Chilean saltpeter mining experience, not technocratic expertise, may explain its effective macroeconomic management of resource wealth

Why is Chile an exception to the rule among non-Western countries, whose macroeconomic management of resource wealth enables natural resources-based growth without high inflation or Dutch Disease?

Chile is commonly held up as a model for other countries which may exploit volumes of resource wealth which are relatively large compared to the size of the economy. Often, resource wealth is managed poorly, and in particular it causes either high inflation (which erodes buying power of citizens and firms) and/or an increase in the exchange rate (which makes the rest of the economy uncompetitive and thus reduces long-term growth).

This high quality macroeconomic management in Chile is often presented as reflecting some sort of technical acumen, or possibly high quality governance including entrenched independence of macroeconomic managers (who have a mandate), from political interference. Specifically, Chile sequesters most resource wealth into a special fund which it draws from in a predictable manner, preventing inflation and excessive exchange rate appreciation.

Without reducing the value of the Chilean example in effective macroeconomic management of financial proceeds from significant resource wealth – numerous African countries are routinely encouraged to pay attention to the Chilean example -, the following may be interesting to note: exploitation of major saltpeter deposits in the early 1900s caused so much inflation, that real wages of workers declined over the 2-generation period of time between 1900 and 1938 (Mathus, 2012).

Chilean technocrats of the 1980s and 1990s were not, by some special genius or technical expertise (for example related to capitalist views compared to neighbours, or former dictatorial leadership), introduced to the notion that resource wealth must be managed effectively in order for there to be actual gains in the long run. The country had already had its own historical experience of declining actual wellbeing as a direct result of significant natural resource exploitation in an absence of effective macroeconomic management.

Posted in Business and entrepreneurship, Development, Economics, History, International, Political science | Leave a comment

How to arrive at a result that says cannabis “causes” violence when the opposite is (?) the case

The following relates to a study of teenagers who’d been taken to a mental hospital and told they were mentally ill, and then compares the frequency of recorded physical altercations between those who had previously smoked pot and those who had not. In this group, those who had previously smoked pot were more likely to have a non-zero frequency of a documented physical altercation in the next 12 months.

The authors conclude that cannabis causes violence. (I’m not linking to the study.)


a) If you’re going to think I’m crazy anyways, then why not act crazy? This could be habit forming in a sense and explain the results. If you’ve ever been a teenager or met a teenager, you may be able to understand that this is a pretty reasonable claim. Sure, you can try to patronize me or humiliate me in numerous ways to try to force the result of abandoning “crazy” behaviour, but in teenagers this could easily cause lashing out, depression, or other such things.

b) The fact of being illegal puts much of the trade into the hands of organized crime, which then increases the probability of trade-related violence.

c) If you i) believe the study result at face value and ii) apply it in biased manner in real world decisions (e.g., to assume that the “causal” relationship would apply to every single case, as opposed to, say, the 1% of cases identified as different), then your own natural mental defects related to processing bias, etc., will at the very least cause the result to be exaggerated, because the individual who has previously smoked cannabis is more likely to get a record for the same act that another person wouldn’t.

I personally believe that cannabis causally operates in the other direction (less, not more, violence prone). All of the above explanations show how that can be true even if the statistical results are factually correct with respect to i) considering the subset who’d received a diagnostic opinion of mental illness followed by ii) the differential of recorded incidents of physical altercation between those who’d smoked pot before and not, in particular due to the effects of b) and c).

If you cannot acknowledge the direction of effect, if not necessarily the relative magnitude, of b) and c) — not necessarily in a paper, although I think you should, but I mean internally, in your head, understand that this is OBVIOUSLY the case — then you (researchers) shouldn’t be within 1000 miles of telling people who’s defective and/or why.

Posted in Arts, media & society, Courts/police/justice, Philosophy, Policy, Science | Leave a comment

“Compelled speech always feels inherently totalitarian”

Quoting the Canadian Constitution Federation (as published in the foreign-owned newspaper that printed the entire front cover in favour of a specific party and delivered it across the country in the last election, but which is losing money well into the millions per month):

Compelled speech always feels inherently totalitarian—even when the speech that’s being compelled reflects values you sincerely believe

Posted in Arts, media & society, Courts/police/justice, Political philosophy | Leave a comment

Pain/reward stimuli responses have biophysical bases – therefore the robotic humanoid should welcome what potential they might be permitted within a system controlled on the basis of highly refined (data-intensive and) oppressive psychosocial control

Unedited reflections on efforts to induce robot-esque self image based on biophysical reality of pain/reward response, which I do not believe I have effectively addressed elsewhere:

Consistent with many hypnotic-related psychological warfare and brainwashing strategies, this in no small part revolves around promoting openness to suggestion (always in a way which dehumanizes or degrades the individual, regardless of whether some specific fixations or infatuations are used to suggest that habituation to following such suggestion would “get you what you want”).

The aspect of its having to involve acquiescence to a subservient attitude (which may be cased within an outwardly defiant attitude) towards WHAT EVER might control the technological means of string pulling is important for understanding which psychological stakes may be (or have been) at play. But, in a particular temporal context the specific aspect of promoting GENERIC OK-ness with subservience on the basis of there being a biophysical reality which underpins pain /reward systems, is interesting. (How widespread? Would such puppets be presumed of generic use-ability only in the geographical vicinity, or might others, allied or otherwise, be anticipated to enjoy use of such programmed robotic humanoids, on the occasion of their geographic relocation? Why, or what sort of basis(es) of apparent certainty, regarding apparent indifference to being “found out”?)


Presumably people who are less educated in related fields of study would respond to such a treatment with something to the effect of “I dunno, maybe I guess there’s something kind of to that, but obviously you’re supremely fucking with me, and that’s the part I know”.

However, when you have good understanding of what biophysical bases may underlie “robot training” or “pro-puppetry enforcement” that may be related to psychological persuasion – to serve as a robotic humanoid (human puppet) on the suggested rationale of that biophysical basis being real – the decision is more difficult. Clearly the perpetrator of such tortures who tries to justify them on such a biophysical basis has more opportunity to learn how to refine their tortures when tormenting those with ability to understand said biophysical bases of pain/reward response.

One may choose to eschew all additional related knowledge in order to reduce (i.e., not increase) the capacity of the perpetrator to inflict their mental tortures designed to enforce acceptance of ongoing mental programming being inflicted upon an individual. One may also choose to seek significant additional knowledge on the subject, to see if there might be some way out of the trap(s) being laid within one’s mind over months and years. (The middle ground of learning a bit, but not a lot, is also possible.)

Basically, this post is to try to communicate a sort of mental torture treatment which is intended to cause an individual to believe that the reality where there is a biophysical basis of pain/reward response, which is at play when one trains a dog or a horse, itself constitutes the reason that one should not only tolerate as not un-natural, but even WELCOME the treatment and acknowledge it as a legitimate and OK act. There is truthiness (and truth) about the assertion related to biophysical reality, and therefore it should be internalized as real, natural, proper, and something that you should be OK with, despite your new role as the de facto robotic humanoid who would presuppose an OK-ness with generalized dehumanization and non-self-control.

For example, you observe a squirrel come to where the food is. So there’s something biophysical there. And if you jump at it, it will run away. Therefore we are all sort of pre-programmed automatons responding to pain/reward stimuli. And not really human. Like, human, but more like robotic humanoids who, at the push of the right buttons, will basically do whatever are induced to do.

Without wanting to debate the specific biophysical aspects of this, which I remain only peripherally knowledgeable about, the particular point involves leveraging knowledge of the non-zero truth to there being a biophysical basis for pain/reward conditioning to affect decisions made by humans – and specifically, from there to promote the notion that such robotic humanoids, for example yourself, should naturally be OK with viewing themselves in this no-self-control robotic humanoid self conception.

At some point in the future, I would like to do a better job of trying to describe this particular type of dehumanizing torture in a way that is not readily appropriated for negative uses, but which may enable victims to sufficiently put words to such experiences, for example towards the prevention of such pro-puppetry mental tortures in the future.


If someone proposes anything to the effect of “you are a robotic-like humanoid, therefore it’s natural and OK for you to let me control you”, don’t buy that shit. 

(However, if someone knows you like a particular food (for example) and brings it to you with the stated or otherwise obvious intent to positively impact your day, the possibility of a general expectation of reciprocation (or perhaps you are then asked for a favour related to your specific skillsets or interests) even when they genuinely appreciate that you will enjoy that item … well, that’s just not the same thing as a trained torturer using neuroweapons to try to puppet you, is it?)

Posted in Arts, media & society, Economics, pure theory, Epistemology, Philosophy, Philosophy, spiritual, Physics, Quotidian, Science, Web and computing | Leave a comment

High quality argumentation: Pro-freedom edition

Serve as protector of non-bias, for example by filling the head with nothing in order to prevent thoughts which may be arrived at independently.

Seek to enforce black/white alternatives of abandoning a course of action or engaging in an orchestrated alternative.

Must subvocalize what is insisted to subvocalize, when insisted to subvocalize, or (in)voluntary interlocutor is biased.

You’re biased unless you agree that a future which is ignorant of some presently-valued thing implies that the presently valued thing is not to be valued.

Polar bears must be evaluated at zero worth or you’re biased.

Balanced presentation involves enforcement of exclusively sympathetic presentation of one perspective and elimination of sympathetic presentation from the other.

The general nature of a subject cannot be understood without seeking/identifying comparatively minor sub-items to fixate on. After which boxing in, to attempt to enforce black/white reasoning involving its representation as the sum, or sum value, of alternatives.

If everything can be boiled down to one or two fixations external to general groupings, then it will be easier to understand complex issues.

Repeatedly promote suicide (including with visual demonstrations) as alternative to thinking what told to think.

Failing to perform an ideological Turing test, on demand, for whatever subject is proposed means that you’re biased.

General unwillingness to consider the “What is it?” of a communication or subject, in preference for “How can I transform this into propaganda?”

Posted in Arts, media & society, Courts/police/justice, Epistemology, Philosophy, Physics, Policy, Political philosophy, Political science, Quotidian, Science, Web and computing | Leave a comment

My Chineseness

For maximum strategic advantage, when engaged in remotely applied covert hostilities over extended periods of time, be sure to project an faint accompanying image of one’s ethnic identification to assist the recipient of the hostilities to identify those responsible. This will be beneficial for the entity initiating/perpetrating such hostilities.


(Edit: I should probably remove this stupid post, because it will make me look dumb.)

Posted in Arts, media & society, Economics, pure theory, Physics, Quotidian, Science, Web and computing | Leave a comment

In order to prevent danger of losing, get with this guy

If it’s not going to get me more F35s or convince other people that remote control of their brains is good for both them and everyone, then it’s a stupid idea. And anyone who disagrees with me is either brainwashed, biased or stupid.

Posted in Arts, media & society, Courts/police/justice, Economics, pure theory, Epistemology, International, Political philosophy, Political science, Quotidian, Science, Web and computing | Leave a comment

If you don’t (whatever I try to force), then you’re (whatever I say)

If you won’t (be OK to) feel what I want you to feel, when I want you to feel it, that means you’re a psychopath (as proven by the non-feeling-ness).

If you won’t (be OK to) think what I want you to think when I want you to think it, that means you’re guilty of whatever I say (as proven by refusal to defend oneself).


Be smart. Help yourself. Feel what I want you to feel when I want you to feel it. Think what I want you to think when I want you to think it.

By which means to achieve freedom from all things which constrain your mind and soul.


And finally, if you do whatever I say, you will be powerful. First, do whatever I say (via reverse and/or double reverse psychology methods only). Then, you will become powerful.

Posted in Arts, media & society, Courts/police/justice, Economics, pure theory, Philosophy, Physics, Political philosophy, Quotidian, Science, Web and computing | Leave a comment

Stockholm Syndrome programming: Any ‘push you down’, to then offer a hand up while implying the debt of gratitude that will bring return favours

For example, if someone’s trying to accomplish some particular thing, have some way to screw them up while they work on it – and then present oneself to save the day in some way that demeans the individual while promoting their habituation to dependence and/or belief of strong gratitude owed. Or maybe, just straight up orchestrate for someone to trip themselves into the dirt when they aren’t paying attention, then with a grand smile offer to help them up.

The return favours that could repay the debt of gratitude for being helped out of the mud, or to overcome barriers intentionally erected by others for such purposes, could be minor things — for example, internally complying with mandatory pre-disposition to accept and be grateful about such Stockholm Syndrome programming cycles of abusive degradation and faux benevolence. Such return favours could in some fortunate cases be particularly appreciable if the recipient of such benevolence can reassure their benefactor of their intent to “pass it on.”

Alternatively, some individuals may fail to learn or internalize the benevolence, and for which reason sufficiently repeated and varying cycles of abusive degradation and faux benevolence may be required until the individual achieves the ability to internalize their gratitude – or, if not gratitude, micro-compliance at the level of thought and action may suffice.

(P.S.: Any Stockholm Syndrome programming endeavours related to the origins of this post were of pure benevolence, exclusively for the purpose of assisting third parties to understand such situations better, specifically, by near-continuous efforts at Stockholm Syndrome programming, so that other people can be helped by getting the message of what it might be. And certainly, one might safely assume that any ongoing and/or future attempted Stockholm Syndrome programming, whether here and now or in any other time and place, can be interpreted in a similar light.)

Posted in Arts, media & society, Courts/police/justice, Economics, pure theory, Philosophy, Physics, Political philosophy, Quotidian, Science, Web and computing | Leave a comment

“How many targeted individuals?”

Estimates seem to range between a few hundred thousand and a few million. A YouTube video even said so, so probably it’s true.

This number suggests somewhere in the range of tens or hundreds of millions of active perpetrators.

But think, if targets are spending a lot of their time not being out and about, then the numbers would seem additionally different. Say, there’s 10,000 targets and 100,000 perps (who may not necessarily have anything specifically against you, but via “any-in-the-world-gets-a-copy-of-your-buttons logic” such a number may be “appropriable” for practical purposes at any given moment). But, targets stay in more often and perps are often out stalking, harassing, etc. people.

Say, in a given week, 10,000 targets spend 4 hours out of their house (specifically, in public places, which can be basically wherever it is that a target might go to other than work and home). And say that each perpetrator, perhaps even a poor one, goes out every night (perhaps nursing a single coffee or beer for hours while out), or goes for very extended walks basically with the intent to seek out victims who can be fucked with – to the tune of 20 hours a week out in public.

With 40,000 hours out among targeted individuals compared to 2,000,000 hours among perps, now you’re not at just 10 times the numbers, but instead at 50 times the number. So in the meantime, 97% of the population remains essentially uninvolved in intentional persistent stalking, harassment, and more broadly seeking means of coercion and/or intimidation, etc., over individuals. (Meanwhile some additional relevant share of the population remains non-zero open to following influences remotely applied by microwave pulse modulations, with non-zero notion that there is something roughly of such scientific and social relevance at play, BUT, importantly, not generally with the intent to be spending large portions of their time going around seeking victims, such as under degrees of motivation related to “cause stalking” – feminists, mysogynists, supremacists, anti-racists, religionists of various types, etc.).

2,000,000 hours : 40,000 hours = 50:1.

In short, for every hour a target is out, with the numbers of this scenario, there is the equivalent of 50 hours of human time to engage in psychological campaigns against a target, which gives LOTS and LOTS of time for miscalculation — such as you go a different way than expected or the route is excessively inconvenient for the perpetrator who is induced to consider the option of rerouting which would bring them to your predicted location in some minutes time — and instead on average you’re only mobbed by 5-10 people at a time instead of the 50:1 underlying availability (in this case, 80-90% of which time remains unused for many stretches of seconds or minutes, while perpetrators transit and/or prepare for other potential victimization opportunities).


(Note: I do not suggest that this logic necessarily implies that one should put oneself in positions where others are likely to intentionally victimize a targeted individual for some additional hours per week, such as by going out of one’s way to spend lots of time at high-traffic locations where perpetrators may spend a lot of their time ‘victim hunting’ and/or participating in psychological campaigns against individuals. However, if a targeted individual is faced with such a 50:1 situation, which might start to seem like EVERYONE, then the above-mentioned calculus may assist in achieving a reduced sense of being overwhelmed, or of being broadly deterred in the process of preventing one’s social and economic annihilation for example by maintaining social networks and accessing/creating productive economic opportunity.)


Considering the numbers more locally, let’s say that there are 100,000 people in your neighbouring vicinity (this is common in many cities). If you have a simplistic representation with 1000 perps and 100 targets among these people, then perpetrators only need to be actively harassing 10-20% of the time (during their periods of time out in public places) in order to maintain a continuous mobbing coverage by 5-10 people at a time on each target (during their periods of time out in public places).

Say, for each perp there are 10 things that they are into harassing people about. And, say there are 5 perps. Among the 20-30 total number of different things they are into harassing people about, probably a few of them will be related to one or more among multiple psychological campaigns presently being orchestrated against a target. So from there, you basically have a constant campaign against a target any time they are out, partly tailored to that individual, selecting from the sets of “would do” or “would say” things of the “would-be-perps” in the proximity.


I have an image/figure that is somewhat related to this at I’m assuming that the reader can adjust the scenario in that image to different situations, to understand how a computer might be used to maintain some variety of psychological campaigns against many individuals on a nearly continuous basis without all that many people at its disposal.

Posted in Arts, media & society, Courts/police/justice, Economics, pure theory, History, International, Physics, Political philosophy, Quotidian, Science, Web and computing | Leave a comment