Purpose

What is your purpose in life? It is such a simple question, yet practically impossible to understand. But if you ask the western elite, especially those on the left, they are absolutely certain of what the answer is supposed to be - our primary purpose in life is to maximize the production of dopamine and serotonin in our bodies.

The sad truth is, that is a direct result of democracy. Most people are hedonistic simpletons, and their primary interest is fulfilling their primitive animal desires. Who cares about the achievements of civilization or mankind, when one can simply get drunk and have fun with a cheap prostitute. And although manipulable with regards to complex situations and decisions making, simpletons are very hard to fool when it comes to the current status of their own physical well being.

That is the reason why every scientific, cultural, or any other achievement has to be explained in the terms of well being for the common Joe. Sure, we've discovered the miracles of the universe, but what do I get out of it? A food cooker that can cook 10% faster than the one I had before? Well, that kinda sucks, but get me one that can do 20% and I'm all sold for science. Yeah, moon landings, radio waves, that's all cool, but I just want 5 more minutes of slacking every day. Oh, and I'll also vote for the political option that will manage to take those extra 5 minutes of my time away as soon as they can.

There's basically two ways to convince those people to accept short-term suffering for greater long term goals. Logic is not one of them, because those people are often illogical and they usually care only about today. Those two ways are religion and violence, and they both boil down to same thing. You will suffer great physical pain if you do not comply. Whether it be eternity in the fires of hell, or two policemen in a dark room beating the life out of you, great physical pain is reason enough to comply. It works even if the pain is set in the far future, it's just that the further away that future is, the greater and longer lasting the pain has to be.

Now, a democratic state has neither the religion nor physical force at its disposal. And without those two levers, people ultimately become weak, decadent, and spoiled, caring only about their current well being. The morals decay, and hedonism takes over as the prime mover, ahead of valor and virtue that usually go with more repressive systems. The elite seems to have realized this, even though they may not have formulated it yet so concisely. That's basically why NGO's came to exist, in order to provide a replacement religion for the ones we have lost.

Unfortunately, the new religion has kinda missed the point, and is pushing the people in the wrong direction, as it basically explains that physical pleasure is the purpose of life. Here is what Solon from ancient Greece considered to be the happiest life a man could ever live, a quote that is basically incomprehensible for modern mind:

Tellus... had both beautiful and good children, and he saw all his grandchildren from birth and all remaining alive... And the end of his life was most brilliant: for when the Athenians had a war against their neighbours in Eleusis, coming to the rescue and making a rout of the enemy he died most beautifully, and the Athenians had buried him publicly right where he fell, and honoured him greatly.

and here's what the elite thinks is real happiness today:

Life full of purpose. as long as that purpose is on banned substances list.

I'll let you be the judge of which of those two lives you'd rather live.

The moral decay is everywhere. People in the west are barely breeding, they are full of self-loathing and disrespect, and most of them would be absolutely horrified if they'd have to end their life as happy Tellus did. Because death from overdose is just so much less painful than death from a sword. Little wonder it is then, that the west is losing ground to Islam. Islamists have a goal. They have faith. They have purpose. And they're most certainly not afraid to die for it.

What do we have to die for? Charlie Hebdo and champagne? Free sex and drug addiction? Hedonism and self-sacrifice are polar opposites, they are mutually exclusive. All those people who were singing Imagine in Paris would never die for their beliefs. Sure, they all want that, but they would never sacrifice themselves for the rest of the society to get it. And for what reason? Well, simply for the reason that death usually hurts. Their addiction to physical sense of happiness is just too strong. They'd rather die in bed of old age, even though that death may be very long and painful, than they would die on a battlefield for what they believe in. They'd rather be subdued and have the whole civilization fall apart than stand up against evil. It just doesn't cause as much physical inconvenience in the short term.

Respect

Imagine you live in a poor area of the world, and a great business opportunity opens for you in a newly thriving country with religion and culture totally different from yours. After some considerations, you decide to pack your bags and leave for a new life. Unsurprisingly, you realize thousands of your countrymen did just that same thing and came to the new lands at around the same time you did.

Now, imagine the country you moved to decided to stop publicly celebrate their most important national and religious events so that you wouldn't feel discriminated. Now, a normal person would feel pretty silly in that situation, because it's just plain awkward. Nobody in his right mind would demand or expect such a course of action, because nobody in his right mind would be offended by people celebrating whatever they used to celebrate before that person moved in.

Also, on a somewhat unrelated note, imagine the job you thought was so great turns out to be pretty crappy. But the people you moved to decide to give you pretty much the same amount of money you used to earn on your crappy job, and they give it to you for nothing. And to top it all off, they ask you to invite your family, friends, and relatives, and give them money for nothing as well. All the while cheering for you and saying you're the best thing that ever happened to them.

What would you think of those people?

I know what I would think. I would think they are self hating utter lunatics and complete idiots. And that's exactly what immigrants, Islamic or not, tend to think of us. Especially of the people on the left.

And that's the reason why all the stuff that is happening in the western world is happening today. The immigrants don't want to integrate and become one of us. And can you blame them? No sane person would want that. They see us as a decadent group of self-destructive imbeciles. Rich imbeciles, to be sure, who should be parted of their money as soon as possible before they squander it away on something stupid like rich imbeciles usually do.

We're not the ones on top

Those who are predisposed to be somewhat docile, or who are incapable of a complex organized action will just live among us as parasites. Those who have a higher purpose in life will strive to fulfill that purpose, whatever it may be. In case of Muslims, it's either the conversion of idiots to true faith, or their extermination. Either option is acceptable, because idiots such as those are not really that worth saving anyway.

It all basically boils down to respect. The immigrants don't respect us, because we ourselves don't respect us. By abandoning our culture, our history, our identity just so that someone who doesn't even care about that wouldn't feel excluded, we present ourselves as self-loathing weaklings. And how do you treat self-loathing weaklings? You most certainly don't listen and respect them. More likely than not, you will attempt to dominate them, because a hierarchy of sorts must exist and you most certainly won't let those degenerates dominate you.

Unorganized minorities dominate on small scale. Blacks get their freebies by repeating the mantra they learned about white privilege and racism. Organized minorities, like Muslims, attempt to dominate on a large scale, by subduing entire populations and forcing them into their frame of reference. Neither of them want to integrate, because they don't view us as superior, or even equals. They view us as inferior beings. And you just don't want to denigrate yourself by meddling with inferiors.

They have no respect for us, and they want to destroy us. But put yourself in their shoes. Really, can you blame them?

Materialism

What is most important in life? There are countless answers to this question, some more sensible than others, but generally there is no real consensus on the question. At least there wasn't until recently. Nowadays, at leas in the modern western world, a consensus has in fact been reached. And it basically states that the most important thing in life is to live as long as possible and avoid being hurt at all costs.

It is truly a sad state of modern society that such primitive, trivial, instincts are what really drives us. Even ancient tribes that barely mastered fire had more transcendent and idealistic view of life. Life that our mainstream considers worth living is not even human, their desires are basic animal desires that are barely fit for primates, let alone the Homo genus. Even elephants seem to have some feelings of transcendence as they mourn their dead, while attempting  to contemplate greater spiritual issues to a degree their brains will allow. Our hedonism is actually a level below that. No wonder "speciesism" has become a real term. When humans are no different from animals, it is only appropriate they all be given the same rights.

None of what we have today, and what makes us human, is here because of hedonism, or even materialism for that matter. It is here because some people deliberately sacrificed their spare time, their personal lives, and even themselves for that matter, so that the rest of the society could advance to a more complex state. Without that sacrifice, if everyone went out looking just for themselves, we'd have a thriving stone age trading community. Capitalism is fine as far as economic theory goes, because it's the natural order of things. Socialism, on the other hand, is not even an alternative. It is a herd of envious people who are just as materialist as capitalists are, but far less capable in their skills. It is not a real system, just a masqueraded robbery.

When socialism met with capitalism, it fell apart. It took 60 years to do so, but ultimately it just couldn't keep up. Although it started off fairly well, feeding on the imperial leftovers, in the end all their boastful propaganda just couldn't compensate for the intrinsic lacking of the system itself.

Nowadays, capitalism has slowly turned from "just the way things are" into a sort of an ideology. We no longer worship Gods, we worship GDP. And just as socialism, it is oblivious to the unraveling that is happening beneath the surface. Ruined families, white genocide, runaway welfare state, loss of social capital...all that is irrelevant. As long as our holy indicator is growing, and as long as we don't feel any physical pain or emotional discomfort, there is no need for concern.

But there are other forces in the society, and they are starting to rear their heads. As the baby boomers retire, their aborted children are not here to take up the torch. Those who are here are people who care about ideology more than they care about their well being. People who are aware that the world doesn't start and end with them, and who are willing to sacrifice themselves in order for the ideas they hold sacred to live another day. Who are those people? Sadly, it's these guys:

It hurts to admit it, but deep down you know it's true

While it is a tragic realization that such an underdeveloped civilization with disdain for science, knowledge, and liberty is rapidly conquering our own, denial will not make it any less true. Really, let's stop fooling ourselves. There is no more west. It is dead. What still lingers on are corrupt remains of what will soon be a minority population. Maybe a healthy seed will survive in some sort of gated communities such as Orania or Volkstaat, or it will meddle with the newcomers and end up as Neanderthals or Haitian French did, contributing to a smallish percentage of the overall genome. But the glory days are gone.

Saudi Arabia? No, Tower Hamlets, London

And the reason why they are gone is because of extreme materialism. It is because people value their new iPhone more than they value the survival of their race. It is because they value a 2 week vacation more than they value their culture and civilization. It is because they, ultimately, value their life more than that of their children.

Or to put it bluntly, we're on our way out because we've become pathetic wimps. Either we'll turn back around, become men again, and retake what is ours, or we will perish. And justly so. 

Generations

I believe we are all familiar with the story of Moses, and his 40 year long trip from Egyptian slavery into the new and promised land. There's one quite peculiar thing about that story, however, and it's the fact that the trip takes, well, 40 years. For anyone with any basic knowledge of geography, which sadly now mostly refers to people who went to school before 1968, the trip across the Sinai peninsula is something that could be done in well below 40 days, let alone 40 years. The land distance from Cairo to Jerusalem, via Gaza, is somewhere around 500km, meaning that even a slow moving group of people with women and children should have no problem making that trip in two weeks. Yet they traveled for 40 years. Why?

Well, the reason really has nothing to do with geography. The reason for the slow motion was basically that the old generation had to die for the new one to take their place. They were stale and ossified in their ways, and the only way to make a society that wasn't based on the ideas they left behind was to make a society which those people who harbored them won't be a part of. Reeducating old people is like beating a dead horse, if their ways are erroneous, we may only wait till they slowly die off.

And God told Moses: 

"Hurry before they build the fence. 

And don't turn right when you reach Nile."

I believe this is a crucial issue, and one that today's left is painfully aware of. The time of the 1968 generation is done, and they are slowly but surely on their way out. The mania of political correctness they created is all but defeated, and the mainstream media, be they "liberal" or cuckservative are in complete disarray. They don't know what's coming, but they do know they won't be a part of it.

So, what can a basically childless generation do, when they realize they didn't leave much of their followers behind? They can bring the scum of the Earth inside. One of the reasons they do that is that they hope those people will help support their losing agenda by turning the opposition into minority. But the real agenda is way more sinister than that. They're actually willing to destroy the world that they can't have. Just as Hitler ordered retreating German troops to destroy everything in their path, even his own Germany whom he held so dear, today's leftists are actively working on destroying the society and all that is good, beautiful, and true, simply because they themselves can't have it. It's like Moses' old generation poisoning the food of their children, simply for the fact that they won't be the ones who will create the new Jewish nation. It is a sickening amount of envy, even for the "me" generation, and it just shows the rot and sorrow that liberal policies and families create.

What is also important to note is the possibility of a backlash. Oppressive policies create strong opposing forces in the society, and today's quasiliberal oppression is basically creating a yet unorganized fairly radical right wing group. If the left still manages to win, the west will look like Brazil. If they lose, they won't lose to a classical liberal option. They'll lose to Nazism 2.0. Neither is a society most of us would really like to live in.

This is a battle of time, and the stakes are huge. The leftists, or progressives as they ironically like to call themselves are trying to destroy everything most people hold dear before they die out. What's worrying, and what they themselves most likely don't realize, is that they'll succeed even if they fail. Brazil or Nazism, the end result will not be pretty.

Breeds

Everyday we are told that races don't exist, that they're just a social construct. Differences, if there are any at all, are just skin deep. In fact they are so minuscule that the average difference between two individuals of the same race is usually higher than the difference between the aggregate races themselves. That is, to say it shortly, simply not true.

Differences between human races are most akin to differences between dog breeds. The "argument" the left uses to discard this claim is the fact that the differences between dog breeds are larger than the differences between human races. Or, to be more precise, 65.1% of genetic variance was within breeds, 31.1% between breeds, and 3.8% between breed groups (retrievers, molossers, etc). Fst distance is 0.31. How do humans compare to that? Well, 85% of variance is between individuals, 5% is between populations in the same racial group, and 10% is interracial with Fst distance of 0.15.

There's a few interesting things here to notice. First of all, even though dog breeds are significantly more varied amongst themselves than different human groups of the same race, human races are actually further apart than dog breed groups. In other words, while the difference between an Italian and a Dutch are negligible in comparison to the difference between an Alaskan Malamute and a Samoyed, the difference between whites and blacks is larger than the difference between the terriers and the hounds. As a matter of fact, the difference between terriers and hounds is almost 3 times smaller than the difference between whites and blacks, and it's pretty obvious that the two groups are clearly identifiable and have completely different character and capabilities.

They're all the same, aren't they?

Now, let's see how the Fst distance factors in. Although it is twice as small in humans as it is in dogs, it basically means that the difference between whites and blacks is something like half the distance between a chihuahua and a rottweiler. A chihuahua/rottweiler cross is still obviously different, in both character and capabilities, than a purebred of either type.

Even more importantly, a trait that is strongly selected for can strongly differentiate in as little as 20 generations, as the Russian fox experiment shows.

So, how does all that compare to people? First of all, what's important to notice is that, even though overall interracial diversity is somewhat high, the spread is not equal on every genetic difference. Which means that, although we as groups are not all that different in most things, there do exist some things we are very different in. Skin color, for example, is one of them. Whatever internal differences whites may have between themselves, they're all, well, pretty much white. There's practically no intraracial variation in that gene whatsoever, and it's pretty much a 100% sure indicator of one's genetic and racial ancestry. It would be silly to believe it is the only one.

One of the most important factors, at least in today's industrial society, is intelligence. And the difference is all but staggering - even when compensated for all the external factors, the difference in IQ between whites and blacks is a whooping 15 points. On the other side of the curve, Jews seem to average around 110. For some reason, their spatial intelligence is average at best, which drags their whole score down. If measured for math and verbal skills alone, they seem to reach well above 120. Which sort of explains how a group that makes up 0.2% of the world population manages to win more than 20% of Nobel prizes. And 50% of Nobel prizes for economics, to keep true with the stereotype.

On the other hand, there seems to be only one (1) black person who won a Nobel prize for something other than feel-good stuff. Kudos to him, of course, but you'd expect more from a population that's somewhere around a billion people or 15-20% of the world.

Some people, usually those on the wrong end of the bell curve, will take this realization to the extreme and force racial laws and segregation. I believe that to be both unnecessary and unfair. Although few and far between, and most often carrying a few important non-black genes, there are some very intelligent black people, such as Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Thomas Sowell, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Ben Carson, and, as mentioned, Ser William Arthur Lewis. It would be unwise and unfair to limit such people to manual labor, just as it would be unwise and unfair to let a half-retarded white or Jewish person overlook their work.

But the solution to one blanket generalization is not to make another, even more inaccurate, blanket generalization. Instead of forcing black people to do simple and lower paid jobs, or artificially distorting the labor market to equalize the race-job structure, the solution is to accept the reality for what it is. We need to realize that black people will perform, and should be performing, a disproportionate amount of simpler and lower paid jobs, but we also need to realize that it's something that should be let alone and never be enforced for its own sake. 

Idiocracy

More and more people are beginning to realize that western culture is in serious decay, and that efforts need to be made to save it. Sadly, there really isn't that much left to save. A society can be loosely described to be made up of two components - culture and people. So let's see how each of those components are faring.

Let's analyze the people first. As I mentioned before in my previous article on Jews, I believe one of the reasons for their higher than average intelligence is the fact that they were put through a pretty tough natural selection filter. Although life for dumb people is usually more difficult than for the smart ones, being a dumb white person in Europe was usually survivable. Being a dumb Jew pretty much meant you were destined to be exterminated or starve to death. Without natural selection, or with natural selection severely restricted, entropy kicks in. And it is entropy's ultimate desire to turn us from more or less intelligent entities into a puddle of organic goo. We can see that the process is happening already, as the people of today seem to have significantly shorter reaction times than the people of Victorian era. Although IQ at the time was not yet devised as a way of measuring intelligence, it seems to amount to about a 14 IQ point difference. That difference is comparable to a difference between white and black people today. Or between this:

Primitive remnants of the dark ages

and this:

Modern marvels of vibrant societies

In other words, even if we save the white race of today, what we'll save is really not even close to what the white race was some 200 years ago. Yes, it's still better than being overrun by blacks, but the difference is decreasing abruptly.

Some may say that the society of today is technologically much more advanced than the one of the Victorian era, and that is something that really can't be argued with. But when one thinks of the great scientists of today and yesteryear, one can't help but feel the progress since that era is basically inertia. Large things take a long time to stop and turn around, the same theory that works for physical objects works for civilizations as well.

Even worse than removing natural selection from the picture, the society of today actually has inverse natural selection put in place. Stupid women are having nearly twice as many children as their intelligent counterparts, which means the Africans are about to catch up with us in several generations at most. At least the inequality issue will be made irrelevant by then. Overall health decline is happening as well, because advanced medical care dramatically increases survival chances of people who would previously die way before they had time to breed. While those on the left would be shocked at the cruelty and coldness of the statement, it unfortunately doesn't make it any less true.

We've been able to put off the collapse for a while by ramping up the amount of education the children get. Since the ability to function in a society is a factor of both nature and nurture, increasing one aspect of the equation could compensate for the drop of another. But as the overall intelligence level drops, it will prove to be impossible for the average person of today to achieve the level of functionality a Victorian person had, regardless of how much time and effort we put in their learning. The seeds of what will happen are already visible today, as the school standards are dropping significantly and people no longer even care about their children's education, only their emotional well-being.

Science is also on the fast track to become a shadow of its former self. Instead of being a cold and hard system designed to rationally observe the world around us, it is becoming a way to rationalize people's emotional desires and shortsightedness. People with an IQ score higher than ours realized that a lot of what is called science today is pretty much useless garbage, and could well be done away with.

So, if the people are barely salvagable, how is the culture doing? Well, let's use the first picture from the previous paragraph and compare it to something like this:

Less is more

While the Koeln cathedral is an obvious marvel of math, architecture, art, and design, the latter is, well, something a 5 year old child could draw and construct. Obviously, the zeitgeist of the time when the great cathedrals were built is no more. The zeitgeist of the west today is basically self-denial and a desire to ruin all that once made this civilization great. In other words, the western culture of today is something that should be eliminated with disgust instead of cherished and rescued.

Could we make a new society in the shape of an old one? We could most certainly try. And maybe we'll even succeed. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that we need to stop at what we have today, and carefully built on it in the right direction. We're way too far at this point. What we need to do is discard almost everything that's been done society-wise in the last couple of centuries. We need to go back to the time before the French Revolution if we want stable foundations. Or even all the way back to the 12th century renaissance, when the actual foundations of science were first made.

Jews

Controlling the world for 5776 years

Many on the right, while harboring nothing but hatred for the Jews, also paradoxically consider them to be a master race of sorts, a sort of an evil secret society controlling the world and doing as they please. If only it were that simple.

First of all, let's get one thing straight about Jews. They are, statistically speaking, the most intelligent race. They're great at networking. They're sort of sect-ish as a society. If anyone is to thank for that, it is White people themselves, who kept creating new obstacles for the Jews to overcome. Those that were not capable of overcoming those obstacles usually didn't have the opportunity to pass their genes along. Their religion also played a part in it, having created so many rules that life under Judaism was practically impossible to live unless one thought of creative solutions to circumvent God's laws. But they are not as powerful nor as united as their enemies seem to think they are.

Mostly for the reasons above, it is correct that the Jews are disproportionately seated in positions of power. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with that whatsoever. If people of a nation don't want them in a position of power, but are also incapable of providing their own people to fill those spots, maybe the people of that nation really are weaklings that need to be ruled by someone else.

But first we must realize that although the Jews do have disproportionate amount of control in various organizations and institutions, they really don't all work in unison. While Jews were disproportionally present in the communist movement, they were equally if not more disproportionate in the banking sector. Personally, I'm having trouble seeing how communists and bankers could easily get along.

I believe that the explanation for the fact that most Jews in the west are multiculturalist 1968 flagellants is pretty simple, and it has much to do with the creation of the Jewish state of Israel. You see, when Israel was created, all the Jews in the world had the choice to go to Israel or stay in their current homes as semi-foreigners. It is pretty self-explanatory that all the nationalists and right wingers would flock to Israel, while all the multiculturalist hippies would stay behind.

And I think that really explains why Jews in the west, as well as those in Israel do what they do. Those people aren't some sort of evil networked geniuses who attempt to destroy the west through their multiculturalist immigration agenda while wanting to keep Israel pure. Western Jews think national identity is something that should be eliminated and destroyed. They believe communism is the best system possible, and should as such be implemented all over the world. They hate the countries they live in, but they don't really like Israel either.

Israeli Jews are nationalists who want an ethnically pure nation, doing what expansive nationalists do best - occupying territory, destabilizing nearby countries and whatnot. While they don't especially delight in the biological and cultural destruction of the west, except as a bit of schadenfreude in response to what Hitler did to them, they don't really care about it either. Just as a French nationalist doesn't really care what is happening in Thailand. If the Thais want to destroy themselves in one way or the other, who is a French guy to intervene? If anything, they're thoroughly concerned by the islamization of Europe, particularly UK, Sweden, and France. They are practically getting exiled from those states by an aggressive and vocal Muslim minority. It's really not something that's in their interest.

Jews in Israel are also split in several camps. While some would like a two state solution, others would prefer the Palestinians be wiped out, exiled, and exterminated. Then again, some more would actually like Israel to be destroyed alongside Palestine as well. They are loony religious fanatics which are, as everywhere else in the world, winning a demographic battle. 

In 2 or 3 generations, it may well be Israelis themselves who decide to dismantle Israel as a state, and do it out of all things on radical Jewish religious ground. Similar to how the West is destroying itself based on a warped and radical version of Christianity. To think Jews are global masterminds, weaving the network which acts against the natural forces of biology and evolution is naive. Even if they'd try it, they'd ultimately fail. So eliminating Jews wouldn't result in an epic battle of races. It would result in a world that's pretty much the same as this one, except without any Jews in it.

And while there is some truth in the idea that global power is centralized, a rule by 147 entities, which are generally unaware of the whole picture and often have conflicting interests, is simply too much to form any coherent global policy, even if  they're all run by Jews.

The signs are here for all to see

Popeulism

Modern Christianity

Anyone who cares at all about traditionalism and conservativism is probably not too happy with Pope Francis. And for a good reason. Whether it's loosening of the Church standards regarding abortions and promiscuity, or whether it's suicidal love of Christian-hating immigrants, Pope Francis acts almost as if he has been infected by his own specific version of Toxoplasma Gondii. He's doing all the stuff that the liberal left would want him to do, which would be quite understandable if he was the part of the liberal left. But he is not, and as a matter of fact, he's sadly in control of the only institution in the west that might be strong enough to resist the leftist singularity. But just like Toxoplasma infested mice, he rushes towards his enemies, doing whatever they want him to do.  I am inclined to believe he will end up just the same as those mice usually do, except he may end up dragging with him the whole institution over which he presides.

This may be just pathological altruism, which really is an inseparable part of Christian faith. Let's not forget, after all, that Jesus died for all of us and asked nothing in return. Did such a sacrifice make a permanent change in human nature? Hardly. The spread of Christianity was one of the factors that brought the Dark Ages, and even after the world recovered, missionaries who spread the word of Christ hardly did it in a peaceful and Christian way. Let alone the Christian conquistadors, who often singlehandedly caused the deaths of millions.

It may also be extreme cuckservativism. Just as the Jewish guards in Nazi concentration camps thought they might get away by turning their coats and treating their compatriots even more brutally than the SS guards, maybe the Pope thinks he'll save himself and the church by bowing down in front of his new leftist overlords. If that's the case, one must realize that such a strategy didn't work for Jews, and it most likely wouldn't work for the Catholic church either.

Finally, there's the possibility that he's just trying to regain the church following. Because, in the age of multiculturalism, nations and traditions just aren't what they used to be. 200 years ago, it was unimaginable for someone to miss the church on Sunday. Today, it's almost odd to see someone actually go to church every Sunday. Not that I favor compulsory church ordinance, but this is just one way of showing how much things have changed.

In the age before the left took over, church was not just a feel-good place to go to when you felt lonely. It was also an institution that kept people in line and told them how they should behave. Sure, it overstepped its bounds more often than not, but it's what kept the social order. And for a society, it's more important to keep order than to have people feel good about themselves just for being what they are.

But in a modern day and age, where religion can be chosen freely, and having a lack of one is considered a perfectly acceptable stance, the church really has no way of forcing people to behave as they should. If the rules are too harsh and the rewards too little, you can give up and go to a different church that promises you more goodies for less work. Keeping the church pure may keep it tight, but it will also keep it small. In order for the church to stay large, it must be watered down to unrecognizability. And so it is gradually transformed from an institution that told you what to do into a newage-esque institution whose only purpose is to tell you how great you are just for being what you are.

But without any standard to uphold, entropy takes over and society starts to crumble. Human nature is for the most part horrible, while institutions and social pressure are the only things that keep the bad part of it contained. Without those factors, people start turning into crack-addicted morally insufficient trash. Multiculturalism destroys both the institutions and the social pressure. Because cultures have to compete for followers, they must keep making themselves more accepting or fade into irrelevance. And by becoming more accepting, they lose their corrective aspect. And when individuals are not corrected for their behavior, Dr. Jekyll will soon turn into Mr. Hyde.

Pope Francis seems to love Mr. Hyde, but even if he didn't he'd be forced to choose whether he wants his following to be made of  a small number of Jekylls or a horde of Hydes. Without multiculturalism, he'd never be forced to make that choice.

Migrants

There are all sorts of analyses on the current migrant crises, but as usual, the most important points are left out. And those points are:

1. The cause of the crisis

2. Optimal crisis management

3. The end result

With current crises management, the end result is pretty much this:

Europe, 2015

But let's handle first things first.

The cause

There are actually two causes, one internal and one external. The internal cause can pretty much be summed up as - too many people. Or, if we want to get down and dirty with the details, it can be described as as too many young people in a water-depleted part of the world that failed to properly capitalize on oil abundance. Even when the oil was above 100$ per barel, most of the Mideast countries failed to use that economic boon as a vehicle for their social and technological transformation. Instead, they built golden skyscrapers and bought excess military equipment. Now that the oil is cheap, and will likely remain so thanks to the emergence of electric cars, that historical opportunity has been lost. Instead, what we have is too many young adults realizing the rest of their lives will pretty much suck.

The second cause, which affects only about 1/3 of the migrants, is strategic and is basically the result of the rise of IS (it's pointless to call the organization that is active in Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Lybia, and Yemen ISIS or ISIL). Yet the rise of the IS is more or less an engineered event, a result of regional rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia. After GW Bush's idiotic Iraqi intervention, population dynamics resulted in about 2/3 of the former Iraq to fall under full Iranian Shia influence. The rest is split between the Kurds and the Sunnis. By gaining dominance over Iraq, Iran basically became the primary regional power with direct access to the Mediterranean sea through its Syrian ally Assad. With around 29 million people, Saudi Arabia was no match for 80 million Iranians, and another 20 million Iraqi and 2 million Syrian Shiites. Turkey was also not very happy to see a rival equal in size arise on their southern flank. But they had an ace up their sleeve, and that ace was the fact that there were still a bit more than 15 million Sunni Arabs in Syria, as well as another 5 million in Iraq, which formed a wedge that split the Shiite crescent in half. It didn't take much to unite those people, as they already considered themselves of the same stock (noticed already a century ago by Lawrence of Arabia and pretty much noone else) and have them form a brand new state. Cruel and crazy the IS may be, but it achieved important strategic objectives for both Turkey and SA. Iran was contained, and the Kurds were occupied with a new enemy, which was quite a nice additional bonus for Turkey.

The US, being allied with both Turkey and SA, as well as opposed to Iran and Syria, wholeheartedly supported the whole thing as well. And therein lies the mystical survival of the Islamic State. While on the surface they pretend to be enemies with pretty much everyone, in reality they are allies of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and United States. It's silly to believe that a country which was able to plow through Iraq and dispose Saddam Hussein in a matter of days can't destroy an entity that's militarily less than 10% its size.

There's also one more possible scenario, and that is yet another way of containing Russia. Syria is Russia's biggest ally in the region, and the Russians are using a Syrian port for their Mediterranean fleet. It's pretty obvious why the US would want to put an end to such an agreement. With the USA still being paranoid about Russia, I'm inclined to believe that Saudi decision to keep the oil pumping regardless of the market crash was conceived in accordance with the United States in order to weaken the Russian economy. Even if it weakened bot the American and the Saudi Arabian economies as well. Perhaps as a part of that deal, Saudi Arabia was allowed to push the IS into becoming primary Syrian opposition, while the US abandoned their former Al Qaeda allies.

An odd alliance

Crisis management

Currently, the crisis is managed by actively supporting the Islamic State and allowing hordes of refugees (likely infiltrated by AQ or IS terrorists as well) into Europe. This is very short-sighted thinking (for Europe at least, the US may well want Europe to be weak), and the end result may more than likely be a religious or civil war in Europe. What Kosovo is to Serbia today, Marseilles will be to France tomorrow. European politicians who believe migrants will accept new culture are living in a fantasy world. If Turkey, which occupied the Balkan peninsula for almost 500 years, failed to integrate and assimilate Serbs, Greeks, and pretty much everyone else it conquered, it is unlikely that Europe will be able to do the same thing in 50 or so years that are left before Islam becomes a dominant religion on the continent.

What should have been done is not attacking Iraq in the first place. What should now be done is to sign a peace agreement with Assad, force Saudi Arabia to pacify the IS and give them the Sunni state they so desperately desire. What should not be done is prolonging this war ad infinitum and flooding Europe with countless waves of immigrants that will irrevocably change the very essence of its culture.

Endgame

As already mentioned, the end result is basically the destruction of Europe as we know it. It shouldn't be so. These nations and people should be left to handle themselves on their own, and ultimately they would reorganize their lands into something Lawrence of Arabia suggested a century ago. While the current sequence of events may be beneficial to the US, which still seems to think Russia is USSR 2.0 (while it's looking more and more like inverse is becoming the case), Islamic Europe is most certainly not in their interest. It would have been much better to have a friendly relationship with Russia and leave the Arab countries to rot after squandering the opportunity given to them by oil. Maybe they would have come to their senses sooner as well.

But what is more likely to happen is Islamization and Africanization of Europe. With a dwindling population, Europe is already less populated than Africa (although it had 4 times as many people a 100 years ago). Moving Africa to Europe will help neither the Africans nor the Europeans. It will destroy the latter, while making no difference to the former. 

People get all teary when they see refugee children, but no one mentions that there's just too many refugee children. Pathological altruism consecrates people who destroy their lives for strangers, but pathologically altruistic societies tend to die out or be destroyed by others which are not that altruistic. By naively helping everyone who needs help, Europe will help nobody and destroy itself. What should be done is ending involvement and minding one's own business. And already accepted migrants should be shipped off to the US and Saudi Arabia which both started this whole mess.

Imminent progress

Name the last great scientist you know. I bet you'll say Stephen Hawking, and that's pretty much because he's the last (and not to be disrespectful, but not the most important) of his kind. While his research was most certainly profound, it basically comes down to evaporating black holes. Anyone else in the last 50 years? Well, no, not really. I mean, there are scientists around, some of them very relevant, but none that really changed the world.

Now, let's move back before 1968, the year when all that was good, beautiful, and true retreated before the solipsistic hordes. You'd really have a hard time naming just one.

A shocking lack of diversity

And this is barely half of them. There's Tesla, Oppenheimer's nuke team, Watson&Crick&ThatForgottenChick, Alan Turing, that misogynist Feynman, Schottky and his Bell labs team, Von Neumann, Von Braun, Korolev, Fleming...just the few of the top of my head, I'm sure there are many more which I have unfairly forgotten to mention.

So what basically happened is that 60 years ago we had somewhere close to 50 great scientists alive and kicking, each of them having given us a profound insight in the nature of the universe or a profound technological breakthrough. Today we have one, and sadly he's not really in the best of shape nowadays.

Still too white and male, but at least disabled

So when you hear all that progressive talk that today the living standard is greater than ever, the only reason for that is the fact that the discoveries from people like these found their way in people's everyday lives. First those of the first world, and finally those of the third world. All the great things we have now, such as iPhone and the internet owe their existence to this bunch. It's a natural progression, but one that takes decades to develop. So when we're saying our gadgets of today are nicer than the ones which previous generation played with, it's only because the fundamental research of that previous generation didn't make it into the mainstream markets yet.

What is worrying, however, is that there are no more people like this. The last of his kind has a few more years to live, and that pretty much puts the species to an end. Whether it's biological or social, I can't really say. Sadly, I believe it's both.

The biological part is, to be honest, a long shot. But it may be quite possible that huge leaps in medicine allowed the weak to live, essentially introducing many small defects into the gene pool, and thereby making exceptional individuals ever more rare. This may or may not be correct.

What most certainly is correct is the social problem. First of all, there's really no reason for any smart guy to go into science anymore. While it was once a solid career, today it's a total personal failure. PHD comics is essentially a documentary. After working hard to be the best in your school, you get to a good college. Where you work your ass off again to enter tenure. Working for half the paycheck of your elementary school dimwit colleague who's now a certified plumber, you and 5 other people compete for one professorship place at your university. Truly, who in their right mind would want that? What's left in the universities are essentially not so bright but very bookish people.

Then comes the publish or perish mantra. You have to churn out enough papers to stay on track. If you make a bombshell discovery, you need to split it in a dozen smaller papers to satisfy the bureaucracy. Or you can really make something huge and be a one shot wonder, most likely losing your career over slow production because you didn't satisfy the bureaucracy trolls. It's basically become impossible to do, at least for people who don't live at home with their mothers, thereby independent of paychecks and being forced to pay the bills.

There's also an easier road, one that most prefer to take, which is simply to publish crap. Just satisfy the form and churn out as many bad research as possible, it's unlikely anyone will ever read it anyway. With enough ass-licking, you have a good shot at becoming a new professor one day.

Is it then surprising that the only way to make the Saturn V - equivalent engines nowadays is to pull the Chinese option? That is - scan the black box you don't really understand and just make a copy. It works for now. At least while we still know how to make copies. Next in line, we'll pray to the Mighty Mountain God to help us.

Our house

Imagine you have a house, let's say you share it with a sibling. And let's say it's a big house, so each one of you actively uses only 10% of the house, the rest is common good. Now, suppose your sibling invites 8 of his trashy yolo friends to permanently live in the house with you and they all get their own 10% of the house. Would anyone in their right mind agree to such an arrangement? Clearly, not. Would you be better off with the new roomies than alone? Not really. Yet it is exactly what is happening in today's west, except it's not our houses but our countries. Why? I think I have a pretty good explanation.

Let's look at some of the details to this story, as well as common misconceptions. Now, first of all, why would anyone commit such a lunacy at all? Either that person is a small envious creature, so bent on ruining your life that it's willing to ruin its own in the process. Those people really do exist, but they are limited in numbers, concentrated in various NGO's, humanities, and Sweden. Such a minority may certainly cause problems similar to the one mentioned, and they are often being used as useful idiots for people who pull the strings. But I do not believe they are at the core of this. To realize why, let's make a small modification to the story.

Let's say I live nearby and own the house, with you and your sibling as my tenants. Clearly, having 80% of the house empty is not in my direct financial interest. Yes, I may wait for you guys to procreate, and in another 50 years or so my rent will be maximised. Yet 50 years is a long time. Or as an alternative, I may wait a year or two till I find some decent people to move in. But I want the cash, and I want it now. Maybe I gambled too much and I'm in debt. Maybe I picked a fight with the wrong people, got beat up, and now have to spend money on medical bills. Whatever the case, I need money and I need it soon. Most likely I don't really like the new tenants either. They're dirty and quarrelsome, and frankly they make my neighborhood uglier. But with the guy from the electric company threatening to cut the wire, I really don't have much of a choice now, do I? I let the scum come in, and solve my dire financial situation for a while.

New tenants

Now, you and your sibling clearly lost out. While the house was formally mine all along, you could freely roam the other rooms as well without my direct opposition. Maybe you could have cheaply bought one more room for your kids once they grow up as well and solved their existential worries. Yet now you can't because you have a drunken crowd partying in every room other than yours all day and night. As the rooms get filled up and situation gets intolerable, you're really left with the only choice - to leave and find some other place to live.

It's pretty clear why leftist useful idiots would fall for this crap. They love anarchy, they love destruction, and they love to destroy all that is good, beautiful, and true. If the rest of the world regresses, your relative value grows, even though you're not moving anywhere.

But why would the center and the right fall for the story? Because they're sold a false narrative that's leaving one little detail out. The narrative goes something like this - Yes, you do lose a bit of your Luddite life quality, but what you gain is immeasurable. All the new tenants bring in their stuff with them, they fill the empty rooms with fascinating oriental furniture, and the house on the whole has a lot more value. The house grows and becomes larger, new floors are added, and soon there is a mighty skyscraper towering over neighboring shacks. What was once a tiny shed surrounded by empty and unused land is now an asset generating behemoth.

Pure beauty

Your room is more valuable as well, because some of those people are breeding fast and they may want to pay you to get in. And if you're poor, you may get some of the surplus goods owned by one of your new cohabitants and end up better off than you were before. Even if the furniture is not that fancy, still, a plastic shelf is worth more than no shelf at all, is it not? Well, yes it is, before it turns to garbage and becomes a pollutant, but even if we disregard that issue, there's one little thing left out. It's really not your house. It's the house you share with your sibling and 8 other people. Instead of having a house to your own, empty as it may be, you two now live in 20% of the house, with the rest being occupied by noisy trash.

The one who sees real benefit is the owner of the house. Instead of having 2 people paying their rent and enjoying their surroundings, now there are 10 people paying their rent, even though they don't enjoy their surroundings all that much.

Now to bring that up to state level, one only needs to ask oneself - who controls all the empty land? Who is a part-owner of all the houses on that land? The government. And the government wants to maximize rent. Now, don't make a mistake and think they don't know what they're doing - they most certainly do. But they have to do it because they're broke. And the reason they're broke is democracy. When your governance is limited to 4 years and you have a very demanding population who may or may not give you another 4 years, but you're also allowed to take 30-year loans, it's pretty clear what the best course of action is. You take as many 30-year loans in those 4 years of power as possible, spend as much as you can on bread and circuses, and then use the plebs' positive sentiment to gain another 4 years. If you don't do it, the other side will, so there isn't really much of a moral hazard anyway.

When the next government comes, it will have to finance those debts. And the easiest way to do that is to raise taxes or increase the number of taxed individuals. Ideally, both. Also, raise as much new 30-year loans as possible, hoping there's still some value to scavange left over from the previous government. So what you end up with is a house owned by a person with a spending addiction, whose only way to cover his ever mounting debts and survive the day is to keep increasing the number of tenants and raising the price of rent. Repeat ad nauseam.

Victory of mysticism

The amount of knowledge discovered in the last couple of centuries is truly immense. Just to think of the fact that 250 years ago we didn't know of any planet beyond the ones visible to our earliest hominid ancestors seems almost like a joke. Barely 20 years ago we didn't have the knowledge of any extrasolar planets. Today we count known planets in the thousands, and just recently we've discovered a planet that's pretty much Earth's twin in a pressure cooker. One may only wonder what future discoveries lie ahead of us.

That is, unless the devices used to make those discoveries hurt someone's feelings. Especially if that someone is a stone age savage. Truly, I must be joking, right? I mean, for all the political correctness of modern progressivism, science is still held on a holy pedestal, a sort of new religion for the new world order, right? Wrong. See, the biggest lie that progressivism and leftism ever served us is that their proponents rely on cold hard science. They do take science into consideration, that is true, but only when it can be used as a tool to promote equality and demote Christianity. But when science suggests their whole ideology is on shaky ground, it is readily dismissed and laughed upon, labeled as backward and racist prejudice. The leftists don't revere science, they hate it. And they use it only as a shield to destroy what they hate even more, which is stability and social order.

The story of the Thirty Meter Telescope is a revelatory insight into their actual stance towards science and knowledge. They are willing to prevent the construction of a remarkable scientific tool which could provide us with an immeasurable amount of knowledge, just so that some stone age tribe won't get upset by the evil white men putting a reflective hat on the head of their mountain-god.

The TMT has been the source of controversy. Due to its immense light-gathering power and the optimal observing conditions which prevail atop Mauna Kea, the TMT would enable astronomers to conduct research which is unfeasible with current instruments. However, the TMT has triggered protests—both locally and across the world—about the lack of indigenous peoples' consent over the construction of the telescope and its 18-story-high enclosure on land which is sacred to native Hawaiians,^[5] attracting international coverage.^[6] In October of 2014, its construction was temporarily halted voluntarily due to protests, and while construction of the telescope was set to resume on April 2 and later on June 24, 2015, it was blocked by further protests each time.^[7]

The evil eye of desecration

Truly it is paramount that a stone age tribe, whose members most likely don't even believe anymore in the gods they used to worship, has its sacred places untouched. Knowledge, exploration...to hell with that. They're a trademark of patriarchy anyway. It's more important that we dance around the fire and honor the mighty Mountain God of Mauna Kea!

Long ago, in medieval Europe, there was an ongoing debate between mysticism and scholasticism. One side thought that God can be experienced through personal mystical experience, while the other considered the same to be possible through reason and logic alone. A sort of mathematical proof that God exists, if you will. Because it had a side effect of creating an immense amount of knowledge completely unrelated to religion, scholasticism won the day, and in not-so-distant past, mysticism was all but defeated. Rationalism ruled the day, and people considered the universe to be a sort of an infinitely complex mechanical device. Yes, their understanding was limited by the steampunk age they lived in, but it showed a much greater rationality than what we have today.

But the success of scholasticism was its own undoing, because while it discovered so many wonderful things, it pretty much proved the Bible to be factually incorrect. The creation was really just a myth, copied from the Babylonian faith, and not much unlike all the other indigenous creation stories. It transformed itself from a method of proving Bible right into a method of proving Bible wrong. Still, powerful enough as it was, even in the fairly religious nation of USA, religious fundamentalists weren't allowed to block the construction of  telescopes. While they were afraid the evil device may actually look far enough into the universe to see God himself, they were even more afraid of the army guns which protected the train on which the telescope mirror was transported through the Midwest.

But just when it was thought to be defeated, mysticism reappeared in all its might. This time, however, it was masked as nothing other than rationalism itself. Like a cuckoo egg, it infiltrated rational and scientific circles, and after what will ultimately become known as the catastrophe of 1968, became a dominant worldview. There is little left of the old rationalism in the new. While the old rationalism despised superstitions, the new one embraces them thoroughly. While old rationalism embraced order and hierarchy, new one wants to destroy it. There is just one remnant of the old rationalism in the new, and that is its hostility towards Christianity. Aside from that, it's pure mysticism, this time especially dangerous, as it is shrouded in a rationalist disguise.

And while rationalism, or its ancestor, scholasticism, believed in reason and knowledge, mysticism believes in feelings and superstitions. Knowledge of the universe is not important, what is important are one's individual feelings. While scholasticism is a unique school of thought which made western civilization great, mysticism is really the philosophy of cavemen and our hominid ancestors. While Homo Erectus may have difficulties understanding atomic theory, the idea of dancing around the fire for the glory of a Mountain God would most likely feel perfectly natural for the creature.

What the left actually does is that it unknowingly tries to reduce the society back to a caveman culture. A culture where everything around us is a mystery, world rife with small gods and demigods, where every rock has a soul and mighty anthropocentric giants shoot lightnings from their eyes during storms. Their real enemy is not religion, because they are a religion, their real enemies are science, knowledge, and order. The opposition to Christianity is just an atavistic tic. 

True diversity

It has become a meme that diversity is a code word for white genocide, and there truly is some truth in that. Instead of what many believe is a Jewish conspiracy, I consider it to be primarily a matter of white flagellantism, as the whites still more or less run the show. What makes the whole thing somewhat obfuscated is the fact that such behavior is quite unusual in the elites, so many mistakenly consider their self-destructivism to be a matter of external conspiracy. Sadly, an external conspiracy would be a much easier thing to deal with. Jews are in on the bandwagon, that's for sure, but I'm inclined to believe they are in it only because they smelled that's where the power lies. Their primary interest is to be on the top, not so much as what that top actually looks like.

As the whites slowly move to become a minority, and as other races become more included in the upper echelons of the society, I believe the spirit of flagellantism will spread to their leaders as well. Because, really, even if you're black it's impossible to rise to the top if you're a conservative male. Sure, the color of your skin gives you some credit, but not nearly as much as you lose when the social elite bouncers realize you don't think families should be destroyed and Christian religion replaced by some sort of quasi-rational antitheism.

Ultimately, the goal is to have a raceless and classless society. If the terminology seems familiar and reminescent of Trotskyism, that's because it's exactly that. In a utopian communist dream world, making all people exactly equal will eliminate all other sorts of inequality and struggles for power. The fact that equal people can still be assholes towards each other somehow eluded the thinkers from the red ivory tower.

Unfortunately, evolution really doesn't work as the Marxists think it should, so instead of having equal clones, there is plenty of biodiversity in the human race. One way to resolve the problem is to actually remove biodiversity alltogether. The way to do that is to encourage or force as many people as possible to resettle and ultimately interbreed. Sure, the genes will still be there, but their manifestation will be utterly insignificant, especially if they are recessive.

Take a blue-eyed gene for example. Back in the day, almost 60% of the US population had blue eyes. Today, it's only 16%. And still, the non-latino white population decreased much less, from almost 90% to 60%. The reason for that is that even a small increase in the amount of dominant genes significantly decreases the manifestation of recessive genes. Many US whites are not purebreeds, having an occasional ancestor from another race. When considering recessive gene traits, such seemingly minor incursions end up having significant results.

And this is really not only about whites. There are many unique genetic traits specific to pretty much all the peoples of the earth. Whether you like them or not, whether you think they're pretty or not, they're bound to go the way of blue eyes and red hair - into oblivion. People who were once typical of their stock will become freaks and oddities. Just as the Bushmen women with steatopygia were considered a circus attraction in the west, so will be the blondes and redheads in the brave new coffee-colored world of lookist equality. Not that the bushmen will have it any better either, whatever you may think of their butts, they'll end up virtually extinct as well.

This really brings us to the point of true diversity. As is quite often the case in cultural Marxist newspeak, the words tend to have the meaning opposite of what they actually define. Sad truth is - in the brave new world of equality, there will be no diversity whatsoever. This really isn't a white genocide - it's everybody's genocide. Sure, the whites may fall first, but it's foolish to think the process will just stop there. It will continue, till we are all equally dull and uniteresting.

Leftist idea of diversity.

And it doesn't end just with biology either. All the cultures will be devoured. Yes, there will still be some remnants providing entertainment for the tourists, and history buffs will talk about the days when there were Christians in Europe or Shintoists in Japan, but for all intents and purposes, old cultures will be dead and buried. Just as Slavs now recreate Roman emperors on the eastern Adriatic coast, and just as Black people dress up in Victorian costumes for the Olympic Games opening ceremony, there will be people who will recreate the past. But as much as one may feel sympathy for their will, they will hardly ever be more than impersonators, and even more sadly, they will simply be part of the cultural white noise.

What I stand for, and what I believe everyone should stand for, is diversity. But not diversity in its newspeak meaning, which is white genocide followed by all the others (though Jews, smart as they are, may end up being the last and even pull through). I stand for true diversity which really means what people still think it does. I love the fact that there are different peoples on this planet, that they have different capabilities, that they look differently, and that they have different cultural, artistic, and social norms. Sure, some are better than others, there's no point in denying that, but the fact that so many different culture and people exist makes this world a much more interesting place. Cultural Marxists intend to destroy that. We should not let them.

The point of no return...

...is way past us. Why such a gloomy outlook? Well, one only needs to look at population statistics to see why. There are two parts to this story, economic and social. Both are beyond saving. Let's look at the economic part first.

For that I'll be using one European country that I am familiar with, which happens to be Croatia, since Europe is leading the way on this one, and Croatia is yet again one of the unfortunate leaders in the union. There are 3.7 million registered voters in Croatia, and 1.3 million employees, out of which 300k work for the state. Simple math shows that factual taxpayers make up around 28% of the voting population. In other words, any attempt to reduce the state is impossible, as we would need to convince more than 30% of people who are directly or indirectly living from the taxes paid by those 28% to vote against their obvious interest. Sure, a few percent of people can always be convinced to do such a thing, but 30% is a target which even the best propaganda or PR teams would have serious trouble with.

Ok, Croatia is a former communist country in a socialist hell called the EU. Surely the libertarian USA is doing much better on that front? Well, not exactly. Seems like there are 123 million employees in the USA, and 20 million of those work for the government, leaving the 103 million voting taxpayers. There are 235 million voters, meaning that even in a so called center of capitalism, people who make capital are actually a 44% minority. While not quite as bad as the socialist Mecca called Europe, it too is beyond salvation. Add to that the votes of illegal immigrants, and we're getting pretty close to the worst of the EU performers.

The second part is social. And while the battle is still not lost on that front, as the majority of the population is still indigenous, the economic aspect is making the battle practically impossible to win. The reason for that is that the pro-welfare government needs continuous import of foreign welfare cases in order to maintain its power. Some immigrants actually do "melt" in the pot and accept local cultural and social norms. This usually means they start working as well, and when that happens, they usually start voting for fiscal conservatives. If immigration and welfare were to somehow magically stop right now, most of those people would still eventually manage to assimilate and the whole leftist agenda would shatter.

But by keeping the immigration pressure high, the left achieves two things. First, it directly increases the number of welfare cases, perpetuating its power. Second, it slows down the integration and consequential employment of current immigrants. While one immigrant in a protestant neighborhood will pretty much be forced to blend in and find a job or suffer social ostracism, 10 000 immigrants can pretty much keep to their culture and live off welfare for as long as they please, and without any unease or condemnation.

Adding all those things together, it's becoming crystal clear what Europe and the US will become in the upcoming several decades. Venezuela will start looking like a paradise.

The fall of Rome

We all know how Rome fell, right? An empire that held control over most of Europe was defeated when innumerable hordes of barbarians poured through Germanic lands, their armies obliterated brave defenders, and sacked the glorious city, bringing with them centuries of feudal darkness.

Well, not quite. Let's take a more detailed approach, and see what was really going on...

Not quite sudden

So for starters, Rome was desperately out of money. The Roman plebs grew ever more numerous, and the bread and circuses they demanded became more and more costly. Events like mock ship battles in the Colosseum would be unimaginably expensive by today's standards, let alone for a preindustrial civilization. What started as a fairly minor issue slowly turned into a nightmare. While Rome managed to control the situation in the beginning, conquering new lands and sucking them dry to provide for the local proletariat-equivalent, as the city grew and rich borderlands shrank, the situation slowly became financially impossible to maintain. To end the social program was hardly a possibility anymore, considering the fact that such a measure would instantly turn the city of one million people into a bloody battlefield, where the emperor's forces were vastly outnumbered.

So what did the government do? What governments always do - raised taxes and created inflation. While the idea of printing unlimited amounts of fiat money was still nonexistent, what they did come up with was to put less and less silver into silver coins. Taxes were also raised to the point where normal people simply didn't have enough resources to both pay the taxes and not starve to death. No wonder the demographic picture looked pretty bleak.

Still, not all was doom and gloom. For those who had good connections with the elite, such as senators and their clique, tax deductions were allowed. Thus latifundia were born. The local villagers really had no way to compete with giant semi-industrialized agricultural holdings, and were soon forced to sell their lands to latifundium owners and thereby bind themselves and their work to their new owners. Thus feudalism was born.

With villages emptied and free folk turned to semi-slaves, Germanic tribes slowly poured in. Not through conquest, but through negotiation and diplomacy. As they moved in, they usually moved in bulk, creating something similar to vassal states within a larger Roman state. While officially subjects to the emperor, they pretty much had the freedom to do whatever they wanted to do, as long as they helped the Roman army in their campaigns. This was an important issue, since the army turned into a shadow of its former self, and was largely composed of Germans, mercenaries, and all other people that really didn't have much to do with Rome itself.

The society changed as well. Becoming a multicultural state, Roman gods and traditions slowly faded and became just one of thousands new deities. With nothing to believe in, moral decadence became ever more prominent. Emperors also began to take on godly status, some of them proclaiming themselves to be gods, thereby amplifying the charade. Sure, people had to pretend they were real gods, but in reality, it all just became one big mockery. This social disintegration ultimately allowed Christianity to take over and spread its less than enthusiastic stance towards serving the homeland.

Finally, when Attila the Hun came about, he found the Roman state practically ready to implode. Nevertheless, the half-Germanic general Aetius managed to defeat his hordes, which was pretty much what lead to his downfall, as the empiror Valentinian decided he became too powerful and should therefore be killed. This proved to be a tragic mistake for the Empire, as it turned out Aetius was pretty much the only person who still kept the disentangling mess in one piece.

Even with Aetius, the empire was really not much to be admired. Large swathes of land in today's Spain and France were effectively no longer under the emperor's control, and what was left was pretty much in shambles. While parts of the Empire had occasionally splintered off before, especially during the third century civil war, it was always thought of as one country. Therefore any generals who seceded didn't really want to have their own country next to Rome, they wanted to take control of the entire empire instead.

But this time around, as most parts of the Roman Empire were short of Romans and populated by tiny barbarian tribes instead, the new warlords had no real desire or possibility to reunite with other clans. It was simply impossible to keep the empire in one piece anymore. The eastern half, or Byzantium, managed to avoid that fate, held on to their lands, and survived another thousand years.

What is striking about this story is the resemblance to what is happening in today's western world. Let's go through the list, shall we?

• Inflation? Check
• Rising taxes? Check
• More welfare (ab)users? Check
• Rising state debt? Check
• Uncontrolled immigration? Check
• No-go zones in parts of sovereign territory (today's inner cities)? Check
• Moral and social disintegration? Check
• Crony capitalism (latifundia)? Check

If something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's quite possible that it's actually a duck. History repeats itself, and today's duck walks and quacks staggeringly similar to the duck of late Rome. Rome didn't fall in one battle, it was falling apart for centuries. As its internal weakness allowed immigrants occupied parts of its territory, what was left in the end was an empty skeleton. And when the skeleton collapsed, all the lands it held together simply went their own separate ways. There was no sudden foreign invasion, just constant immigration and internal decay. It was not an event, it was a process which lasted for centuries. And one that is strikingly similar to what we see today. What is happening in today's Marseilles or Arizona is exactly what was happening in Roman Iberia and Gaul. And it will end the same way.

Is there a light at the end of the tunnel? A weak one, but yes. Byzantium survived, and it looks like it might survive again. Although it moved 2000 kilometers to the north.