Логика доводов белых консерваторов против КРТ неверна и опасна

Я наслаждаюсь беспомощной агонией Fox News, вызванной Критической Расовой Теорией, КРТ, отражающей полное непонимание последствий их логики. У этих глубоких мыслителей есть несколько аргументов в пользу того, почему КРТ ошибочна. Я не буду приводить их все, но самые странные для меня. 1) У нынешнего белого населения США нет рабов. 2) Большая часть белого населения пришла после того, как рабство было запрещено. 3) Черное население и любая другая часть населения теперь не рабы. 4) Большая часть черного населения не имеет отношения к людям, находящимся в рабстве ...

На первый взгляд, эти аргументы выглядят очень убедительно. Говорят открыто и громко - мы не несем ответственности за прошлое, и люди, живущие сейчас, не имеют отношения к прошлому. Мы сожалеем о своем прошлом, но оно в прошлом.

Почему не работает логика? Белое население сейчас не является большинством. Представьте себе, что большая часть населения США совершит геноцид против белого меньшинства когда-нибудь в будущем, и скажет в стиле современных консерваторов: "Наши еще не родившиеся дети не несут ответственности за этот геноцид. Прошлое осталось в прошлом." Немцы уже проделали такую ​​уловку и ушли без реальной денацификации. Англосаксы делали это много раз. По сути, они убивают ни в чем не повинных людей во всем мире без каких-либо угрызений совести. Поэтому все они заслуживают каждую минуту КРТ. И будущее покажет чего они еще достойны. Волна КРТ это освежающий поток для англо-саксонских воров, разбойников и пиратов, как назвал их Марк Твен.

Why white conservatives' logic on the CRT is wrong

 I am enjoying the Fox News helpless agony induced by the CRT, reflecting the total misunderstanding of the consequences of their logic. These deep thinkers have a few arguments for why the CRT is wrong. I will not present all of them, but the most strange for me. 1) The current US white population has no slaves. 2) A larger part of the white population came after slavery was prohibited. 3) The black population and any other part of the population now are not slaves. 4)  A large part of the black population has no relevance to the people subject to slavery ... 

At first glance, these arguments look very convincing. They say open and loud - we are not responsible for the past and the people living now have no relation to the past. We regret our past, but it is in the past.

Why does logic not work? The white population is not the majority now. Imagine that the bigger part of the US population makes a genocide against the white minority sometime in the future, and say — our not-yet-born children are not responsible for this genocide. The past is in the past.  Germans already made such a trick and got away without real denazification. Anglo-Saxons made this many times. Essentially, they kill innocent people all over the world without any remorse.  Therefore, they deserve each minute of the CRT. 

The most dangerous feature of renewable energy becomes even more threatening

Shimmy effect was always the principal problem of renewable energy. Shimmy was introduced as a term to describe a visible or tactile shake of a weel, sometimes with increasing amplitude leading to mechanical damage.  (Shimmy is also a jazz dance.) The effect of still weather and lower insolation in 2021 led to a dramatic fall in wind and solar energy production - up to 30% relative to the previous year. This fall was not expected as one can judge by a catastrophic increase in the electricity price in 2021. The amplitude of 30% is a huge one considering that this is not the largest possible amplitude. having a measured fall of 30% one can expect 50% in the worst years. This will stress the economic system more than now. The opposite extreme of a +50% renewable energy spike is even more dangerous for the economy - it will kill the energy production industry - from coal to nuclear. The economy will not be able to compensate for the next 30% fall which is very likely as we observe it now.  The shimmy effect cannot be designed out of the system but has to be damped by some mechanism counteracting the disturbing force. In other words, one needs a reliable source of energy that can compensate for at least a 50% fall in renewable energy production. The larger is the share of renewable energy, the large is the size of the reliable energy source to compensate for the variations in renewable energy. For a 100% of Renew. Energy in a given country one needs a source to compensate for 50% of it. 

Essentially: “My dear, here we must run as fast as we can, just to stay in place. And if you wish to go anywhere you must run twice as fast as that.”

EU : energy crisis threatens people's lives

 EU has a problem. No natural gas to heat homes. Homes of laypeople. Electricity is too expensive. Even in France, where ~71% of electricity is produced by nuclear power stations. Disaster is approaching with winter weather. Why? How could it happen? 

I wrote a post about the wrong risk assessment. It was the first thing when one learns management at a basic level. There is a risk assessment scale that allows comparing the cost of various outcomes. Like: 1) winter is warm and no extra energy source is needed to reserve for some additional cost. 2) winter is cold and a lot of energy has to be reserved. The first option looks cheap and efficient. The second option seems to be costly and inefficient. Having 1 cold winter from 10, one should definitely go for the first option. This is wrong.  There is an opportunity that the cost of the cold winter is much higher than 100 of warm. The risk assessment means that one defines the score or weight of a negative outcome compared to the losses related to extra energy reservation. Laypeople will suffer to death this winter. This is an indispensable loss. The energy crisis is a life-threatening crisis. 

This is due to the wrong risk assessment which is clear for the 3rd-grade pupils. Politicians are above the laypeople, of course. Obviously, politicians and the Greens will not switch off their heating devices this winter. One needs to develop a special technical solution how to test all decisions on the people who propose them. This would be extremely helpful in the risk assessment. 

Democracy is the power of citizens, not the power of people

Democracy is the power of citizens, that is, the owners of private property, including slaves (ancient Greece). The current Western democracy is the power of 1 billion over the remaining 6 billion of the world's population. It is a Greek dream - every citizen should have at least five slaves. The other *cracy is the power of various parts of citizens, factions, over the rest of non-citizens and the unlucky part of citizens. The power of all citizens is exercised through the suppression machine - the police. The question of power is a question of who pays the police and who controls it. Who implements the violence and for whose money and privileges. The police, that is, the entire system of suppression in the state and society is the mechanism for exercising power. Power is the protection of property, which includes non-citizens. Unlucky factions of citizens also have property that is protected but to a lesser extent. For example, Biden shut down a Canadian pipeline as soon as he came to power.

In modern Western democracy, the people, consisting of citizens and non-citizens, differing in the presence of sufficient property, have the right to choose who represents the interests of citizens. Citizens have, have, and will have factions with different goals. The struggle between factions sometimes leads to the emergence of other forms of power - from monarchy to democracy. Non-citizens are a resource for the struggle of fractions of citizens within one country for power, but non-citizens practically cannot fight for power without external help.

In the United States, a rather large part of the Republicans, as well as migrants, have now become non-citizens. In the United States, there is a struggle, apparently, of three factions for power over the rest of the citizens and non-citizens. First of all, this struggle is expressed in a fierce battle for the police. The reduction in funding and the destruction of the Police is aimed at reformatting it for the interests of one of the factions. For example, the attorneys general of some states do not open criminal cases against special categories of the population under the articles of robbery, violence, resistance to the police during arrest ... In fact, a war is going on in the United States between fractions of citizens, that is, a civil war. Democracy has nothing to do with this war, as the result will be a new faction of citizens in power, or an old faction of citizens that will rule the United States will remain. Democracy, as a word for the power of citizens, will remain. Governance in a democracy is the preservation and enhancement of the private property of the winning faction. What else to fight for? The rest of the factions are gathering strength and waiting. It is in the interests of other countries to support the losing factions so that the struggle for power within the United States continues. In a sense, civil war in various forms is always going on in democratic countries, since the composition of private property and the personal composition of factions is dynamically changing, creating the preconditions for continuous conflict. Foreign states, represented by the fractions of citizens that govern them, are always ready to help in the struggle of others and to get their own benefit.

In Russia, people who were not a faction of Russian citizens came to power in October 1917. The factions of citizens failed to identify the winner and all lost. Various forms of property, which had to be protected by force, tried to fund non-citizens for their own purposes, but could not cope. The goal of the new government of non-citizens (they did not have sufficient private property to protect) was the power of soviets, that is, the participation of all people as citizens in owning property, financing, and managing the police as an apparatus for protecting all property. It is no coincidence that it was called the "peoples militia" since the police are a violent organ run by citizens. Societs' power in the USSR ended in 1991, when the entire people fulfilled their civil (formally, everyone owned everything and protected all property) and voted (indeed, one person - one vote) the way they voted. There was no civil war, as there were no citizens with private property to lose. In 1993, such citizens have already appeared and Russia was on the verge of a civil war for the property of new Russian citizens. Now in Russia, there is civil society - there are factions of citizens with the interests of protecting their property, part of which is located abroad, which leads to pressure from foreign states on Russia.

Western countries: politicians demonstrate comprehensive failure in risk assessment

The most recent events in Western countries demonstrate that the political leadership is not ready to assess the risk of the modern world. The Evergreen blockage of the Suez channel was just an early bird with the aftermath one can observe now, in several months after the event. The number of ships in the ports worldwide is piling up.  The weather in Europe and the US demonstrated that the system response is far from adequate with numerous casualties. Germany has a bad time with hundreds of lives lost. The energy crisis came not from the east but from the failure to assess the risks associated with green energy variability and the change in global demand.  Energy is a market good and the market is open for manipulations. The political leadership failed to understand that all boundary conditions in this world are changing. For decades, the fight between the West and East, between capitalism and socialism, between colonialism and free countries, etc. created a stable boundary separating the West from the risks associated with known threats. The threats have been changing since the USSR break. The Soviet Union broke because of the wrong risk assessment. It's the West's turn.