Our “multicultural” problem consists of two main elements.

The first element is that people in the West basically started to believe their own bullshit about how all civilizations and cultures are the same and the differences amount to clothing, cuisine, art and customs. For this reason, they think it’s a bad thing to discriminate between cultures and civilizations and this created the biggest part of the problem, where you are unable to do anything about evil because you’re not allowed to even recognize it properly, let alone do something about it.

The second element is that inferior civilizations live in a very dangerous illusion. They believe we are weak.

It’s a rather new development. The Ottoman empire in the Ataturk’s times was the most advanced Islamic state of the time, and it could never believe itself to be the equal of Europe, let alone its superior. All the weapons and technology they had in WW1 were given to them by the Germans. Outdated German shit was ten times better than the best stuff the Turks could do. Ataturk therefore concluded that the only way forward for them was to reject Islam and embrace the tenets of the Western civilization, because that’s the only way. That’s where progress is, where technology is, where reality is. Islam is where outdated useless bullshit is.

But something strange happened in the meantime. Colonialism was abolished and the Islamic tribes were allowed to profit from oil, and they became incredibly rich. Because it became unpopular in the West to simply enslave inferior people and take their resources, we instead traded with them and they got our money and could buy the technological artifacts our modern scientific civilization could produce. Because they became incredibly wealthy from all the money we allowed them to receive in our newly-found post-colonial kindness, they started to think of themselves as better than us, because on average they were wealthier than us. Since they were never forced to compete with us on equal terms, and we simply gave them stuff because they happened to live in places where we found oil, they were able to keep their inferior, idiotic beliefs that nobody in the West could have and be able to contribute something of value in the world of science and technology. Being able to keep their stupid shit, and having too much money for their own good, they started evaluating the world from the perspective of their stupid medieval bullshit. They think we are weak because we give them free money instead of simply enslaving them and taking everything we want (which we could do with trivial ease if we just stopped putting artificial restraints on our own actions). They think we are weak because we Western men treat women as our equals. They think we are weak because they are stupid enough to confuse our choice to be kind with inability to be strong and cruel. Worst of all, they believe in outward manifestations of strength, and they think that lack thereof means weakness.

So let me teach Muslims an important lesson here.

We can kill you all if we choose to. There’s absolutely nothing you could to about it, we are that much stronger. We have so much nuclear weapons, we could turn all places in the world, where Muslims are the majority, into glass parking lots, and simply pick up all the Muslims who live among us, put them in concentration camps and kill them. It would take us less than a year if we actually decided to do it. Don’t ever think we can’t do it, because we in the West invented genocide, we invented wars where tens of millions of people died, we invented chemical weapons, we invented nuclear weapons, and if you all lived on Mars, we could nuke you even there, because we know how to do it and we have the technology to do it. The reason why we are kind and tolerant and polite, and why we allow you pieces of shit to fuck with us, is because we are actually scared of our own power. We are so powerful we could kill every living thing on this planet ten times over, and if we don’t restrain ourselves artificially, there is absolutely nothing else that could restrain us. We are afraid we could do terrible evils if we don’t control ourselves, and so we do, to a fault. We saw the evils of the two world wars in which we used modern technology to kill as many people as we could, and after we nuked two Japanese cities at the end of the last war, we got genuinely scared. We knew it went too far. Hitler used science and technology to commit genocide. Americans used science and technology to evaporate entire cities full of people. We were aghast with horror at our power to do evil unless we restrain ourselves, and so we did. We decided to stop enslaving you and to allow you to have your own states. We decided to allow you to profit from mineral resources found on your lands. Whatever you have, you have because we decided to allow it.

So I would recommend that you stop right here and think carefully about what you are about to do next. To help you think, I will show pictures that you will recognize as our weakness.

In this picture, you can see how we allow women to work in our important factories and wear uniforms like men. Oh, how much weaker must we be than your “mighty” mujahideen? True, if we waged war with swords and arrows, but this is Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This is where we produced fissile materials for Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

Let’s see another picture:

See how weak those guys look? None of them carries a gun, or a sword. They look mild and non-aggressive. They’re not warriors, like you are. They just write formulas on paper. About how to split U-235 and kill you all without ever even having to see you.

Take a look at this fellow:

He was a gentle, kind person, not like your Islamic warriors. He made modern agriculture possible by inventing the Haber-Bosch method of producing artificial fertilizers. He also invented the modern chemical weapons that were used in the first world war.

Our scantly dressed girls walking around without having to be afraid of being raped aren’t a sign of our weakness. They are a sign of our strength. The fact that we don’t need to be armed, that we don’t have to accompany our women everywhere for their safety, is a sign of confidence that we can destroy any possible threat with unimaginable ease. You were able to temporarily test our limits simply because it never crossed our minds that anyone would be crazy enough to even try, because we are so incredibly powerful. The problem is, even most of us forgot why we can do what we do and why we are not afraid of anyone, because we protected everyone from our horrible power so long ago, that we stopped even thinking about having it, and being able to use it. Most of us would be horrified at the thought of simply exterminating you like vermin with nuclear weapons, not because our cute little girls dressed in something revealing and very comfortable couldn’t press buttons that would turn all of your “mighty warriors of Islam” into blast-shadows and rotting flesh, but because we think it would be cruel and inhumane. The reason why we hate even thinking about it is the same as the reason why we don’t eat babies. It’s not because we couldn’t, but because we don’t want to be turned into baby-eating monsters. We restrain ourselves in our horrible capacity to wield death, because we don’t want to make those choices and be those persons.

Killing all Muslims would be as easy for us as killing a half-buried helpless woman by throwing stones is for your “mighty” mujahideen. It’s not for the lack of our power that you are allowed to fuck with us. It’s exactly because of our horrible, immense power, that scares us senseless, because we could so easily become the worst imaginable monsters if we just decided to do so. We decide, we press buttons, you all die, and we then have to live with ourselves and think about what it says about us. It’s that last part that restrains us. However, if you fuck with us enough, our self-restraint might slip.

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.