Why I don’t comment on the current political situation?

The Muslims are killing people around Europe. They are attempting rapes here, in Zagreb, Croatia, almost on a daily basis, because someone apparently imported the motherfuckers from Afghanistan.

If I wrote what I actually think should happen, I’d end up in jail, because everything constructive that ought to be done is against some law or another. So, I’ll write nothing, but you can read between the lines.

In America, the communists are taking over the streets, and the right-wing countermeasures are timid and weak. That’s logical and is to be expected, because the right-wing people have jobs and families, and better things to do. The communists, however, are either students or on welfare, so that’s why they don’t see the relationship between constructive effort and money, which is also why communism makes sense to them, because they think money grows on some tree and someone just happened to get more instead of them, which isn’t fair. So, basically, the politicians get to think that the communists are more worth appeasing because there’s more of them on the streets, however the right-wing people with jobs pay most of the taxes, so this appearance is deceptive.

Also, there’s been much talk about alt-right, extreme right, Nazis and what not. First of all, the Nazis are not even on the right spectrum. The right spectrum are the laissez-faire people who have their own business to run, and they expect the state to handle defense, laws, courts and police, and fuck off regarding everything else. They don’t need policing because they believe in God, so they are self-disciplined. They believe God is the source of all law and morality, and will punish transgressors in afterlife. They believe their duty is to take care of their community and to rely on personal relationships in times of hardship. Basically, they don’t give a single fuck about the state. The left spectrum are the people who see the state as a God-substitute, which should do everything that “ought to” be done. They imagine some ideal world where everybody is equal, nobody is sick or hungry or poor, and they see it as the duty of the state to make sure that laws are passed and enforced that make this a reality. This in turn increases the power of the state, which is funded by either taxation, foreign debt or selling natural resources. As the state needs to enforce things, there is more policing, which turns it into a police state. The left-wingers can be either internationalists, or nationalists. The nationalist socialists are the ones who took power in the pre-WW2 Germany, and were later called “Nazis” in shorthand, but their true name is NSDAP, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, which translates to “national-socialist German workers’ party”. Yes, they were the extreme left-wing. The theory about Nazis being right-wing is invented by the international socialists, who didn’t like the idea of Nazis being recognized as merely one of the murderous off-shoots of Marxism. Also, that’s why the name is abbreviated to “Nazi”, which doesn’t mean anything significant and is merely a label. However, considering their common love of violence and totalitarianism, one would be hard pressed to see any difference between them. So, basically, both the communists and the Nazis are in fact the extreme left of the political spectrum. The extreme right of the political spectrum are the Amish, the religious people who see the state as a false God, who don’t want anything to do with it, don’t respect the authority of state’s laws, and are completely self-reliant. In this spectrum, I’m closer to the extreme right than to the center. I see the state as a good defense against other states, but other than that, I don’t give much fuck about it whatsoever. Essentially, I give Caesar what is Caesar’s, and then I tell him to fuck off because I have better things to do with my life. It is my opinion that if you have to rely on the state in any way, you’re fucked. Also, I don’t believe in human rights. I believe in human duties, and in privileges that come from performing one’s duties.

America is in the beginning stages of a civil war, and the evil side has everything on its side but time, because it is running out of money. This means I expect them to cook up some very bad shit in order to use their power while it’s still here, in order to prevent any course that would render them powerless. Both the internal strife and the foreign conflicts with Russia and China seem to be cooked up by the same people. It’s not going to hell as fast as I expected it to, but none of the events that took place surprised me.

Europe is fucked. The “liberation” of women and huge taxation reduced natality to sub-replacement levels, because basically people either can’t afford to have children or don’t have time for it because women “have to” work. The Muslim immigrants don’t have such problems – they are all on welfare and their women have nothing to do but give birth and raise children. In order to finance those children, the domicile population is taxed more heavily, so they can afford to have children even less. After a few decades of this, the domicile population started to die out and the politicians agreed to simply import a replacement population for Europe from various shitholes. This makes sense to them because they convinced themselves and the entire population that all people are the same and are mutually interchangeable. If one thinks they are not, he’s called a Nazi and ostracized. The obvious end-result will be a huge slaughterhouse in Europe, which I don’t intend to either witness or survive, because fuck that shit.

Is all of this avoidable? I guess that depends on what you mean. If you mean, is it possible to have a business-as-usual continuation of existence in the West, with our normal way of life, the answer is, no, the probability of that is exceedingly low. We had a good run, but our civilization is about to end and be replaced by abject savagery. The causes of our civilization’s downfall are intrinsic; it will fall because it its own inherent flaws. It will fall because of egalitarianism, idealism, human rights and democracy, and it will fall because it neglected rationality, objectivity, meritocracy, tradition, and, above else, because it abandoned God. I see the optimism of the YouTube right-wing commentators, but I don’t share it. If this civilization is to survive, it first needs to change so radically, it will not be the same regardless. Furthermore, I see the need for it to fail, because it was built on false foundations, and the very idea that it could last is an illusion.

I’ve been thinking about communism and capitalism and I found a nice image to explain one of the crucial differences and inherent mechanisms.

The yin-yang image from Taoism explains things by ratios of yin and yang, and the thing is, those never exist in a pure state: in the yin half-circle, there’s a dot of yang, and in the yang half-circle, there is a dot of yin. Essentially, this means that in perfect stillness there’s an aspect of activity, and in pure activity there’s an aspect of stillness.

In capitalism, in its pure and perfect form, where the vast majority of  the population is wealthy, there is a minority that languishes in poverty. In communism, in its pure and perfect form, where the vast majority of the population languishes in poverty, there is a minority, the officials and dignitaries of the Communist Party, who are wealthy and powerful.

There must be a poor minority in capitalism, because they serve as a warning to others, of what could happen to them if they fail. They are a much greater motivation for success than the few super-wealthy, who can be seen as completely beyond reach. However, everybody sees the homeless people on the streets and they are an omnipresent warning: get your shit together or that’s where you will end up. So, in capitalism, there is widespread wealth and localized misery; it’s really unimportant that some are super-wealthy and can afford their own jet planes, if the majority is wealthy enough to be able to afford a good house and a nice car. Eventually, as the entire country becomes super-wealthy, someone compassionate says “let’s eradicate poverty altogether”. Let’s raise the taxes for the wealthy, and elevate that tiny minority above the threshold of poverty. And people agree, because it’s hard for them to see how it could harm, since everybody is so well off. However, as they raise the taxes in order to funnel the money into welfare, the state bureaucracy grows, the difficulty of doing business grows, the taxes grow exponentially because you no longer have only welfare as an expense, but the price of bureaucracy, and in a generation the result of attempting to remove that tiny dot of yin in the sea of yang you actually expanded the dot. You made poverty widespread and wealth localized. Unfortunately, as that happens people vote for more socialist measures because they feel impoverished, and point at the rich thinking that they are who stole their money, either by not paying enough taxes or by outright exploitation. However, the thing is, nobody needs to steal your money in order for you to be poor. Money can simply vanish, by destroying the environment in which it can be created. Wealth is not a given, it’s an emergent property. If you have very few laws, for instance to assure that the contracts are honored, that the patents are obeyed and that the offenders are punished, but nothing more than what is essential, you will have a thriving society and wealth will be created. If you create a situation where people need to fill paperwork whenever they wipe their ass, and they are taxed so much they never get to have any money to spare, you don’t shift wealth elsewhere, you destroy it. What was once a machine of capitalism that produced prosperity and wealth, now becomes a quagmire of socialism that produces only bureaucracy, discontent and more socialist measures to combat the rare situations where anyone managed to have any money. So, by trying to eliminate that localized speck of poverty from a capitalist society, we destroy the capitalist society and turn it into a cesspool of poverty and socialist incompetence and ideological warfare.

In communism, there’s something called “corruption”, which basically means that the communist party leadership always manages to be well off, even in the countries where most of the population is starving. However, if you try to change anything, you will destroy the communist system. If you try to fight “corruption”, you end up decapitating the communist system, as it happened in Romania, and the entire country transforms into something else, it’s no longer communist. If you try to elevate the majority of the population into the middle class, as it happened in Yugoslavia, people start thinking in capitalist terms. They see socialism as restrictive, because if they can’t earn money for building a house at home, but they can do so in Germany, there’s something seriously wrong with the system at home. They are no longer the impoverished masses who are willing to embrace communism because it promises equal misery to all where at least they will have some food, they are the middle class who wants nicer cars and bigger homes. As a result of draining the swamp of poverty, communism turns into capitalism.

The conclusion is that it’s quite easy to destroy any system by destroying its foundations. In capitalism, you need to have minimalistic rules, no glass ceilings for the winners and no safety net for the losers. Then, as a result, you get widespread wealth and localized misery. Never attempt to remove this dot of misery in the pool of wealth because you will destroy the pool of wealth, and the misery will drown us all.

I am annoyed when Americans routinely state, as argument in favor of the thesis that America is the best, or at least the least bad of all countries, that everybody wants to go there.

According to this argument, shit is the best thing in the world because all the flies want to get there.

It’s not important how many people want to get somewhere, it’s the motive behind their migration. If they figured out there’s free welfare which they can obtain without having to work, it’s hardly evidence of your country’s greatness. If jihadists want to get to your country, in order to make an Islamic caliphate and kill you, it doesn’t mean they think your state is great, it means they think it’s weakly enough defended to make it a tempting target.

The fact that parasites and enemies want to invade you doesn’t mean you’re great. It means you’re seen as roadkill, as something to be devoured by lesser beings in absence of a proper defense that would be presented by a living organism.

The idea that everybody always wanted to go to America is American narcissistic delusion. I live in Croatia, a country with probably the second greatest diaspora in the world, after Israel. I think that more Croats live outside Croatia, in Canada, USA, Argentina, Chile, New Zealand, Australia, Germany and other countries, than inside Croatia. That’s because of all sorts of wars, persecution and poverty, during the rule of several different regimes in the 20^th century. To them, it wasn’t clear where they wanted to go. America was merely one of the possible destinations. There was absolutely nothing special about it. Before the second world war, Argentina was as preferable, and after the second world war, Germany was more preferable – simply because it was easy to get work and be paid well. So no, America was historically not the singular beacon of freedom and a destination of choice. It was just another country, one that was far away that you can hope it’s significantly different from what you had at home. For most people, what was important is that there’s work that’s paid well enough, and that there’s no outright persecution, such as they usually faced at home. To Croats, America was a free country, Argentina was a free country, Canada was a free country, Germany was a free country, Australia was a free country, New Zealand was a free country. Wherever you could work and not be killed was a free country, which tells you something about the conditions at home, where the Serbs were mistreating the Croats so badly, they had really low requirements for emigration. As long as you didn’t get killed, beaten up and robbed, and you can find a job that paid well enough to make a living, it was a free country. Nobody cared about the American constitution, it’s completely irrelevant. Nobody cared about Australian constitution, either. As long as the Serbs can’t beat you up, imprison you on false charges and kill you, it’s a great constitution.

Let’s see who’s actually trying to go to America now:

• Latino immigrants looking for free money or low-paying jobs.
• Jihadists who want to convert it to Islam.
• …

The times after the second world war, when the greatest minds from Europe flocked to America because it wasn’t destroyed by war and they could continue to do their work in normal conditions, those times are over. Also, the times from the 19^th century, when people like Nikola Tesla went to America to escape the Austro-Hungarian bureaucracy which hindered all progress, they too are over, because as things are, American bureaucracy now is a copy of that innovation-stifling mess people used to run away from. Also, if people want freedom, America with its fascism, restrictions on travel, spying and surveillance, completely controlled media spewing propaganda is the last country on Earth they would go to. In fact, people seeking freedom and fighting for truth are right now hiding from America in Ecuadorian embassy (Assange) and in Russia (Snowden). America is the country that persecutes freedom fighters and restricts freedoms. America is a country where Nazi armed guards implement controls at the airports, so that they could have complete control of the population, and spiritual heirs of the Sturmabteilung thugs wearing black masks and neo-fascist symbols intimidate free speech advocates at the universities, using violence with the tacit support of the police.

In the 1980s, I actually used to dream about going to America to work at Microsoft or somewhere else in the IT industry, because that was my thing, and America was where it happened. But now, nothing happens in America except fascism and spying and madness. America is a country that exports ideas such as “the Earth is flat”, “we didn’t go to the Moon”, the spiritually empty ideology of human rights, feminism, gender bullshit and hatred of Russia. America is a fascist shithole. Nobody competent and in his right mind wants to go there anymore. I certainly don’t; one would have to drag me there screaming and in chains. Once it’s liberated from fascism and if it’s a free country, maybe. But as things stand, if you want freedom and opportunity, you run away from America, not to America.

There’s an interesting thing people usually don’t understand about capitalism: it lacks any inherent incentive to keep anyone poor. In fact, poor people in capitalism are useful as a reminder of what happens when you make the wrong choices, but they are useful only as an insignificant, token minority. In every other way, poor people are not only useless but in fact harmful, because poor people can’t buy goods and services that capitalism produces.

When thinking about capitalism, people who were brought up in communist countries always visualize dirt poor people working at Ford’s assembly line, but they somehow neglect to remember what they were building: a Ford model T, which is a working class car.

In capitalism, there are two primary motivations that determine the price of labor. First is the desire of the company owners to reduce the price of inputs in order to get the cheapest possible product, which they can then either sell cheaply and undercut the competition, or sell it at a greater profit margin compared to the competition. The second is the desire of the company to keep the workers motivated and employed long-term, in order to reduce the cost of labor turnaround. As a secondary consequence of the second motivation, the workers also get to keep enough wealth to purchase goods and services, and thus keep the engine of capitalism running.

It is perfectly understandable that no businessman will artificially raise wages above the current prices of labor on the market, just to keep the workers wealthy enough to have them purchase his products. As far as he knows, they’ll purchase something completely different and he won’t directly benefit from it in any way. However, if we assume that workers need to be trained, that experienced workers are more productive than the rookies, and that healthy and motivated workers keep being productive longer, there’s an inherent selfish motive in not paying your workers too little, because they will then seek out other jobs and work at your company only as a stop-gap measure until they find something that will provide them with a decent livelihood. Furthermore, you want to attract the best workers on the market, and hopefully the ones that work for the competition, in order to improve your competitiveness. So, essentially, there’s a feedback loop that increases wages when they drop far enough that people start working poorly and leaving you, and stops increasing them once it provides no competitive advantages to your company, and then starts reducing them until productivity starts dropping, and then starts raising them. It’s a selfish motivation on behalf of the company owner, but which essentially provides benefits to the workers. As a corollary, the workers get to keep enough money to have purchasing power, which creates the market for goods and services.

What capitalism doesn’t want to see are poor people, because poor people don’t buy cars or iPhones or houses or go on vacations, which is where capitalism makes money. Poor people are depressed, resentful, unproductive and troublesome in all imaginable ways. So, if you want to produce and sell your goods and services, you need to find that golden spot on the profitability curve, where you keep the inputs inexpensive enough to make a profit, and yet sell enough of your products to make the greatest possible amount of money. It would be naïve to think that any businessman would curb his selfishness and desire for profit for the greater good of society in general, but the aforementioned feedback loop, which directly influences the profitability of his enterprise, that’s what gets his attention. It is therefore not realistic to expect the capitalist to exploit the workers beyond a certain threshold, unless the situation on the marketplace is skewed for some reason, for instance there is a huge abundance of labor and shortage of jobs, and high labor turnaround doesn’t significantly harm profitability. However, in such cases the society in general is in such a poor state, this cannot go on for long before something gives.

Communism, however, has a different feedback loop. It thrives in poverty and languishes in prosperity. Communism inherently benefits from keeping the large masses of people poor, because that’s when it has the greatest popular support. The points where communism loses support is when people are well enough off to want to increase their level of income above that of their peers, but not poor enough to see communist egalitarianism as a life-saving measure. Basically, people who are dirt poor will want equality, and people who are well off will want to differentiate themselves from the masses. In my opinion, the main reason for the collapse of Yugoslavia’s kind of communism was the fact that the middle class was huge, and it felt restrained by the communist system enough to see the advantages of capitalism. Essentially, it became normal for people to have an apartment, a weekend house and a car, but then they wanted a house with a pool, a better car and imported fine chocolate. We here didn’t want capitalism because we were dirt poor and overworked in communism, but because we felt we could do so much better in another economic system. In the Soviet Union, the communist system fell for completely different reasons: it fell because the shortages of everything were so great, that at one point everything just stopped working altogether, and at the same time two other things happened: the outside threat of a war with America disappeared, and the government promised not to restrain protests. So, at the same time all the previously restrained forces, such as nationalism, re-asserted themselves, people stopped supporting communism because it failed to deliver on its promises, and the foreign threat no longer motivated them to endure hardships and tolerate faults of their own system. So, it looks similar, the Soviet and Yugoslav collapse, but the root causes were quite different. In Yugoslavia, the cause of collapse was the fact that the Serbs decided they have enough power to transform the federal state into a Serb-ruled one, and Croats and Slovenes decided they don’t want to play support roles in that movie. Combines with the utter absence of an external threat, and with the opinion within Croatia and Slovenia that they are pulling most of Yugoslavia’s economic weight and that they could do much better on their own, the positive cohesive forces vanished, and were replaced only with Serbia’s wish to keep everything together under its centralized rule. Having in mind that it is difficult for me to imagine Serbia not wanting to dominate other republics, it is also difficult for me to imagine how the country could have been saved. Czechoslovakia is often cited as an example of an amicable separation but neither Czechs nor the Slovaks had the intention of dominating the other republic. The Serbs, on the other hand, always saw Yugoslavia only as means that served their megalomaniacal ends. Yugoslavia never should have been attempted, and once created, it was doomed to end in bloodshed. I’ve seen Russian commentators lament American intervention and NATO bombardment of Serbia as if that caused the state to break apart, but in reality the American initial intervention was to send Eagleburger to Belgrade to tell the Serbs that they should quash the “rebellious forces” quickly and with any means, which hugely encouraged Milošević and weakened all forces in Serbia that would attempt a conciliatory political solution. Only after the country broke apart, Slovenia and Croatia went their own way, Croatia liberated itself from Serbian occupation and Bosnia was razed to rubble did the Americans finally do anything, which essentially only stopped Serbs from escalating the war onto Macedonia and, possibly, the neighboring countries. Essentially, they did everything to keep Yugoslavia in one piece, but after Croats failed to die quickly and in fact managed to assert themselves as the major military force in the region, they decided to cut their losses and stabilize the situation by prohibiting all further regional military engagements under a threat of force.

In the Soviet Union, nothing like that ever took place, and the dissolution of the union was much more amicable than one would be likely to expect, mostly because Gorbachev refused to use military force to quash the nationalist uprisings, which was a shame because they had very little public support and the breakdown of the union was against the will and interests of the populace, as shown in the 1991 referendum, in which over 70% of the votes were for the union’s continuation. For instance,  81.7% of Ukrainian voters voted for continuation of the union, and yet the minority of the political activists proceeded to declare Ukraine as an independent state, and this same minority led the Ukraine into a state of civil war and economic destruction. Essentially, the Soviet Union broke apart because the leadership didn’t act to quash the rebels who didn’t speak for the people, and Yugoslavia broke apart exactly because the leadership chose to quash the rebels who did speak for the people. Also, it helped that in Yugoslavia the “rebels” in fact spoke for their entire populations, while in the Soviet Republics the rebels spoke only for an insignificant minority, while the majority was too hungry, confused and afraid to do anything, probably mistaking the nationalist protests for the legitimate protests against the state of the economy. This is the thing: people who are not well off don’t know what they are protesting. They want things to be better, and their displeasure can then be co-opted by various nefarious forces. They protest poor working conditions and shortage, and then someone tells them they are protesting against communism, while the others tell them they are protesting in favor of national independence. Those who protest aren’t experts on either economy or geopolitics, they are experts of trying to make ends meet and failing. In the end, they might end up with more than they bargained for.

In the West, we have a somewhat similar situation, where nefarious people attempt to use generalized displeasure with the state of things in order to create support for their dubious agendas. Also, we have politicians who represent only themselves and are completely out of touch with the atmosphere on the streets. In addition, we have foreign powers pushing their agendas, for instance Saudi Arabia financing the spread of the most virulent and malevolent form of Islam across the world, using the petroleum money. The thing is, when people push for things to change because they are displeased with the current state of affairs, the kind of change they get might be completely different from the kind of change they hoped for. After all, people of Iran probably thought they were supporting the revolution against American influence and for more freedom, but they got a revolution for more radical Islam. To paraphrase a local saying, it’s late to regret it after you got fucked. So, I would advocate for great restraint in supporting revolutionary movements, and for more thinking about consequences, because the fall of Iran and Ukraine shows that optimism for change can often result in an endless nightmare.