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.

Whenever democracy as a system of rule is questioned, I invariably see Winston Churchill quoted saying that “democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others”.

I’ve been thinking about that, because I have an unnerving feeling that it’s one of those things that ring true, but only because of shared assumptions that might prove to be false.

First of all, excuse me if I don’t just take Churchill’s word for it, because a genius who engineered such a brilliant military feat as the invasion of Turkey at Gallipoli and personally presided over the demise of the British Empire might also be completely mistaken on other matters.

Let us first define what a system of government is, what democracy is, and what makes a good system of government. This is important because I want us to avoid conflating political and economic systems to the point where we can no longer separate their individual effects. Also, we need to separate the concept of general scientific and technological advancement from our estimates of political systems. Also, we need to separate the natural and circumstantial wealth from our equation. I will first explain why, so that you can follow my line of thinking more easily.

An example of separating the system of government from the economic system are the Asian technological giants, such as South Korea, Japan, Singapore and China. They all have very authoritarian social systems and systems of government, where democracy doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing to them that it does to us. However, they all adopted some form of a capitalist, free market economy, and as soon as they did, their overall economic condition has improved significantly, to the point of transforming them into world powers. Why is it important to separate government from economy? Because we might feel tempted to ascribe the success of the economy to a system of government, and that would be a fallacy. Obviously, we can have successful economies regardless of whether the government is democratic or dictatorial, as long as it doesn’t meddle into the economy.

The reason why we need to separate the overall level of scientific and technological progress from the system of government is because those two things are also independent values, in a sense that you can have a technologically inferior democracy of ancient Greece, and technologically superior dictatorship of ancient Persia. You can also have a technologically inferior America and technologically superior Nazi Germany. Soviet Union was a communist dictatorship, and was technologically either the most advanced on Earth or on par with the most advanced. Essentially, technology and science are as separate from government as is economy, but of course government can significantly influence them both if it chooses to do so.

We also need to remove natural and circumstantial wealth from our equations. Circumstantial wealth is derived from one’s geography; for instance, a country like Croatia can have great natural beauty, which can be an useful source of income from tourism, but it says nothing about either the merit of its economic system, or its government. It’s simply the property of its geography. Some other country, like Singapore, can be located on a major trade route, and can derive a part of its economic success from that. Others, like the Arab countries, can have vast natural reserves of oil, which provide incredibly high income, independently from their economic or political system. A country can, therefore, derive substantial wealth from simply being at the right place at the right time. Before Rockefeller figured out what to do with oil, it was completely useless and didn’t provide any income to the Arab tribes who lived there, and value of their political and economic systems should be assessed on their pre-petroleum state.

So, the fact that some country is wealthy or technologically advanced doesn’t mean that its system of government is superior, because one can become wealthy due to robbery, and one can become technologically advanced because the militaristic regime invests resources in technology in order to be able to successfully attack other countries.

So, we now have quite a problem: we eliminated the vast majority of factors that would normally weigh into our assessment, and the question is, what remains there for us to use in order to compare various systems of government?

Let us first see what forms of government were actually in use throughout history.

We had tribal meritocratic democracy, as probably the first form of government over small populations. Essentially, you had elders who defined what should and shouldn’t be done, you had some shaman who was consulted on supernatural things, and you had the chief who made operational decisions when there wasn’t enough time for long deliberations. This is probably the optimal form of government for humans, and probably the only one that has been around so long it has the strong backing in human genetics; it is probably as old as the use of fire and tools, if not older. Essentially, it’s the pattern humans naturally recreate whenever possible, whether in tribes, religious communities or gangs.

This system has one major flaw: it doesn’t scale well for bigger communities, and was abandoned in favor of the oriental despotic system when agriculture needed to be organized on a large scale in order to provide food much more efficiently than was possible for smaller communities or their agglomerates. Essentially, in order to organize a big state, you couldn’t rely on letting people just naturally do whatever they felt like doing. You needed to order them around in some logical, efficient arrangement. You needed to organize irrigation, you needed to organize an army and defensive fortifications, essentially you needed a system where those who knew what had to be done would give the orders, and everybody else would obey them. This worked remarkably well, and is the second most stable form of government known to mankind. However, with mass feeding and mass living it also introduced mass murder, in form of wars. This is the first form of government that made possible the organization of large scale military expeditions, either for defense or conquest. It also made it possible to advance science, technology and architecture on levels not seen before. This form of government was independently invented on different continents, and is apparently a normal phase of development from tribalism into civilization.

One might now mention ancient Greece as an example of democracy, but I disagree. The Greeks were on the tribal, pre-civilized or proto-civilized stage of social development, and their civilization is more of a tribal agglomerate than anything else. They were no more or less democratic than the Lakota or the Cheyenne. Their polises were democratic compared to the Persian Empire, in the same way in which the North American native tribes were democratic compared to the Aztecs, but that doesn’t make them more advanced. It just means they were small enough to be able to manage their affairs efficiently in a tribal manner.

One of the most important social developments in tribal societies that grew to unusual size, but still not big enough to demand strict top-down management of the oriental despotisms, is formation of aristocracy, which is essentially a hierarchical layer of “more deserving” members of society, who wished to have more rights and privileges compared to others. This is a different, more defined form of hierarchy compared to the meritocracy present in the smaller communities, and was usually hereditary. Essentially, it enabled concentration of wealth and power within a small social circle which separated itself from the more “base” folk. What “democracy” usually meant in such communities was that this aristocracy made the decisions which the rest of the people had to obey. Greece and Rome are an excellent example of such social divisions.

The interesting thing with such social stratifications is that they lessen the requirement for broad popular support in the process of election of leadership. Essentially, in small social groups you have to govern by consent. As the community grows bigger, and as the society is stratified, the highest social stratum can elect leadership with little or no input from the lower strata. In some cases, when leadership becomes hereditary, the democratic input is reduced to zero. One can argue that the worst examples of leadership come from this category, because if one didn’t even have to convince the aristocracy of his society of his merit for leadership, and only had to be born in the right family, the probability of him having “the right stuff” for a leader is negligible. Even in Roman times it was common knowledge that the best emperors were in fact adopted, basically hand-picked as heirs to the throne, and the worst ones were born to the position. The few examples to the contrary, such as Titus, were the exceptions that made the rule. Essentially, what that means is that you can have a very good and effective system of government as long as the leader or the aristocracy has to pick the successor from the number of those who rose through the ranks and are therefore competent. But if leadership is hereditary, the probability of getting an idiot for a king is exceedingly high.

Also, while you can have a system of government which consists of a successful warlord and his henchmen who divide the country among themselves, the stability of such government is poor, because if the majority of people are treated as hardly more than cattle, the “nobility” is meritocratic only in a sense of rewarding help in times of war, and such war-based meritocracy is hardly conducive to the general advancement of society. This is why such primitive feudal societies are hardly more than an armed gang of thugs which exploits the population of illiterate peasants.

In order for a society to advance, it must be inclusive, in a sense that the general population has a stake in it, in a sense that it will be willing to defend its government, and not just move out of the way if a rival gang of thugs wishes to take over. Also, for the society to be stable the general population must willingly finance it, and not just be forced to pay taxes. Apparently, this is the real use of the entire show of democracy, in which the general population is allowed to pick one of the leadership candidates presented to them by the higher social strata. The end-result would be very similar if the aristocracy simply elected the president themselves, but then the general population would feel excluded and, in fact, would feel a certain degree of resentment toward the aristocracy, and this doesn’t allow for an effective government. If you want people to obey you, you basically have only two options. You can employ the pharaonic model, where the ruler is presented as someone who has the heavenly mandate and it is therefore a religious duty of all citizens to obey him as they would obey the gods. Alternatively, you can attempt to emulate the tribal meritocratic democracy, where the people elect their leader among the most effective social organizers, someone whom they feel as their own, and would obey him because they trust him. You can, of course, skip the requirement of popular support, and rule by naked force, but historically such rule lacks stability and is quickly deposed by some alternative militant fraction.

Essentially, what we can safely conclude is that real democracy works only in smaller tribal communities, which are small enough for all the members to know each other, to have a say in the choice of leadership, and to have the ability to depose leadership if it goes astray. As the community grows, it becomes impractical to elect the leadership directly, because you simply don’t know all the people directly and you are not aware of their qualifications directly, so the best you can do is divide the community into small sub-communities that elect their own delegates to represent them in a popular assembly, where the leadership of the entire nation is elected. It would actually be dangerous for the people to attempt to elect the leadership directly, because they don’t actually know the candidates directly and can only judge them on superficial impressions and propaganda. This, in fact, is the greatest drawback of today’s attempts at emulating democracy.

So, instead of trying to say whether Churchill was right saying that democracy was the best system of government, we would be better off asking a different set of questions – for instance, what methods did different systems of government historically use to assure broad popular support, and with what results? If we judge on the stability of a society, our current model of government can only be seen as a recent experiment which produced mostly disastrous results, from the slaughterhouse that was the French revolution, through American independence which meant buying slaves from African markets in order to grow cotton on land that was stolen from the native tribes, through colonialism, two world wars, eugenics, racism and genocide. Essentially, if you think we fare better than the pharaonic despotisms of antiquity, you are deluding yourselves. Our political system is very volatile and historically proved likely to result in bloody conflicts. What masks this reality is the huge advancement in science and technology, and a rather broad access to the benefits of modern technology, where a common citizen can enjoy functionality that used to be beyond the wildest dreams of kings. This, however, has nothing to do with democracy; Singapore is not a democracy in any conventional meaning of the word and is among the wealthiest countries. South Korea is at best an elitist hierarchical society, and has extremely advanced technology. Do we even need to mention China? Essentially, what makes a society work is some strange mixture of the popular support for the government, a sense of inclusion of the general population, a feeling of sharing the common goals with the leadership, a feeling that the laws of the society are just and fair, and a Darwinian meritocracy of economy and science. It needs to be democratic only in the broadest sense, that the general population identifies with the government and recognizes it as its own.

Let’s talk about diversity. It’s touted as one of the most important positive things about the modern society. However, we need to see what it is, and if it is all it’s claimed to be.

A society is based on some basic principles. For instance, whether church is separated from the state, whether government is limited by constitution or dictatorial, whether all people are equal before the law or they are separated into castes. If you want a state to function at all, you can’t have diversity about those fundamental issues in your society, because if you do it will end in a civil war. You need to have a basic agreement on some fundamental concepts, and if someone opposes those concepts, he’s not really enriching your society, he’s striking a discordant note which might produce societal collapse.

For instance, if you have a society consisting of one group that promotes the concept of sanctity of life, and another group that promotes the concept of harvesting tissues from aborted fetuses in order to grow replacement organs for rich people, this is not the kind of diversity that will help. Also, if you have diversity where most religions agree that church should be separate from the state and that they should all peacefully coexist and preach their respective religious teachings, and one believes that this is a blasphemous concept, and that its religious laws should be the law of the land, and all non-believers should be either converted, killed or forced to pay a special religious tax, this is not the kind of diversity that will help the long term well-being of the state. What I want to say is, diversity cannot go so far as to oppose the basic precepts of one’s civilization, and the basic precepts of the state constitution. You can’t have a functional modern society if a significant portion of the population thinks it’s fine to eat babies.

People often think of diversity in terms of cuisine or clothing. It’s fine to eat Indian food one day, and Mexican the next. It’s actually something to be recommended. It’s also fine if people dress in different ways, because it is harmful to be stuck in fixed patterns and it’s great to see and experience some diversity. Also, people mention diversity in the context of race and sexual orientation. Again, I don’t see a problem there if you’re not dealing with harmful options. If someone’s sexual preference is to fuck babies or goats, that’s not diversity, that’s just fucked up; however, anything consensual that happens between adults is fine with me. Also, if you have people of different races but similar abilities, it’s all fine, nothing wrong with that. The problem is when you ignore the concept of actual value. Diversity is fine if it embraces different things of value, but if it forces us to accept things that are of no positive value, that actually degrade our life and experience, of what use is diversity then? For instance, if some African tribe has a custom of genitally mutilating little girls or owning slaves, should we embrace this as diversity? No, we should condemn this as primitive, and we should actually go so far as to eradicate the custom altogether, because this kind of “diversity” should be called “evil”, and evil needs to be fought.

One of the main advantages of nation-states is that those individual states can be organized according to specific civilizational and societal circumstances, instead of trying to force everyone to accept some common denominator, and those separate states can then compete to see which is best. If you have independent nation-states, people can choose to live somewhere where the basic rules agree with them. If they don’t like the rules, they can get the hell out. That, in my opinion, is real diversity, of the kind that was historically proven. Let people organize their respective societies according to their respective ideas, but when some of those fail, don’t whine about it, because that’s how evolution actually works in the real world. You try different things, and some work better than others. You have diversity, but most of those diverse options will prove to be failures.