minorities Everywhere


Scandal-301-rowan-reads-livRowan (Eli) Pope:  How many times did I tell you?!  You have to be what?!

Olivia Pope:  Twice as good as them to get a half of what they have.

                                                                 Scandal, Season 3, Episode 1

The Frustrated CFO's Comment: 

I'm not placing this excerpt into quotation marks.  First of all, it's not an exact citation – on screen it gets all broken up, because the characters interrupt each other with anger, frustration, exasperation, and all other similar feelings; Eli is yelling, and Liv is sort of shudders and attempts to shy away - all those over-the-top dramatics and stuff.  More importantly, though, it's not an original phrase.  Shonda Rhimes, who actually penned this episode herself, is brilliantly entertaining, but she didn't come up with this maxim.  Many African-American journalists, bloggers, and celebrities commented on its wide-spread popularity in their families and communities.  Some even tried to date it – 70s, 50s…

The truth is, however, this concept doesn't belong exclusively to black people of the United States.  In fact, everywhere around the world similar formulas are spoken in different languages to bright and promising children who will have to spend their lives jumping over the barriers raised in front of them for no other reason than their minority status: Kurds in Turkey, Chinese in Indonesia, Hui in China, Indians in Uganda, Rohingyas in Burma, Jews and Gypsies wherever they are, etc., etc., etc.   

Furthermore, the applicability of this mandate goes way beyond race and ethnicity.  The same mantra is adapted as a way of life by every marginalized overachiever even in our blessed land we call "Free Country:" women going into "men's" professions; immigrants with strong accents attempting to climb corporate ladders; members of LGBT community trying to get a job outside of the fashion and the entertainment industries; overweight and deformed individuals applying for any position; young talented people without connections trying to break into especially nepotistic fields – the list is long. 

Growing up a Jewish girl in one of the most anti-Semitic of European countries, I was barred from many professional careers and life opportunities.  And in those that were permissible, someone like me had one chance in a thousand.  My personal slogan was even more maximal: I had to be the best just to get in.  Was I able to completely shake off the disenfranchised complex after nearly three decades in America?  Fat chance!  For starters, I'm a woman…