I was thinking how fighting the “Islamic state” might not be the best idea.

IS is a manifestation of a problem. This problem is called Islam. There are people who actually believe that life should be organized according to the principles of this, I wouldn’t really call it religion, but more of a political philosophy. So, they believe that the ideal state would be the Islamic caliphate, like that of the first four caliphs, from Abu Bakr to Fitna, the Muslim civil war which created a sunni/shia schism. This concept is called Salafism, a movement of going back to the roots of Islam and the lifestyle of Muhammad and his immediate successors.

So, they want to live like that – behead the apostates and the infidels, enslave people, treat women like cattle, basically they want to live like savages and do evil.

This, of course, is not compatible with the way we in the West want to live, and we therefore dislike them, leaving us with only three options. We can exile them from the West into some middle-eastern shithole where they can practice Islam as it was intended to be practiced, and they can make their own Islamic society there to compete with ours.

The second option is to have a military conflict with them, which will inevitably end as a very messy, bloody thing that might actually destroy our civilization.

The third option is to pretend that all is fine, that all people, cultures and civilizations are equal, and wait for them to finish killing and raping us until we are all either dead or Muslims.

What I propose is to let them have their Islamic civilization. I am not opposed to that. If God separated one part of all creation to be the dwelling place of Satan, demons and sinners who reject Him and the way He made things, we can separate one part of this world to be the dwelling place of Muslims. However, I think it is dangerous to allow them to obtain artifacts of sophisticated, non-Islamic civilizations, such as the Internet, the smartphones and computers, and especially the modern weapons. They can have whatever artifacts Muhammad and his immediate followers could produce, because those are Islamic. I think they would agree with that. They can have swords, camels, dates and goats. They can’t have artifacts of science and technology because they don’t believe in that Western nonsense anyway, and since they don’t believe in the theory according to which those things work, why would they believe that those things work?

Furthermore, since Muslims are traditionally a danger to others because they are used to financing themselves by robbery and enslavement of others, strong military defenses should be placed on the border, and if they start fucking with us, we should kill them.

Other than that, we should simply isolate them there and leave them to their Islam, until they are ready to admit that it was a bad idea and renounce it completely.

This is why globalization is a bad idea, because it forces different cultures and civilizations to live together in one entity under one set of rules before they are ready. It is much better to let people organize themselves in smaller units and let those units compete, to see whose ideas and principles are better, and people should change their civilization-forming principles only when they are ready and willing to do so, and until then, they should be kept strictly apart to avoid conflicts. Tourism and trade should be encouraged, but immigration should be allowed only for those people who are willing to renounce their own culture and civilization and accept the one they are migrating into. If you want to get away from the mess your civilization made, you should check that mess at the door and not bring it in with you. Until you are ready to do so, stay the fuck out.

Multiculturalism is not necessarily a bad idea, as long as the cultures are separated and they have to compete for supremacy. When you start forcing members of different cultures and civilizations to function together, you necessarily introduce intellectual and moral relativism that is immensely harmful, and the alternative is a bloody conflict. If you keep the cultures and civilizations separated, at least you can see which one is superior. If you try to blend them together, the inferior ones will try to claim superiority and the rest will have to either tolerate them for the sake of avoiding conflict, or you’ll have a civil war like the one in Bosnia.

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.