Watch this first:

There is a serious problem with identifying the leftists as “liberals”. A liberal is someone who minds his own business and does his own thing, and expects others to do so as well, the only limitation to freedom being the point where you infringe upon the freedoms of others. In that sense, I am a liberal. They are not. They are outright fascists. There’s no place for verbal ambiguities there. They have massive overlap with movements like the Khmer Rouge, the Bolseviks, Maoists, Sendero Luminoso, and the NSDAP. The only reason why they don’t actually commit genocide is that they are still in the process of maneuvering into the position of power where they will be able to do so with impunity. I am absolutely convinced of that, because I have historically seen such movements and all of them were outright murderous and genocidal. Calling them “liberal” is such an incredible misnomer, one can only facepalm. They are the exact diametrical opposition to liberalism.

However, to be honest, when I called myself a liberal that was true only to a point, because my personal worldview is nowhere near as relativistic. If I would have to qualify it more precisely, I would say my worldview can be summed up by “do what you think is right, and pay the price”, because I don’t believe there is such a thing as a right to free speech, or that there is free anything, for that matter. If you speak lies, there will be consequences – your consciousness will drift away from reality, and your outward situation will reflect that. Also, if your lies offend people, they might do something about it, which also limits the concept of “freedom” of whatever is it that you want to do. If you speak the truth, there will also be consequences – basically, your consciousness will be more aligned with reality, but you might also offend liars and those who believe in falsehoods; and they, too, might choose to do something about it. The only way to avoid consequences is to live an utterly inconsequential life, but if you think that isn’t a consequence, you are sorely mistaken. In my worldview, you are judged by the harsh light of reality, and that which is of God will share destiny with God, while that which is false and evil will share destiny with nothingness. I always had contempt for the religious zealots who believe they have to kill people because they are the “enemies of God” as they see those things, as if God is powerless to kill his own enemies so they have to help him. That’s incredibly ridiculous. God has ways of dealing with scum. Trying to help God with justice is like trying to push Earth in order to help it spin. God doesn’t need you to help him with implementing justice. You need God in order to be aligned with justice. It’s impossible to be righteous if your consciousness isn’t in God. That’s the fundamental flaw of all those false moralists who are all basically atheists, and who in their conceit think they can be moral without God, and even want to kill everyone who disagrees with their pathetic “moral” views, usually based on “equality”, as the most pathetic of all concepts, because that’s what you come up with when you lack any moral compass whatsoever. So, my “liberal” approach is to tell you that you are free to explore reality and choose whatever path, but God is reality and illusion is deadly, and whatever you do, there will be a price. Offend evil by choosing God, there will be a price. Offend God by choosing evil, there will be a price. Try not to offend anyone and you will be inconsequential trash that will be taken out and recycled in the end.

How we lost freedom

It was a slippery slope.

Initially we had freedom of speech that was the core value of our civilization.

Then they came and said that isn’t right; if there aren’t limits on the freedom of speech, should the Nazis also be allowed to speak? Should holocaust deniers be allowed to speak? There should be limits to freedom.

Then laws were introduced that limited free speech for Nazis, holocaust deniers and “hate speech”, which was initially defined as calls for violence against groups of people based on their collective identity.

Then the “Nazis” were defined as “anyone who doesn’t agree with me”, the concept of “holocaust deniers” was expanded to encompass “deniers” of any kind of “accepted truth”, however flimsy, in order to protect weak ideas and beliefs from need to be defended by reason and evidence. “Hate speech” was extended to mean “any kind of speech that makes anyone feel uncomfortable”.

So now we no longer have freedom of speech, and soon we won’t have freedom of any kind, at all, because we are already locked down, and anyone speaking out is a “denier”, and apparently to deny the official narrative of corrupt politicians, journalists and “scientists” who are a propaganda arm of big industry, that’s a thoughtcrime comparable to eating small children.

Imposing any kind of limitations on the freedom of speech was a terrible mistake. Nazis are fully within their right to say what they think. You are fully within your right to disagree with them. Also, if someone verbally commits something that is an actual crime, prosecutable by actual laws, for instance crying “fire” in a theatre, or inciting a crowd to murder someone or damage his property, those are not things that need to be solved by restricting freedom of speech. They can be easily dealt with using normal laws. If normal laws cannot be applied, it means it was impossible to demonstrate a causal relationship between verbal incitement and actual physical harm. Also, it is very difficult to categorically state that it is universally wrong to preach against entire groups bound by similar characteristics. If we can see logic in preaching against drug cartels or totalitarian states, we can also see why this should be extended by allowing one to preach against any kind of life-choice, behavioral pattern or in fact religion or race. As far as I’m concerned, KKK is fully within their right to preach against Africans, and Africans are fully within their right to prove them wrong. Nazis are fully within their right to preach against the Jews calling them an inferior race, and the Jews are fully within their right to show them the stats about Nobel prize winners per race, which demonstrates that, if anything, they are the superior race. That’s how the marketplace of ideas works – you say something, and then someone else counters your arguments with something that’s either correct or foolish, making you look either like an ass, or like someone who actually has a point. If someone thinks his arguments are too weak to win against the Nazis and the holocaust deniers in the open marketplace of ideas, then he’s the one with a problem, because if they are so wrong that they should not be allowed to speak at all, then it should be very easy to let them speak, and then expose the facts and make them look like complete fools.

After all, it’s not like “hate speech” is something that is universally abhorred. It’s perfectly allowed, as long as it’s against the “right” target. The movie “Lethal weapon II” is pure hate speech and slander against the Republic of South Africa, probably devised because America was having a financial problem with RSA selling the enormous amount of gold from the Witwatersrand Basin, which amounted to 22% of all the gold ever mined, in the history of mankind, on the world’s market, in form of Krugerrands. From what it looks like to me now, the entire “apartheid” issue was a CIA active measure against RSA, to limit their access to the world’s market and the resulting change of balance in the financial sector, since America moved away from gold in the 1970s and had a problem with its resurgence, especially if someone else controlled it. This is a very cynical interpretation of American “fight for human rights” across the globe, and postulates that whenever America wants to suppress an economic or political adversary, this or that human rights violation will be invented as a justification, in order to rally the well-meaning idiots behind its imperialistic cause. It’s always some children that will cry unless America bombs some state or prevents it from selling cheaper gas, oil or gold to the market where America wants to sell their overpriced goods. Basically, Krugerrands are racist and Russian gas is not democratic.

So hate speech is obviously fine – you are allowed to hate the “Nazis”, the “racists”, the “deniers” of official ideology, the Chinese, the Russians and the white people. You’re just not allowed to hate the people in power and their ideology, because that will get you “deplatformed” and “un-personed”.

So, tell me, how many of you have heard of the Witwatersrand Basin and how much gold was actually found in there? I knew there was lots gold in the RSA, of course, but I had no idea how much until very recently, and then it clicked – the time that gold was massively exported abroad coincides exactly with the time when the entire media industry and all sorts of celebrities started making propaganda about poor black people being oppressed in the RSA and calling for international sanctions against the “corrupt” and “racist” regime there, presenting it as if the blacks were the indigenous people of the RSA, and the whites came and robbed/enslaved them and it’s a huge injustice. In fact, nobody lived there before the white people came. It was a wasteland. Then the Europeans came, made it into a paradise, found ways to mine useful minerals, grow food and basically make it look like Europe, and it created so many jobs that the blacks from all parts of Africa migrated there because the living conditions were so much better. The Europeans didn’t like the concepts of all those black overrunning the little paradise they made for themselves there, and made rules that allowed the Africans to work there and be paid fairly, but were not allowed to participate in politics of what was basically a white European country, which was all very much in line with the politics that were in place in the American South in the 60s, implemented by the Democratic party (which BTW is to the KKK what Sinn Féin is to the IRA). Then they made a mistake of exporting too much gold in form of Krugerrands into the world market, the CIA didn’t like it, did their psyop, RSA government tried to appease them by removing the apartheid measures, and now RSA is in the process of devolving into a typical African shithole run by corrupt tribal fuckwits who think AIDS can be treated with garlic and raping virgin girls, and all their problems can be solved by robbing white people.

So, how did we lose our freedom? Was it when we decided that “Nazis” should not be allowed to speak, or was it something deeper, more insidious, like accepting the concept of universal human rights as a supreme civilizational value, when it was in fact pushed – if not outright invented – by the CIA, as a method of pressure on the rival powers? Or did we lose our freedom by blindly following the propagandists who took over the emptied platform once occupied by the Church? In any case, as in any totalitarian system, we are free to criticize the enemies of the regime in power all we want, and we are free to praise the ruling ideology all we want. For anything else, we will be swiftly and cruelly punished. And oh-by-the-way, we now also aren’t allowed to work, move freely and are basically under house arrest, because someone’s granny will die and children will look at us with tearful accusatory eyes if we drive cars, have money, or in fact exist.

Lights off, but buy a Tesla

The EU is implementing new 2016-2019 laws, designed to “save energy”, among other things by turning off the lights in businesses overnight. To quote a site that commented on it:

“The European Commission’s snappily-titled “Ecodesign Working Plan 2016 – 2019” will require all light fixtures and accessories sold after September 2020 to meet improved efficiency targets. In the previous version of the rules, studio and theatre lighting was exempt from the targets, as long as the lights designed for this purpose were not used domestically. But this exemption has now gone missing.”


Basically, replace all the tungsten filament light sources with LED because nature and ecology and electricity is precious, but we are supposed to believe their propaganda about switching our ICE cars to electric. Let’s all buy electric cars, because electricity is green and abundant, and fossil fuels are evil.

If you believe they won’t pass a law restricting private ownership and use of electric cars, being the worst “pollutants” and “waste” of energy as soon as people transition to them, you obviously haven’t been paying attention.

Access to precious metals might be restricted

I found out today that a major Chinese bank is prohibiting its customers from buying precious metals, citing some bullshit “concerns”. Basically, for the good of their children.

HSBC and JP Morgan are blacklisting Perth mint, citing some bullshit “concerns“. Some children somewhere are suffering and they can’t stand it.

The real reason is that the major banks and the states want all the gold for themselves, at these cheap prices, and if the people are allowed to get into gold too quickly, the prices will rise and the market will dry up. I expect some AML law to be passed restricting or outright outlawing purchases of precious metals by the citizenry, because precious metals are bad things used for money laundering, financing of terrorism, tax evasion and poor children will cry if you buy gold, so only an evil person would have it.

So, basically, buy it while you can, unless you are a complete fool, and if you buy the bullshit the states and banks are telling you, you deserve no better than the fate they have in store for you. If you want to not be a slave, prepare to see yourself as a criminal and a terrorist, because that’s where this is going. You’re either a slave, or a criminal and a terrorist. You’ll be left with no middle ground. Obey their laws and be ruined.

PS.: If you think I’m being paranoid, watch this: