There’s a recurring theme I keep seeing everywhere, especially in the comment section of the articles, where the general population expresses its thoughts, and it’s that if someone is much better than the others, there must have been some foul play going on, because it can’t be that some people are that much wealthier, that much smarter, that much better, because “we all know” people are equal, and if they are equal, they should have an equal share of everything, and if they don’t, it’s either because of luck or because of theft.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGg0tMszsXQ

The underlying assumption is that all wealth is finite, and therefore if someone was to have more, others must have less. This is the underlying mistaken assumption of Marxism and its take on economy, and it’s a relic of pre-industrial thinking. You see, in the pre-industrial era we lived in the world of finite resources, because everything that was produced, was produced off the land, which is finite. If you had more land, you could grow more crops. With standard agricultural techniques and manual labor you basically produced a constant amount of wealth off an acre of land, and this varied slightly with weather conditions, and you could occasionally have a volcanic eruption or a small ice age or a flood or a drought which disrupted things, but you basically could grow only so much on an acre of land. You could grow sheep or you could grow wheat, depending on the quality of land, but one person could not just magically make ten or hundred or thousand times more wealth. It was simply impossible. You could steal someone else’s land and thus grow more wheat or sheep, but it was a zero-sum game; for someone to win, others had to lose, and that’s the kind of world that formed the mind of Karl Marx and his minions. The thing is, this can’t be a genetic thing, because in a hunter-gatherer environment, which defined our genetics because we lived that way for almost our entire biological history, if a hunter takes down a bigger animal, he is praised by his tribe and seen as having made an excellent contribution. All women will want to have his babies and all children will want to be like him when they grow up. Nobody will say that he killed the big animal because he magically stole opportunities from other hunters. It’s obvious what happened – he had more skill and courage, he faced high risks, and had great success. You couldn’t even attribute his success to luck, but I’m certain that some did.

Throughout most history, inventions were exceedingly rare. When they happened, they changed everything, like percussion fire making, or a sewing needle, or a spear-thrower, or domesticating animals or growing crops, but they happened every ten thousand years or so, and there was no way for an individual inventor to focus benefits from them onto himself. If a woman invented a sewing needle, all women used it, and although she must have received high praise from them, other than that the benefits to the inventor were few. One could say that this was the probable reason why the inventions happened at such a slow rate.

In the industrial world, however, there is the concept of a patent, or intellectual property which is protected by law, and which allows the inventor to reap benefits from his invention. If he is wealthy, he can start a business that produces his invention, but that is usually inefficient; it’s better to find someone who already has money and manufacturing resources and put his product to the market quickly. Because his invention is protected by law, the wealthy can’t just steal it from him; they are forced to cooperate and share profits with him, and this is the reason why, in the capitalist industrial society, inventors got exceedingly wealthy, and inventions were highly sought for because they provided a huge competitive edge for large industries. For the first time in history, it was possible to concentrate and leverage the power of human invention in such a way that it became the most important industrial input, more important than labor, raw materials or even money, and it threw the economy of finite resources and commodity markets upside down, because there suddenly was a way for one farmer to grow more crops than the other, there was suddenly a way for one miner to extract more ore than the other, and no longer did you have to take someone else’s land in order to double your wealth. You could actually increase your wealth by the order of magnitude of ten billion just by inventing something useful (like electricity or radio), or finding a new use for something that was commonly available but worthless (like petroleum). This means several things – first, it means that wealth is no longer constant, but can be generated “ex nihilo”, basically with only the power of human mind, and furthermore, it means that the upper limits of wealth created in this way were removed, especially when, with the IT revolution, the concept of “manufacturing” became more abstract and started including a much greater proportion of intellectual capital and human invention vs. money and raw materials, to the point where today you can make huge amounts of money by simply buying a computer, buying a cheap online server, and building a valuable online service which only leverages information, with your innovation as a fulcrum.

So, the guy who got a billion dollars by making computer software didn’t steal ten dollars each from hundred millions of poor people. He found a way to improve their lives for the amount that exceeds the sum of money they were willing to pay, essentially he created new value in their lives with his product and got a share of that newly created value. The value was not just distributed, it was created ex nihilo, and then distributed to those who took part in its creation.

So the next time you see someone who earned billions of dollars with IT, remember that he didn’t take that money from the world, he didn’t extract the money that was already there. He actually created new wealth that is a multiple of that amount, and he got a share of that new wealth he created. He enriched the world by much more than what he ended up earning.

And when the communists and socialists and other vermin start manipulating the mob into believing that the “unfair differences in wealth need to be redressed”, and that the wealth needs to be “redistributed”, remember that you are talking about taking from those who already enriched the world by the multiple of their wealth, and giving it to those who make the world poorer by their existence. Because, we need to remember that all humans consume natural resources throughout their lives, but only some actually create more value than they consume, and they are the ones who really deserve to be alive, and they are the ones who matter and who should be supported.

I noticed one curious thing in the political arena: the only politicians who consistently say things that actually make sense and have any connection to the real world and the real people who live in it are placed on the “extreme right”. You know whom I mean: Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, Nigel Farage, Ron Paul, Donald Trump (and Ruža Tomašić locally in Croatia). The rest say all the politically correct, acceptable things and are mutually indistinguishable, and when you hear what they have to say you have an impression you’re listening to some computer-generated thing, because they don’t actually have opinions, they are like cult members who spew generic ideology.

I was wondering why that was, and I came up with several interesting ideas. First of all, I don’t think those politicians are actually any kind of “far right”, any more than I am. They are simply not indoctrinated by some kind of extreme-left crypto-Marxism which infiltrated itself into the universities and journalism, and therefore dictates the rules for political discourse and public debate of any kind. Essentially, it’s not so much that the rational politicians are on the far right, but that the distribution of the publicly permissible political opinions had been skewed to the left by several standard deviations, and common sense and good application of reason, which should usually be placed dead-center under the Gaussian curve, are still there, but the center of the main-stream political scene is between -1 and -2 sigma.

The real question is, what kind of virulent ultra-communism you would need to advocate today in order to be perceived as the “extreme left”, in the scene where people wear t-shirts with Che Guevara (a sadistic murderer and psychopath of the worst kind) and say that all white men and capitalists need to be killed, and it’s perceived as “cute”, “urban chic” and “main stream funny”.

The second thing I came up with is the reason why that is so, and the answer immediately suggested itself. You see, if you’re a Marxist intellectual, you can’t really be an entrepreneur or take part in some “bourgeois” activity, because Marxism doesn’t work in the real world. What you can do is either teach political philosophy at some university, be a journalist and thus preach your beliefs to the audience, or be a politician. If you don’t want to be part of the “main stream” because you’re too much of a rebel, you’ll take part in some NGO and you’ll be careful to say just the right things that will get you financed by George Soros and his soul mates.

So, we end up with a situation where Marxist ideologues teach future politicians, journalists, activists and university professors and that’s how you get a political scene where everything is skewed to the left so much it completely loses any touch with the common sense, and it’s continually pushed further to the leftist extremes by the NGO lobbyists who pose as the public opinion, while the real public opinion is continuously shamed as primitive, reactionary and leaning toward the extreme right, of course by the media, the politicians and the NGOs.

This is why it’s so difficult to elect a normal politician, and why it is so difficult if not outright impossible for a normal politician to actually implement a sensible policy, because the entire system, on the international as well as national political scene, has been taken over by the extremist communist lunatics, and they immediately react in total solidarity if someone starts to make dissonant noises, and that’s how you get the situation where someone like Nigel Farage says something that is pure common sense and logically follows from evidence, and he’s condescendingly smiled at by the pigs in the Orwellian animal farm.

I noticed a recurring pattern of totalitarian systems: they label the dissident thinkers with broad, poorly defined terms that have strong consequences. For instances, if the Nazis labeled you a degenerate, communist, Jewish or similar, you ended up dead or in a concentration camp. If the communists labeled you reactionary, counter-revolutionary, clerofascist or any of dozens of ideologically charged terms, you ended up in a political prison or dead; even the slightest hint of such designation would ruin one’s career. The ability of the ruling ideology to label someone with something that’s essentially vague, tenuous, serves the purpose of banning any form of thinking outside of the ideological boundaries of the ruling ideology, and has career-ending or life-ending consequences, is one of the main defining characteristics of a totalitarian regime.

It is usually said that our society enjoys freedom of speech, but this freedom is so narrow, it essentially adds up to freedom to say things everybody believes are true, things that are not offensive to anyone, things that will not incite any meaningful action to change things in the society in a way that is not approved by the people in power, and it’s getting worse by the day, because we are being routinely and systematically spied upon by the governments and the corporations; even on the Internet, censorship is rampant and widespread. People are being policed by the government, by the “internet thought police corporations” who ban the use of certain “incorrect” words, and they are policing themselves.

This last part is the worst aspect of living in a non-free society, because most people are so scared of being labeled, they are constantly policing themselves and are tiptoeing around the increasingly large minefield of ideological lunacy, while the “social justice warriors” are going crazy and are constantly inventing new terms for labeling the dissidents from their ideology, and the worst thing is, this gets passed as law.

Well, guess what. I’m inventing a new term. I’m a don’tgivefucktarian. I officially don’t give a fuck. I don’t care if I offend anyone, I don’t care if you like me or not, I don’t care how you label me. You can call me racist, Nazi, islamophobic, geriatrojuvenile, protozoic, or you can call me to tell me it’s raining. I don’t give a fuck about either you, or your opinions of me. I care whether your arguments are good and I will test them by assuming the opposite and arguing against them until they are either disproved or I run out of objections. If I want to see if the Nazis were right or wrong about something, I will explore this line of thought freely and argue for either or both sides until truth is established. If I want to see if the human races exist or not, whether they are equal or different, whether differences have practical consequences in some sphere or not, whether some consequence is genetic or social, I will research the facts and I will make up my own mind, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it by calling me a racist bigot. You can call me a penguin, for all I care. If you have a problem with that, you can go fuck yourself, you totalitarian piece of shit.

I usually have complex ideas that are not easily labeled or arranged into neat political drawers. For instance, I strongly dislike the feminists because I think they have all their basic facts wrong, and are trying to shout and scream and bully their opposition into silence and submission, and furthermore I think they are harming both men and women with their bullshit. They are making men self-destructive and they are making women weak, unhappy and locked into a perpetual state of victimhood. I can’t say that I object to that because I love women or men in general. I know enough of both to know that the majority are assholes I wouldn’t want to associate myself with, but I also have a very passionate dislike for evil ideologies that turn people into even worse assholes and lunatics than they normally are. For instance, if you want to turn an asshole into a super-asshole, convert him to Islam. Islam is one such ideology that turns everything it touches into shit, and in an ideal world it would not exist at all, and in this world it exists and every normal person should fight it. If you want to turn a woman into a weak, hysterical psychopath, make her a feminist. Let her blame circumstances or men or patriarchy or unicorns and barbies for her condition, instead of figuring out what is it that she wants and then doing what it takes to achieve that. Let her believe that being strong is to bitch and shout and play victim every time she doesn’t get her way. You teach someone to adopt such attitudes and voila, you turned her into a weak loser and a whiny passive-aggressive.

One of the most important things in life is to understand that you don’t have rights. You don’t even have the right to be alive. Being alive is merely a desirable consequence of your actions and favorable circumstances. If you think the state guarantees your right to life, think again. What the state does is guarantee that it will punish the one who kills you if they catch him. That doesn’t make you any less dead.

So basically the state doesn’t automatically make you theft-proof or rape-proof or murder-proof by the virtue of the fact that it will try to punish the one who mugs you, rapes you or kills you. It’s like those idiotic life-insurance ads on the billboards where they picture a child and say “some things need to be protected”, as if, you get life insurance for your child and it’s suddenly death-proof. No, you dumbass, your child doesn’t become death-proof, you simply get some amount of money if your child dies, or, if you insured yourself with your child as a beneficiary, it gets some money if you die.

Believing in the concept of human rights, and believing that the state is there to protect your rights, doesn’t make you safe or powerful or protected. It makes you a whiny loser and a victim.

Let me cite a real example of a woman I knew who came to me whining about some terrible thing that happened to her. She went out of town on a trip with a few guys who were planning to go out a hundred or so miles to the sea and than cross to a nearby island on a rubber dinghy. On the way there, they were drinking and smoking weed and were soon stoned out of their minds, and when they reached the sea shore the weather was seriously bad, and despite that they tried to get across to the island, and they almost sunk and died, it was a very close call; they were bailing out water all the way there. But wait, that’s not all, they did it again on the way back, and survived only by the closest of margins. And so she complained to me about her ordeal and probably expected sympathy. What I told her is to count at least five things she could have done to either avoid the danger altogether or to mitigate it, and if she fails to do that I don’t want to hear from her ever again because she’s so stupid we don’t have anything to talk about ever again.

And yes, she suddenly remembered that she could have told them to go fuck themselves the first time they pulled over to drink and get stoned, because it’s incredibly dangerous to tie your fate together with drunk stoned people. Failing to do that, she could have refused to get into that dinghy in bad weather and instead got into a bus and returned home safely. And so on, and so on.

Do you understand what I’m trying to say here? Ignoring dangers and trusting someone else, be it stoned losers or the state, to make you safe and well, doesn’t make you a strong independent person. It makes you a whiny loser and a retard. A strong independent woman won’t try to go home through a dangerous neighborhood at night, or through some corn field, and then whine and cry that she was raped, expecting everyone’s sympathy because if you tell her that she did something wrong, you’re a rape apologist. No, I’m not a rape apologist, I’m a don’tgiveafucktarian and a common sense apologist. If you go through a place where there is potential danger, you need to assess your ability to defend yourself against this danger, and if your abilities are insufficient, then either take someone with you in order to give you more power, or buy a gun and keep it in your purse, or both. Then, if someone tries to rape you, shoot him. That’s what a strong, independent woman would do. What a weak, whining dependent victim would do is not think, delude herself, go straight into the jaws of danger without any defense other than her bullshit beliefs, and when someone fucks her against her will she will whine and ask for sympathy.

The point where you deserve sympathy is when you did everything to avoid danger, you did what a reasonable, rational person would do, and you still got harmed. For instance, you were driving home and some idiot failed to yield to you in the intersection and rammed your car. That’s something you had no control over and you were just out of luck, and everybody should feel sympathy for you. But if you chose to go on a trip with a bunch of stoned retards and almost drowned because they thought it was a good idea to cross stormy sea in a rubber dinghy, and you went along, you’re a fucking retard and you deserve what you got. People who are that stupid deserve nothing better than to be victims. If they manage to survive, they shouldn’t whine, they should see what they did wrong and change their behavior. That’s called “being proactive”. You see what you can do in order not to become a victim.

I am a very strong independent man, and if I knew I have to go into a dangerous neighborhood during the night, I would probably try to avoid it altogether, and if that’s not possible, I’d try to bring friends along, preferably armed. I also drive a 4WD car with winter tires. That’s called “taking appropriate precautions” and “being a rational person”, not “victim blaming” or being a “snowstorm apologist”. If you live in the bottom of a mountain like I do, where there’s deep snow every winter, you either get a car that’s good for such circumstances, or you don’t drive in winter. You don’t say “I have a human right not to be wrapped into a pretzel around a tree” and go out in a rear-wheel drive car with summer tires on a road with snow and ice on it. If you didn’t take appropriate precautions and you get wrecked, you fucking deserve it, and if you whine about it all you will get is me laughing at you because you’re a weak whiny fucktard. You can label me all you want, but I just don’t give a fuck, because people who need to resort to this kind of passive-aggressive debate tactics usually don’t have arguments that are worth a damn, and if you use that on me I’ll just smell blood in the water and proceed to tear you apart.