I watched an ad for the Google Pixel 6 phone yesterday:

I initially wanted to see the specs of the phone, but it turns out the ad was very revealing, in a political sense, the way reading the early writings of Marx is revealing – you just see all the robbery, poverty and starvation in the future. In case of this ad, you see the desired future as written by the present-day America: everybody is shallow, stupid, perverted, lame and obsessed with completely irrelevant garbage, and almost nobody is white. Also, everybody is content and smiling, for some reason.

That’s called “inclusivity”, which is another one of the newspeak misnomers; it actually means removing all the successful people from positions of power and calling it “social justice”; if everybody is black and brown, they say, the world will be a paradise.

No, fuckwits, because there already is a “planet” where everybody is black, it’s called Africa and it’s a shithole. The new America and Europe where everybody is black wouldn’t look like a Google ad, it would look like this:

That’s the “dreamworld” where everybody is black, the only thing that’s out of place are the electricity poles, because you won’t get any of that in a black people’s world. That’s white people stuff. Also, the phones, running water, in-door plumbing, radio, TV, Internet, satellite navigation, and so on. You shit in the bush, wash your arse in a creek, and you get parasites. Also, you drink water from that creek in which everybody washes their arse, and into which the elephants shit. Also, it’s ruled by gangs wielding machetes. AK-47s are all fine but they are made by the white people, too, so no ammo for those in Wakanda.

Besides, since when is “inclusive” a good word? How is it a desirable quality? Would you want a sexual partner that is “inclusive”, in a sense that anyone can fuck them? Would you want to send your kids to a school that is “inclusive”, in a sense that anyone can get in? Do you want a job that is “inclusive”, in a sense that anyone can do it? I didn’t fucking think so. Inclusive isn’t good, unless you’re a retard, a whore and a loser. Exclusive is good. Exclusive is a thing to strive for. You want a job that’s so demanding that only a few can do it, and you want to be one of the few. You want a woman who will have only one man, she wants the best and you want to be that best one. You don’t want a car anyone can have, you want a really good, exclusive one. You want to send your kid to a school that has so stringent criteria that only the best can have a hope of passing the qualifying exams.

Inclusive, that’s where you don’t want to be, if you have any self respect. Aim for the stars, because mountains are not high enough.

Liberalism, as it exists currently in the west, is very much a misnomer – theoretically, it should be the worldview of “you do you, I’ll do me”, basically being able to pick the direction and shape of your life, without external limitations being placed upon you by religion, nation etc.

However, in practice it turned into violent, intolerant mobs attacking people who think differently (not only on the Internet, but with bricks and chains as well; google “Antifa” for details), with practices of labeling that I haven’t seen since the collapse of communism; basically, they invent a loaded label that would sound harmless enough in a free society, but would get you persecuted and imprisoned in a communist totalitarian country. This is not liberalism; there’s absolutely nothing “liberal” about this setup. This is totalitarian Marxism, with very few minor tweaks introduced to get it past people’s bullshit detector – class warfare is rebranded as environmentalism, social justice or fight for the “rights” of some group that’s marginalized for good reasons, such as crazy people who can’t adjust to reality and want to pretend they are the opposite gender (in benign cases) or aliens or cats (in less benign cases). In a normal society, a male swimmer or wrestler who starts claiming he’s a woman would be given psychiatric help. In this insane society, they are believed and everybody who has a problem with them is bullied by the neo-marxist “social justice” mobs.

This is not how I understand liberalism. In a truly liberal society, such a person would say he’s a woman, and I would say “go fuck yourself”. He’s within his right to claim nonsense, and I’m within my right to call him out on it. In a totalitarian society, there’s an ideological police that doesn’t allow you to call out people on their bullshit if it’s the kind of bullshit that’s promoted by the central committee of The Party. I’ve lived in a country that had official ideological bullshit protected by the police and the courts, thank you very much, so I know what it looks like. It’s not liberalism, it’s totalitarian Marxism dressing up as something else so it would pass by our defenses.

The Marxist worldview is basically this: there was a money tree in the early past, and some people got to it first and took most of the money for themselves, so it wasn’t equally distributed among the people. That’s called “the initial distribution of capital”. Search/replace “capital” with ”privilege” and you suddenly understand where the modern leftists are getting their inspiration. Basically, there’s the initial accumulation of capital/privilege, it causes a self-perpetuating circle of social injustice, and we need the revolution to redistribute wealth and cancel privilege or whatever, and then it’s all going to be great and rosy, we just need to kill all the “reactionaries”, meaning the people who object to such a wonderfully progressive plan.

However, if we focus on the actual liberalism, I’m having serious issues with that, as well. You see, liberalism is only superficially egalitarian, because “you do you, I’ll do me” works fine when we’re talking about fashion and taste. However, the huge differences in personal power that result from vast differences in individual wealth make that sound like “let them eat cake”; there’s a reason why nefarious super-wealthy people like Soros advocate for “open society”, because in a society without limits, someone like him, with immense wealth, can do whatever he wants, and everybody else is basically left without any influence or protection. Liberalism in an economically equal society means that the excesses of individuals cancel each other out. In an economically vastly unequal society, where the few billionaires own half the world, it means that those billionaires get to do whatever they want, because you no longer have religion to set the basic principles of the game that must not be violated (for instance, that breeding children for replacement organs for rich people is off limits), and you no longer have national borders that would protect citizens from external threats and foreign ideologies that threaten the local traditions and society. One can now say that “human rights” will protect you, and I say “bollocks”, because the human rights are an arbitrary concept that’s voted into existence by some globalist clique, in order to replace the religious concept of divine-ordained law, and some globalist clique can also vote changes into existence, that will turn the world into a giant concentration camp. If the covid lockdowns are not sufficient demonstration of the principle to you, then you are too stupid to argue with.

So far, a combination of religion defining the basic morality of the playing field, the state defining the fair basic rules and punishments for transgressors in alignment with those religious principles, the people accepting the basic rules without question, and the free market capitalism implementing the practicalities, proved to be the only system that is both just and fair. I’m not saying “equal”, because I really don’t care about that too much; what matters is that the rules of the playing field are fair. The fact that there will be losers is actually essential, because that’s what happens in a free system. What prevents the free system from becoming a merciless predatory nightmare are the religious principles that make you help the victims of a fire or an earthquake, instead of attacking them in their moment of weakness, and either selling them on the market as slaves or recycling them for spare parts for the rich people. Obviously, liberal capitalism, without moral restrictions that have to come from a place much higher than the “free market”, inevitably turns into a Darwinian nightmare that selects for power and ruthlessness. “Human rights” as an alternative protective concept isn’t worth shit, which is obvious from the fact that “secular humanism” has been an incessant bloodbath since it first came to power in the French revolution. “Equality, liberty and brotherhood” in practice meant mass guillotine orgies. “Human rights” in practice mean some globalist forum controlling everybody’s fate “because they know best”, and, incidentally, they get to tell you what “human rights” actually mean, because they are making this shit up as they go. Basically, if you accept “human rights”, you basically replaced a Church that prays to God for guidance and believes it is ultimately responsible to God for their actions, with a Church that believes there is no God, and they are the next best thing.