Category Archives: politics

More about Korea

Posted on by
3

Something just crossed my mind, regarding the North Korea issue.

Almost everybody expects this to be a storm in a teapot, as usual; DPRK will make lots of noise during South Korean elections, Americans will bribe them with some rice to shut up, and they will proceed to triumphantly report how the vanquished cowardly America paid tribute to the great victorious DPRK. The usual.

However, I have a possible alternative explanation for both Trump’s sudden conciliatory behavior towards the establishment, and this DPRK situation.

Let’s see what happened when Trump got into the White House. First, the Republican party representatives in the parliament told him, in no unclear terms, that they are not going to follow orders, and they are going to vote according to their private interests, essentially they were bought by the highest bidder and now they have to obey his will, regardless of who’s in the White House, and regardless of what he says is national interest. He also tried to implement his policies, and was instantly blackmailed: they’ll simply invent a story about how he works for the Russians, evidence will be invented as in the case of Iraqi WMD, he will be impeached, and they will have a more pliable President to work with. Essentially, he was shown a brief demonstration and told that his methods won’t work. He’ll have to make a genuine compromise. Also, he was shown real facts, not the shit that circulates in the media, and those facts are much more pessimistic than he thought. This means that the methods he intended to use would not work in any case. However, he was also told that the people in charge know more about this shit than he, and that they have plans for American prosperity that have been going on for decades already. They know the true condition of the American economy, and they already have things in motion. This is the obvious reason for his sudden employment of all the supposed enemies; essentially, they explained to him what’s been going on, and he figured out that they are significantly smarter and better informed than he.

I can imagine it going like this: “Look, Mr. President, we know what you want. You want to get the money and manufacturing jobs back to America. You intend to pressure China to make concessions. However, it won’t work, because they have leverage over us that’s at least as powerful as our leverage over them, and we can’t just go there and pressure them. Obama tried, and they responded by launching a SLBM test just off the shore of California, in the direction of the Pacific. Essentially, we told them that we militarily own them, and they responded by demonstrating that they own us at least as much. We had to concede that they have a point. Also, the thing about getting along with the Russians that you had in mind, it won’t work, because we want to have the Russians in total submission, and they want to get rid of our global dominance and compete on equal terms, which we cannot allow because we will lose half of Europe, the entire Middle East, control over oil, control over uranium, and possibly the culture war. So, we cannot offer them anything they will find acceptable, so we might at least have the hostilities on our own terms, accusing them of all kinds of things and diminishing their cultural influence. For all kinds of reasons, from economy to geopolitics, we need a big war. So, instead of trying to pressure the Chinese with methods which were already tried and which failed, why don’t we just cook up something with North Korea, and for real this time, letting them seriously mess up Seoul, and perhaps Japan and the entire region around Vladivostok and Manchuria. Have in mind that South Korea and Japan are formally our allies, but they are a significant part of the reason why our economy is failing. Think Samsung and LG. Basically, the entirety of our industrial competition resides in this very limited geographic region, which is also politically unstable, what with North Korea, Taiwan and the Chinese pretensions. If we cook something up over there, and North Korea is an excellent excuse because they actually are fucking idiots, we won’t be blamed too badly for our part in the unholy mess that will invariably take place. Take a look at our simulations, both short and long term. Short term, the prices of everything manufactured in the region will jump. Long term, South Korea will have to absorb North Korea. China will have a problem with that and possibly intervene militarily. Who knows what will happen with Japan, but they are already on the way out, so it doesn’t matter one way or the other. Essentially, the entire region will be as business-safe as Eastern Ukraine. Then we can implement very simple measures to sweeten the return of big manufacturing businesses over here, and solve your main goal of economic recovery, and the entire East Asia will be so troubled, it won’t be difficult to introduce risk-based sanctions against companies that work there, which would be difficult to justify in the present circumstances. There will be new jobs, our GDP will rise, we will no longer have a trade deficit with everyone and everything electronic will again be made in America. Ignore the Mexicans and similar nonsense, because the real threat to our jobs aren’t the wetbacks, it’s the gooks. So, what do you say, Mr. President?”

I’m not saying it’s true, I’m just playing with ideas.

Analysis of the North Korea situation

Posted on by
Reply

The North Korea essentially holds South Korea hostage against American attack. If the Americans attempt to declaw North Korea by removing their nuclear potential, they will respond by a strong conventional/chemical artillery attack on Seoul. If that happens, say goodbye to Samsung and LG, to put it mildly. This would seriously threaten the technological potential of our civilization, and there’s no telling what the aftershocks would be. The threat against Japan is much less severe, because they can only reach it with rockets, and those are basically irrelevant within the estimated duration of the threat (read: from the time they hit something with the first rocket, and the time American counterforce response arrives) unless they use a nuclear warhead. This is unlikely, but not impossible, and if they succeed in detonating a nuclear weapon over either Seoul or Japan, the genie will be out of the bottle. America would be honor-bound to retaliate in kind and use either nuclear-tipped cruise missiles or nuclear gravity bombs over DPRK, which will form a precedent for the use of nuclear weapons. After that precedent is set, it’s months before someone else decides to use nukes to solve his problem somewhere else. Essentially, it’s a very steep slippery slope.

The Americans cooked up the current situation themselves, by relying on sanctions in order to attempt to humiliate and strangle the nations they hate. The sanctions increase hardships and isolation, and this further antagonizes the said nations and makes them more malignant. The best way to defuse tensions is to normalize the relations with commerce and cultural influences. DPRK is very far gone on the path of isolation and it would be very difficult to reintegrate them with the rest of mankind. They are, however, very much used to making lots of noise and making someone bribe them so that they would shut up. It’s so much a pattern, I don’t think they have any other mode of international relations, which in itself is a reason for concern, because it indicates a very deeply pathological state of affairs.

There are several ways of treating the problem. If we accept that DPRK is a given, meaning that they are what they are and we need to treat them as such, we have a very bad problem, because non-aggressive means so far did nothing to alleviate the situation because they interpret them as their enemies’ weakness, sanctions only further pathologize them, ignoring them is not an option because DPRK is in a very desperate state and will resort to increasingly desperate measures in order to initiate some response. The only remaining option is war.

If we don’t take DPRK as a given, but instead understand that societies are inherently malleable and can be influenced by incentives of various kinds, and if we understand that China under Mao wasn’t all that different from where DPRK is today, and the difference is basically that, although China continues to give lip service to Chairman Mao, they basically follow a newly carved path which has more in common with Confucian meritocracy than with communism, and that they are communist in name only, it becomes apparent that even the most closed, pathological and genocidal dictatorship can be transformed into something much more positive, within a timeframe of several decades, if they are allowed to connect with the rest of the world via trade and industry.

A sensible approach would be for China to offer DPRK a path forward – trade with them, open factories there, open lines of communication, create bilateral ties of partnership, but first seriously threaten them with complete nuclear annihilation unless they cut their foolish posturing, and actually be willing to kill them all if they do not comply. I intentionally say “China”, because South Korea, America or Japan would have less chance of success. Another reason is that if the Americans attack them, they will retaliate against South Korea and Japan. However, if China attacks them, they have no immediate response, because they can’t really hold China hostage. In fact, if they destroy South Korea and Japan, China would welcome that fact very much because those countries are both economic and political competitors. So, this would be the way to stop them while minimizing the chance for a DPRK retaliation against the innocents.

Essentially, the best scenario would be for Americans to be so serious about wiping DPRK off the map, for China to decide it would be less harmful if they did it themselves, and if they were so serious about it that DPRK decides to opt for the path of cooperation and integration into the global community. However, in order for that to work, DPRK would need to know it has only two options, and that both are completely realistic, and no amount of bluffing will improve their position.

Another thing: people in the West act as if Kim Jong-un is the dictator in charge, which is ridiculous. In fact, he’s most likely a puppet installed by the military leadership. He was brought in, taught how to play a role, and he is more of a tool for controlling the populace, than a person in charge. The Western propensity for personalizing politics produced a potentially dangerous illusion that the person apparently in charge is the root cause of the problem. Instead, what needs to be understood is which fraction of the military controls the country, a deal needs to be made with this fraction, and Kim Jong-un needs to be taught to play a slightly different role, for which he already showed significant inclinations; he needs to be friendly with the West. In fact, I think he already made ouvertures in that directions, only to be mocked by the Western idiotic media, who didn’t understand his attempt to pull DPRK out of intellectual and civilizational isolation, and this mocking response forced him into a belligerent face-saving stance which would now be very difficult to change. Essentially, the West created the worst part of the current problem with DPRK simply because they decided to have fun bullying DPRK and its leader, which put him in a very bad position domestically, because if the West treated him so poorly, and he continued to treat the West in his normal friendly manner, it would locally be perceived as dishonorable, and obviously the military leaders would intervene in order to change his course. Essentially, by mocking him they forced him to go into a nuclear confrontation, which is a great example of dangers that stem from misreading other cultures. Now, the honorable way out would be to acknowledge his power and authority, but also to state that his belligerent stance will now have the consequence of a nuclear war within five minutes, and then offer a hand of friendship as an alternative. If there’s someone famous in the West who is perceived as friendly and positive in DPRK, that person could be used as a bridge to establish positive relations. If something is agreed with the military leadership, the DPRK propaganda outlets will prepare the populace for improvement of relationships with the West, but the Western propaganda outlets should play their part as well, and stop with their offensive bullshit, because DPRK populace is so indoctrinated into leader-worship, that any kind of offense to their quasi-religious figure is interpreted as an offense to the entire nation, similar to the way the Japanese treat their Emperor. This needs to be a dance of seduction, not a date rape, and I’m afraid that the Americans are inherently incompetent for this kind of diplomatic subtlety. The Chinese could do it, the Russians could do it, but the Americans should stay the hell out because their condescending attitude and their constant need to show everyone how much better their “way of life” really is actually created this unenviable situation, and is immensely unlikely to resolve it. This problem can only be solved by someone who speaks very softly and respectfully, smiles a lot, and has a habit of bowing in respect, but also wields MIRV ICBMs and is willing to use them at any given point. The charming ways of Putin and Xi show the way this is to be done, if at all.

The perils of universal suffrage

Posted on by
Reply

I would like to clarify my preference for some type of meritocratic aristocracy over democracy.

If number of votes is all that matters, and Gaussian distribution of the population applies, the end-result of universal suffrage will create the rule of the most evil kind of manipulators, who are good at exploiting weaknesses of the majority for their ends. A system of government where one would be required to display significant ability and virtue in order to have a say in anything would yield much better results. For instance, reserving the right to vote for the top 10% of population in IQ, and then selecting within this group those who pass a basic test which proves they are informed enough to know what they are doing, and requiring them to either pay a net positive in taxes, or to have served in the armed forces, let’s just say I would so like to see an election campaign targetting this kind of voters. Essentially, what I would do is require that you can’t make decisions regarding public matters if you’re stupid, uninformed and you’re not a stakeholder. If you pay more taxes than you reap benefits, then you’re the group that’s actually influenced by taxation, and that’s what government is – deciding who is taxed, and who is ordered to go into a war and die. If you have a vested interest in taxing others because that’s where you get your money from, you’re simply not to be trusted with decisions in the matter. You can’t allow the poor people to vote, because they’ll vote to take the rich people’s money and distribute it among themselves, which is easier than working for it. You also can’t allow the unvirtuous people to vote, which is why criminals should be stripped of voting rights, and you can’t allow the stupid people to vote, because they don’t know enough to make good and informed decisions, and they cast their vote based on some stupid bullshit such as “I’ll vote for her because she’s a woman” or “I’ll vote for this guy because he’s black and I’ll virtue-signal that I’m not racist”. That’s not how you can elect good government. You need to understand the policy, the consequences, and the character of the person. Most people are just too stupid for it, and those who can do it properly are rendered statistically insignificant by the sheer body count of fools that show up at the ballot box. So, basically, if someone had served in the armed forces, he knows it’s his ass on the line of fire and will not easily vote for the populist warmongers. Also, if someone earns his own income, he will not easily vote for those who would like nothing better than to squander his money.

Some say that things went downhill for the Western civilization when women got the right to vote, because they consistently voted for the leftist policies. I partially agree, but I think it’s not the women, it’s the non-stakeholders that are the problem. You can be sure that a woman whose assets are on the line won’t vote for tax increases that finance social activism. Also, you can be sure that a woman whose son is in the military won’t vote for warmongers. So basically the problem appeared where you no longer had to own property or pass a test to be able to vote, which returns us to my original criteria – people who are stupid, uninformed and who don’t have a horse in the race should not have a say. Yes, this would divide humans into a ruled class and a ruling class, and that’s good, as long as you can join the ruling class at any moment by proving you’re either competent enough to have a say, or that you’re willing to put your life in the line of fire, by joining the military. If you’re ready to die for the common good, you can vote to elect the government, as far as I’m concerned.

Freedom of speech

Posted on by
Reply

There’s lots of talk on the libertarian side of the political spectrum about how free speech is the most important thing.

I have some issues with that, honestly, and not only in politics, but also in the sphere of spirituality, so while this will start as a political argument, it will extend beyond that. You see, people confuse the issue of freedom of press, with the issue of speech without consequences. Freedom of the press, in America at least, essentially means that the parliament is prohibited from passing laws that will limit freedom of the press. This means you can basically print whatever you want without suffering legal consequences. However, there will always be consequences. If you print things nobody is interested in, it will not sell and your newspapers will go bankrupt. If you print too many ads, you will annoy people and they will stop buying your stuff. If you print slanderous lies, you will annoy some people, please the wrong kind of people, and your audience will change. With that, your advertisers will change. There will always be consequences to everything you do, so no action is really “free”. Tell the truth, and the liars and evildoers will hate you. Tell lies, and the truthsayers and good people will hate you. Tell unpopular things, and your audience will reduce and you will have conflict. Tell popular things, and you will be rejected by those who admire straightforward expression and honest ideas. Essentially, whatever you do or fail to do, you will always have enemies and opposition, and you will always have support. The thing you need to strive for is to have the right kind of support and the right kind of enemies.

Wanting to have free speech, in a sense of saying anything and experiencing no consequences, is essentially wishing for inconsequential speech. If you said anything relevant, it will raise a shitstorm. If you are unwilling to accept the fact that someone will hate you for what you are saying, and if you’re unwilling to accept the fact that someone might actually kill you for it, you are either prepared to say only inconsequential and uncontroversial things, or you’re a fool. Words are meaningful. Words are the result of thought and precursor to action. Based on words, entire civilizations are built and razed. Billions of people lived and died throughout history based on words. You can say that this happened not because of words but because of intolerance to words, but if you are tolerant to all words, your life is meaningless and you are what the Greeks called a political idiot – someone who is not bothered by things of consequence. You don’t care if women have their clitorises cut of, you don’t care if Jews are exterminated, you don’t care if rich people are taxed, you don’t care if afterlife exists or not, you don’t care if God approves of your actions or not, you don’t care if you will be recruited into an army and killed, you don’t care if your family is sold into slavery or not. Oh really, you do care? And what will you do, how far will you go in either support or opposition to ideas, to mere words? I’ll tell you how far I would go. I would live and die for certain ideas, and kill for others. Is that too intolerant for you, too extreme? And if I told you that I would live for or get killed for the support of anyone’s right to belong to God, for the ability to establish a form of life I see as good and virtuous, for the ability to think, feel and express truth, and I would defend goodness and virtue of others in any way possible. If good people are threatened I would be willing to either take the bullet in their place, or to kill the assailant. You might now say that this is no longer about words, but I disagree, because it starts with thoughts and ideas, progresses into words, and very soon ripens into actions. They first say it’s fine to oppress or kill a certain category of people, not based on individual merit, but on membership to the category. Then they pass laws. It’s still words, mind you, but now those words form basis for actions, and those actions produce suffering and death. Kur’an is just words, Sharia is just words, but based on those words Islamic civilization is made, and this civilization then throws gay people off rooftops, it stones and hangs and beheads people, it oppresses and limits women, it limits freedom of religion, of thought and expression of any kind, forever, unless someone starts killing them back. Words are the main difference between humans and animals. Words are worth killing and dying for.

However, exactly because words are so important, they need to be defeated with other words. If a word is confronted by violence, it remains undefeated and will eventually prevail, because an undefeated word that is opposed by violence will find those who are willing to defend it with violence, and they will win, because their ideas are stronger, strong enough that they could not be confronted by other words, but instead by weapons. Freedom of speech, in that sense, means to battle ideas using better ideas, instead of trying to cut off heads that hold ideas you don’t approve of. However, what do you do if you have defeated the ideas, but their advocates stubbornly remain in opposition to the proven truth, and proceed to sabotage your every attempt? You might actually be forced to eradicate evil ideas by physically killing their proponents, as Nazism was eradicated primarily by culling its proponents; they were either shot during the war, or tried and hanged later. They weren’t argued against indefinitely. In a similar manner, the Catholics had to exterminate the Cathari during the Albigensian Crusade. I say “had to”, because it’s not something optional; you either defend your position to the point of exterminating the opposition, or you are exterminated by the said opposition, to the last man. Some issues are really that important, and there really can be no compromise, because it’s about widely differing views about the purpose of life, purpose and shape of civilization, the direction into which the mankind is heading. It’s in human nature to solve such conflicts with war. You might argue that nothing is more important than human life, but I disagree – issues about the very nature, direction and meaning of human life are by definition what defines the value of human life. If something determines whether your life will be worth living, it’s by definition an issue worth living, dying and killing for. That’s the way things are, and if you disagree, you obviously think that any kind of life is more valuable than no life, but at that point, how do you define what is human?

Freedom of speech as such, and non-violence, as an extension, are valueless, empty things. If you hold values, there will eventually come a point where you will have to confront evil words and deeds, and if you are unwilling to die and kill for your beliefs, that will not stop you from being killed for them. If you are unwilling to stop the enemies of your civilization by force, they will overrun you, kill you, enslave what remains, and make their own civilization in place of yours, and they will then define who is to be killed, who is to be a slave, and crows will feast on the dead eyes of your children. If you are unwilling to kill for your beliefs, people who have no such compunctions will kill you for yours.

The other problem is that God doesn’t give five seconds of a fuck for all those intellectual concepts about rights, freedoms and the like. Every choice has consequences, and the concept of rights and freedoms, in the sense that is used here, doesn’t exist. In theory, you are free to do anything you want, but choices bind you and define you. You can think whatever you want, but thinking changes your spiritual structure, your “wavelength” of energy, so to speak. Think dark thoughts, and you instantly shift planes of existence and are transported to a dark place. Think praise of God’s beauty and greatness and instantly you shift planes and are transported closer to God, as close as your state of consciousness allows. It’s all about “do evil shit, suffer evil consequences”, and “do great shit, suffer great consequences”. Also, the more evil you think and do, the less freedom you have, because evil limits you. You are free to choose it, but you are then enslaved by it and your freedom vanishes. Some choices are irreversible, your soul can lose cohesion and disperse into basic constituents, too small to form anything resembling a consciousness without aggregating into a larger structure by the slow process of spiritual evolution. On the other hand, some choices are so spiritually empowering, they elevate you to the form of existence you were never even able to dream of, before. All freedom, all glory, all beauty comes from God. Consequently, the closer you are to God, the more freedom, beauty, intelligence, consciousness, bliss and reality you possess as a person. I’m telling you this so that you don’t fall into a trap of believing the bullshit that’s widespread here, that you have a right to say whatever you want without consequences. In the spiritual world, where you will find yourself before the Judges, you can be doomed by a single wrong thought. You don’t have any rights or freedoms whatsoever. You have certain qualities and properties, and those determine your destiny. The Judges are not like your earthly judges and politicians, who are elected and have written laws above them. The Judges “up there” are the law. They are literally made from God’s will and righteousness. There’s no court of appeal. Any form of arrogance or spite, such as humans often manifest here, is arrogance and spite in the face of God, and is punishable by utter doom. A question such as “what gives you the right to…” will result in your doom. You don’t have the right to free speech, or to free thought for that matter. Freedom is something that is deserved, by appropriating the qualities of reality, consciousness, proper insight and understanding, by love for truth, beauty and greatness that is God. From this, comes more insight, more realization, more participation in the nature of God, and appropriation of more godliness, more holiness. In holiness, you have freedom of thought, because your thought is free from limitations that are present in the lower planes of consciousness, that are far from the light of God. That’s how things work there. If you fail to understand that, if you behave like humans normally do in this world, with arrogance, spite and stupidity, you will be thrown onto a compost heap of worthless souls, where you will spontaneously degrade after consuming the intrinsic energy of your astral body. Those who told you that you all have souls of equal value and that you are all precious and important, and that you all have rights, lied to you. Those who told you that you have rights before God, and that you should be free to choose your own destiny, failed to mention one tiny detail: that only certain choices lead to life, while others lead to death.

About Western supremacism and hate speech

Posted on by
Reply

How do you deal with existential threats without hate speech?

Let’s think about this a bit, OK? Hate speech is supposed to be a bad thing, inciting hatred and violence against some group of people. But what if you have a group of people that poses a serious threat to your civilization and threatens to either alter it beyond recognition in a negative way, or outright destroy it? It is politically correct to mention Nazis as one such group – they are commonly accepted as a group that needs to be suppressed in every possible way, and probably the only group against whom hate speech is commonly acceptable. There’s nothing better for virtue-signalling than hate speech against Hitler and the Nazis, right?

However, what about communists? They actually killed more people than the Nazis; the commonly cited numbers are 100 million people killed by the communists, vs. 25 million people killed by the Nazis. Yet, it seems to be popular to declare yourself a “socialist”, speak about social revolution and wear a Che Guevara t-shirt, despite it being a commonly known fact that Che was Fidel Castro’s executioner who personally killed hundreds of people, and wrote about enjoying the feeling immensely. However, I have a feeling that condemning any kind of socialism and putting it on the same level as Nazism would be recognized as some form of hate speech.

If so, I’m all for hate speech. Hate speech is great, I love it. It’s an intellectual immune response against abject evil. Everybody should practice it, in moderation of course, and it should be seen as the most normal response when faced with villainy and evil. You see it, you feel revulsion and hatred for evil, you speak out against it in clear terms. Evil political ideologies, that intend to transform civilization into Gulag archipelago and killing fields and concentration camps need to be hated and condemned.

However, how far is it permissible to go with this? Hate speech, yes, definitely. However, I am rather uncertain about active measures, such as the use of violence against proponents of evil ideologies. It looks like a slippery slope where you’re so effective at fighting monsters that you become one yourself, as Nietzsche would say. Fighting for peace or killing for non-violence sounds very much like fucking for virginity. You can’t use the means that are inherently opposite to your goals. Or can you?

Can you imprison Nazis for denying Holocaust and praising Hitler? Or does it oppose the very tissue of tolerance that is supposed to make up our civilization? Can you imprison people for tolerance, or is it akin to fucking for virginity?

However, let’s explore another possibility – it’s not about tolerance at all. What if “tolerance” is just a bullshit word that was simply pulled out of someone’s arse, just like the concept of human rights, in order to obscure a deeper, yet inconvenient truth: that our society was built on the basis of a Graeco-Roman philosophy and law, Christian ethics, and scientific approach to the physical universe? What if tolerance and human rights had nothing whatsoever to do with it, and were invented by someone who didn’t like Christianity and wanted to do away with it, similar to AD (Anno Domini, year of the Lord) designations being replaced by the CE (Current Era)? What made our civilization great is neither tolerance, nor adherence to the concept of human rights. Our civilization, in fact, put a man on the Moon before those concepts were even accepted in the common discourse. I would actually go so far as to state that the acceptance of tolerance as a virtue, and acceptance of the concept of human rights as a basis of law, is the point where our civilization started collapsing and decaying to the point where it isn’t worth fighting for unless we abandon those two parasitic concepts and go back to the roots, to the real reasons why our civilization is great.

The Nazis were not defeated because we were tolerant. They were defeated because we had more guns and soldiers than they did. That’s all there is to it – the Nazis were defeated not because they were necessarily a philosophical evil, but because we killed more of them than they killed us. The victors in this bloody war then invented all sorts of rationalizations about why this was some cosmic fight of good against evil, to make it seem it was all worth it, but the fact is, we don’t even know if the Nazis would have killed the Jews in the concentration camps and resorted to various evils had they not been violently opposed by other countries. They did attempt to deport the Jews into Israel, for instance, and had they not been opposed in that, and had that succeeded, they would have simply get rid of all their “undesirables” that way, and we would have the state of Israel that we have today, and Hitler would get on with his megalomaniacal architectural projects in the capital of Germania. I am certain that, had there not been a war, the Germans would eventually get rid of the Nazis, just like the Russians got rid of the communists. The best way of keeping arseholes in power is to oppose them by a foreign threat. Without a credible foreign threat that would marshal the population into submission, the dictatorial regimes have to accept blame for their own failures. So, if the Nazis proved to be incompetent rulers, I seriously doubt they would manage to stay in power “for a thousand years”.

The reason why Nazism and Communism were perceived as aberrations is that they abandoned the common core of our civilization, which is Christianity. They are both Modernist ideologies that wanted to get rid of the Christian heritage and replace it with something new and “better”. They killed so many people because they had no compunctions about destroying the “ancien regime” they hated, in a way very similar to the bloodbath that was the French revolution. In a very real way, all those revolutionary regimes show what people are capable of when they don’t expect to be judged for their actions by God. If there is no judgement other than by “history” or “mankind”, if there is no good greater than the good of your political class, race or nation, what is there to stop you from just wiping out everything you don’t like? It’s not tolerance that stops the Christians from killing people. It’s the faith in resurrection, the faith in the afterlife, the faith that this world isn’t all there is, the faith that you cannot solve problems by outright slaughter, because your war isn’t against the flesh, but against the evil spirit of Satan (Ephesians 6:12). A Christian doesn’t attempt to solve problems by killing his religious and philosophical opposition, but by defeating it in both debate and in the criterion of fruits – a Christian desires to be the tree that bears the best of fruits, and here we come to the true reason why our civilization out-competed every other in good results. Science itself was invented by Christians who wanted to mine the physical world for truths and goodness infused into it by its Creator. That’s all there is to it. Science isn’t some eternal opposition to Christianity, as atheists would want to convince you. Science is a tool invented by the Christians in order to explore God’s creation and to praise Him by bearing the abundant fruits of knowledge. Only later was it hijacked by the modernists, by those who wanted to get rid of God and Christianity and create their own kind of order, watering the earth with human blood in the process. They, the murderers, the evil ones, are the originators of the concepts of tolerance and human rights, because they needed those empty and meaningless words as something to put in place of God’s law and God’s judgement as the reasons to be and do good.

What made our civilization great is the Augustinian interpretation of Christianity, the concept of Creation as the process of progressive revelation of God through greater knowledge of both the spiritual truths and the physical world. This understanding is what gave birth to science and technology, and it was later hijacked by the Nazis and the Communists and other Modernist ideologues who tried to uproot science from its Christian origins and use it as a weapon in the hands of the atheists that can be used to violently hammer God out of the minds of people.

This Augustinian understanding of the Catholic Church is in complete opposition to the “sola scriptura” principle of the Bible-fanatics, who don’t understand that the Bible itself doesn’t exist as they understand it, as a singular document of revelation, but as a progressive emergence of religious concepts in the minds of people. As the Catholics understand it, this process of revelation didn’t end with the formulation of the final canon of the Bible. No, it just took other forms – of revelations by saints, of saintly and good deeds of people, of science and technology. The fact that the Bible stops telling the story at a certain point in time doesn’t mean that God stopped talking. Some of the things He had to say took form of this computer I’m using now in order to write this. That’s what I mean when I say that the core of our civilization, what makes it great, is the Augustinian interpretation of Christianity.

It is not great because it is inherently tolerant. In fact, I would argue that it is inherently intolerant, and that it needs to be. It needs to testify its own truth, by living its own ideals and heritage, and producing great things as a testament of living according to God’s plans, because all those great fruits of science are the results of figuring out how the world really works.

And when we figure out what our roots are, when we figure out what made our civilization great, how it became so much superior to everything produced in China or Africa or all those tribes everywhere, we will reclaim our rightful place in the world: of teachers and masters, rather than the guilt-ridden people who need to watch every word in order not to offend some tribe of fucking idiots who understand both God and the world wrong, which is why their civilizations are worthless and they all come to the Christian-made paradises of the West to get some of that. And the irony is, instead of changing in order to be more like us, and therefore better, they try to change us in order to be more like them, not understanding that being like them is the very reason why their own countries are hellholes from which they are now escaping. Their countries are hellholes because they lived there. When they migrate over here, without changing their evil ways, they will turn this place into a hellhole, too. What we need to do is make them either change, to make them reject whatever stupid bullshit they used to believe and practice in their own shitty countries, and to accept our superior ways and beliefs, or get the fuck out to wherever they came from, and now. That’s all there is to it. We need to stop apologizing for being better than everybody else. We need to embrace our right to rule the world, given to us by the very simple virtue of being the ones who figured it out.