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.

The upset totalitarians

From RT:

Organizations funded by European governments and George Soros say Musk’s goal of free speech will “toxify” the internet

Some 26 NGOs, including ones funded by European governments and billionaire financier George Soros, have called on Twitter’s top advertisers to boycott the platform if Musk restores banned accounts and lifts its speech restrictions. Musk’s stated commitment to free speech, they argued, will lead to “disinformation, hate, and harassment.”

“Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter will further toxify our information ecosystem and be a direct threat to public safety, especially among those already most vulnerable and marginalized,” the groups wrote in a letter on Tuesday.

Praising Twitter’s content moderation policies, which critics have described as censorship, the liberal organizations warned that “Musk intends to steamroll those safeguards and provide a megaphone to extremists who traffic in disinformation, hate, and harassment.”

Musk himself has called on his Twitter followers to investigate these “organizations that want to control your access to information,” declaring “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

I’m with Musk here; actually, I would go further and say that I don’t actually care about the law. The recently introduced speech restriction laws are totalitarian and I recommend completely disregarding them, and if the governments try to enforce them, it’s about time they get used to hearing the word “no”.

As for those “entities” advocating for restrictions of free speech, let me put it this way. If someone is afraid of actual evidence against vaccines, or against idiotic gender policies, or against government propaganda that tries to convince you that Ukraine nazis are the good guys so that they could take you to war with Russia, starve you of energy under the guise of “freedom gas” or some other bullshit, they are the problem, and if their argument is “but the poor trannies will cry if they hear nasty words on twitter”, my answer is that I don’t have a Twitter account or a Facebook account and I don’t miss it, and if someone is so mentally fucked up that they can be brought to the point of suicide because someone will tell them that men have penises and women have vaginas and no, men can’t menstruate and women don’t have penises, then they need psychiatric help, and no, turning the entire civilization into a mental institution to protect fragile mentally ill people who can’t face reality or criticism isn’t a solution. Also, banning criticism of bad ideas from public spaces is not a good idea, because it’s similar to ideologically pre-selecting political candidates before the election, because where did we see that? Oh, in totalitarian shitholes, that’s where.

Also, if Soros, who advocates for the so called “open society” is so afraid of an actual open society where his critics have a say, then one should ask themselves what’s actually going on there. I’m not even asking, because to me it’s obvious that the guy is trying to subvert any kind of societal structure that would stand in the way of his totalitarian control over society, achieved by money and psychobabble, and is, as such, an enemy of all free people everywhere.

Also, Bill Gates looks increasingly like someone who is trying to achieve totalitarian control over society in order to be able to implement his, possibly very unsavory, ideas and plans, in silence and darkness. Musk is apparently throwing a wrench in the plans of such totalitarian-minded oligarchs who are investing huge amounts of money with purpose of control over thoughtspace, and all voices in favor of censorship and totalitarianism should be put on some shit list – meaning, don’t vote for, don’t buy products from, oppose in every way when they try to push something.


Within nuclear war

I think it’s necessary to inform people about some basic facts about nuclear war, from the position of a person “on the ground”, because we are no longer dealing with distant and general possibilities.

First of all, people assume they will know what’s going on. They assume they will be able to see nuclear explosions and mushroom clouds, and that they will be able to watch the news and know what’s going on. I find that exceedingly unlikely, and I’m afraid the most uncomfortable part of the nuclear war would be never knowing what actually happened, and having your horizon of information reduced from being able to connect to the Internet and gather information, or turning on the TV and watching the news, to not knowing anything beyond the reach of your immediate senses.

Let me explain why I think so.

First of all, a nuclear exchange is a limited thing even in the most extreme of versions. Nobody will try to nuke empty terrain or seas or mountains just for shits and giggles. Even in the extreme retaliation scenario, nukes will be aimed at the major cities. For a typical nuclear weapon, the visibility range of a nuclear mushroom, in the best-case visibility scenario, is around 400 kilometers. This means no mountains in between, clear skies, and a high vantage point. For most people, the vantage point is limited by terrain – tall buildings, trees, mountains and hills and so on. For instance, my vantage point is limited to several hundreds of meters on most sides, and then it’s trees and houses, and a hill to the North and East; to the South, I have a very narrow stripe through which I can see toward the center of Zagreb, but that’s basically 5° field of vision where I can see tens of kilometers in the distance. If a thermonuclear weapon doesn’t strike Zagreb, I don’t think there’s any chance I could see it. If it hits within a few hundred kilometers, a low rumbling sound could probably reach me, but I wouldn’t be able to tell what caused it – sonic boom, conventional explosion nearby or a nuclear explosion far away, because I have no experience with nuclear explosions. If a nuke went off in Split, I wouldn’t be able to tell, and that’s slightly over 200km away, air distance, but with a mountain range in between. The dust in the air in the aftermath would make the sky look very colorful in the sunsets, comparable to the aftermath of Mt. Pinatubo eruption, but it would take days to be able to tell with certainty that it isn’t just normal atmospheric conditions. Remember, you can’t rely on the Internet, or TV, or even radio – those things would go out in the very early stages of war, and even if you could pick up something on the radio, you need to understand that people broadcasting aren’t necessarily well informed either. They might be as ignorant as yourself, only with access to a radio station.

So, statistically you are either on the X, and thus really fucked, or you are far enough away to be completely in the dark as to what is going on. If you didn’t follow the news closely up to the very moment of the nuclear exchange, you will likely miss the fact that they actually did it.

Considering how the nuclear powers will concentrate primarily on each other in their exchange of strikes, a large part of the world would be both untargetted, and far enough from the targetted zones not to be able to tell what actually took place. There will be information blackout, there will be inability to reach any information from certain parts of the world, and those places will remain “dark” for the foreseeable future – no information will be coming from those areas, and nobody will be able to go in and personally verify and report back. There will be no journalists reporting over the satellite, there will be no Internet connection to the impacted areas. All the people who will actually be able to communicate via modern means will be those who are well outside the impacted areas, so far in fact that they will be completely in the dark as to what is going on. The world will be split into areas of death, and areas of ignorance.

There will be an increase in radiation, but most people don’t have a radiation detector so they wouldn’t be able to tell, or do anything about it. In any case, other than hunkering down during the first few weeks of the aftermath to avoid the worst of the radiation, there really isn’t much you could do. Later, avoiding things that have more radiation than others would be preferable, but I’m not sure that it would matter much for most people; the radiation would not be either the biggest danger or the biggest cause of death. You see, the reason why we have 8 billion people living on this planet, and why we had under a billion for most of history, are the modern agritechnical measures – the Haber-Bosch method of making fertilizer, diesel fuel that powers the agricultural machinery, great silos for storing wheat, and so on. No oil refineries, no diesel fuel. No gas, no fertilizer. No electricity, no refrigeration. No long-range transportation, no way of feeding people across large areas. If enough of that collapses, the world suddenly can no longer feed billions of people. Sanitary conditions will degrade. Medicine will degrade and people will die from all the things that killed them in the 19th century. Most people are trained to do things that will not matter in this new world, and are very poorly suited and trained to do things that will matter, which will be a strong evolutionary pressure. By this point, I hope to be long gone.

The state of the West

I’ve been reading the Western comments on the recent events. It’s not an easy reading, to put it mildly; it’s like watching someone cut himself with a knife, wallow in mud, bugger himself with a thorny stick and scream “Putin is Hitler, he is evil!”, only it’s 90% of the “western civilisation”. You hope they’re under the influence of some bad drug, but you fear they’re not.

Cascade collapse

People have been adopting leftist attitudes and allowing the leftists to assume control of governments and meta-governmental institutions for decades in the West, probably guided by the sentiment that the Soviet block collapsed, the cold war is over, communism is no longer a political threat, so what could go wrong, especially since the communists changed their appearance and started fighting for either the environment or women’s rights or gay rights or veganism or what not, instead of workers’ rights, so they stopped looking like the stereotypical communists.

I’ll tell you what can go wrong.

Communism is not just a political threat. It’s an ideological poison. It feeds off of narcissism that makes people think they are changing the world for the better, while they are just sabotaging a system that works, until it crashes, because there are too many artificially imposed obstacles to overcome. Introduce environmental laws that make companies change their processes, and say they will adapt. Ban or restrict certain products, and say the marketplace will adapt. Introduce artificial stimuli that helps defective products like the wind power turbines, and hinders superior products such as natural gas turbines and nuclear power plants, thus making something inherently defective into a dominant factor, and driving something inherently stable and efficient into extinction. Then introduce covid restrictions and lockdowns, and trade wars and sanctions to your main trade partners.

This world can now easily feed 8 billions of people, while it could barely feed more than a billion for most of its history. It could barely feed 3 billions in the 1970s. You know what’s the reason behind the difference? It’s the economy. Not science, not technology, not democracy and human rights, but economy. When the economy grows to a certain size, you create certain types of jobs that couldn’t otherwise exist. For instance, if you have a village of a hundred or so families, you can only have a few primary jobs – farmers, fishermen, a local merchant perhaps, and a blacksmith. Possibly a priest. You just don’t have enough interest for anything else, so no other business can have enough demand to stay profitable. Also, there’s not enough free time or energy anyone can devote to anything beyond survival, so even literacy is uncommon. However, if you grow the economy enough, like in the medieval Italy, you get people who build and maintain roads, people who maintain the rule of law, merchants and tradesmen of all kinds, and even artists and scientists, when there’s a sufficiently large wealthy ruling class that can afford to buy trinkets and keep a Leonardo or Michelangelo on hire, giving them enough time to work on unproductive things with no immediate benefit for survival. Extend this more, and you start developing precise mechanics, steam technology, then electricity and so on, and eventually you end up with everyone having a smartphone in their pocked, connected to a global information network, even if they are stupid enough to think the Earth is flat and use the device to argue this nonsense online.

The larger the economy, the larger percentage of jobs that deal with niches such as laptop repair, entertainment, or, in my case, making it possible for businesses to navigate various totalitarian restrictions imposed by the states upon the banking system in order to prevent anyone from being able to conduct business if some socialist busybody put their business type on some “high risk” list, and they don’t know how to navigate hundreds of forms in order to satisfy the anal needs of risk departments. There’s absolutely no way this could be a viable business model in anything other than a global dystopia, but it is because here we are.

So, if something breaks in an economy of this size, with so many jobs and business models that depend on exactly this level of intricacy and specialisation in order to be viable, and the environment changes enough so that they would have to re-qualify in order to do something else, you are basically playing a game of finding a critical threshold – if you mess up enough things, you no longer have a small percentage of people who need to adapt to the changing landscape; you have cascade failure, where you lose entire industrial branches, and thousands of businesses that satisfied various specialised needs on the market that no longer exist.

So, what happens when you mess things up enough so that the business can either raise the prices in order to survive, or just outright die? They will raise the prices. Then people with low income will no longer be able to survive, and the state will have to either print money or raise taxes in order to finance subventions. These taxes will put additional pressure on the productive parts of society which will then again raise the prices to keep themselves afloat, and with every iteration of this cycle some of them will price themselves out of the market, and an increasing percentage will switch to grey or black economy – basically, they will continue doing business, but will no longer pay taxes, or register with the state in any way, which will keep the economy running but force the state to either accept the permanently reduced tax income, or crack down on the grey/black economy and thus make survival of the population harder, and increase criminality of the entire economy, because they will introduce evolutionary pressure that favours the absolutely criminal and unscrupulous types. So, with several iterations of this you end up with the kind of dysfunction we had in the collapse of Yugoslavia or the Soviet Union, or in some shithole like Somalia.

At this point, the economy is no longer large enough to support anything sophisticated – no car industry, no airplane industry, no spaceflight, no merchant fleet, no microelectronics, no software industry, just piracy and armed robbery, smuggling, black market and subsistence farming. Such economy, extended globally, couldn’t support more than a billion people, which means that at least seven billion people would die. I say “at least” because this would create such a disastrous environment that the seven billion people doomed to die would first destroy and eat that one billion farmers who would otherwise have a chance, because the environment would initially favour the unscrupulous predatory types, who would be the last to survive, but who are also the least qualified to survive on their own once they destroy everybody else because they are inherently unproductive, so they would eventually die out.

That’s the future I see us progressing towards with every government regulation, with every restriction and lockdown, and when they say it’s all justified if it saves even one life, or reduces the CO2 output by one bit, I think to myself: “you damn fools, you will kill billions by trying to save thousands”. Economy is usually quite adaptive and reacts well to small changes and detriments, but when you break it enough, when you find that threshold of cascade collapse, there is no going back.

There’s all that talk about inflation, but what we’re seeing is not inflation, it’s contraction of the entire economy and the higher prices are the result of the reduced efficiency of the entire system, and my analysis says we are seeing the initial stages of the cascade collapse.