On Recycling

 

Among ecologically conscious people idea of recycling is very popular. They believe that saves the planet and what not and want to recycle as much as possible. Some saw some examples of recycling in Europe and decided to copy without properly understanding how or even why it's done. 

The difference is that in Europe they do it not to save planet but to obtain raw materials for less than it costs to import them from overseas. They only collect certain select materials and they collect them individually without mixing them with any other materials. There are collecting points for paper, glass, metal and plastic. Each of these materials then goes to specialized company who knows what to do with it, they are not collected by garbage collectors. We have similar companies who collect metal scrap and even willing to pay you for the items you give them.

In contrast in Australia all "recyclable" material goes into the same recycle bin. It is then collected by garbage collectors and pass to people who then sort this recyclable rubbish into different categories for further recycling. Sorting rubbish is a very demeaning work. Not only that, but it also defeats the whole economic rationale for recycling by making it too expensive. People who sort rubbish have to be paid, thus adding to the final cost of recycled materials. The final price is too high to make recycling economical under this model as recycled materials are not cheaper than new ones.

Thus, we should do away from single recycling bin and rubbish truck recycling and instead transition towards individual material collection points, each managed by companies who can make economically viable use of the material they collect.

Dangers of Activistocracy

 

A while ago I wrote an article about dangers of Technocracy where scientists have full control over society. Later I also wrote why more moderate and liberal Techno liberalism is good compared to outright Technocracy.

However, dangers to democracy come in many forms. No matter what one group takes full control over society, it will be bad for everyone else. No matter what one group has unlimited power, it is always a tyranny.

In our current democracy various organized social activists have a disproportionally large influence on the society and politics. 

The louder certain groups express their views the more influence they get. Convinced in righteousness of their actions, such groups shout down anyone who disagrees with them, labelling them with some insulting words. Loud minority controls the narrative and society. Silent majority cannot do anything against it.

Sometimes such groups get money from various interest groups in order to boost their message and make it an ever-present brainwashing noise in the public discourse. Sometimes these donors are hostile foreign powers, such as China and Russia who want to destroy the Western Liberal world from within and sponsor the most destructive and insane political movement they can find.

To make matters worse, various social norms make certain opinions easier to express compared to others. Its socially easier to condemn Donald Trump than speak in favor of him. There are several other things that socially easy to defend such as families, seniors, women and businesses. In contrast unemployed, men, homeless or employees are unfairly maligned by the press, making it near impossible to speak in favor these people's interests.

Activistocracy got stronger and more prevalent in 2010s but it existed before as well. 

Before we had people who were willing to defend silent majority against the loud minority. Most famously Ronald Reagan, but also Bob Hawke and others. Both Reagan and Hawke kept getting re-elected with huge margins despite detractors calling them what not. Reagan managed to fight and defeat activistocracy and is a true hero of democracy.

Unfortunately, nowadays politicians are too narrow minded and too scared of Murdoch press as well as few select activist groups with undue high influence, such as Hillsong Church, climate change activists or business consul. All that devolved democracy into tyranny of these select groups. They are getting undue benefits and rewards at expense of everyone else in the society.

These certain activist groups are clearly anti-democratic and harmful for society and country. They exploit the society for their self-interest and actively destroy lives of many people outside of these groups. We need to fight against such groups and limit their influence on society.

In addition to dissolving the News Corp, serious audit should be made into Hillsong Church, climate activists and other organizations. If they take any Russian or Chinese money, they should be banned and their leaders arrested. 

News Corp possibly also guilty of taking Russian money, that is something Putin will likely do to control the editorial policy in Murdoch press. 

Finally, business consul unlikely takes any money from external sources, but they represent interests of a small minority that are at odds with much larger society. They too have to be curtailed in their influence. 

How to Dissolve Belgium

 

Talks about Flemish independence and consequentially Belgian dissolution is nothing new. Pro-independence parties consistently win majorities in Flanders. At the same time negotiations to form federal government take more and more time and increasingly have to include pretty much every single anti-independence party from both left and right to have a majority and make it work somehow. However, such a broad compromise government cannot achieve much, leaving country in never ending impasse. All the while debts keep growing and nothing is getting done.

However, dissolution of Belgium would rise several important issues that has to be addressed somehow. Even if Flanders secede or unite with Netherlands, what is going to happen with Wallonia, Brussels and that small German speaking region. Obviously, it is better to address them before rather than after the dissolution.

Brussels

While issue of Flanders and Wallonia mostly concerns only local residents, the Brussels is not so simple. Brussels is a de-facto capital of European Union and as such its continued functioning is important for every member of the European Union. 

As European Union ever grows larger and more powerful, Brussels too keeps growing bigger and bigger. Outer suburbs of the capital already reached out of its designated capital region into the surrounding Flemish Brabant and now border Wallon Brabant as well. 

To make sure Brussels can continue to grow and fulfil its role as European capital it needs space. Thus, in the event of Belgian dissolution it needs much more territory than its designated capital territory provides it. 

To that end Brussels should be united together with all or most of Brabant province, both Flemish and Wallon Brabants. That will give Brussels enough room to grow and function as a city state and a European capital. Actual borders can be adjusted to include or exclude other important areas, for example a FN Herstal arms factory in Liege Province. To keep border with Germany and Luxembourg even the whole Liege province can be made part of Brussels city state or turned into a separate nation. 

Greater Brussels city state should continue to be bi-lingual or maybe even include other languages of the EU as official, particularly large ones such as English and German. The name of this state can be either Brussels, Brabant, or even European Capital State. It should assume legal continuity from original Belgium, possibly shared with European Union as whole. It can be its own sovereign state or even a pan European Union condominium, where sovereignty for the area is ultimately vested in European Union itself. 

European Union sovereignty over the Greater Brussels arrangement can strengthen European Union and make it much more empowered on international stage. Much like with the US federal government's District of Columbia, it will give EU a territory with a complete federal control, not shared with any member states. It will also allow European Union to have its own army by taking over the Belgian one.

Flanders

Some in Netherlands propose a union between Flanders and Netherlands. Popularity of this idea is low in Flanders itself, however. Nonetheless this arrangement has several advantages over the independent Flanders.

To begin with it will allow Flanders to continue its membership in European Union without need to re-apply or work out some complex arrangements. It will also save Flanders trouble of creating its own Armed force. Finally, it will shield Flanders from hostile actors in Russia and China who would try to undermine the new state, by promoting pro-Russian puppet candidates.

One might argue that such arrangement will not change much for Flanders. However, the root issue with Flemish independence movement was unwillingness ot subsidize much more impoverished Wallonia. Union with Netherlands does solve just that, as Netherlands is one of the wealthiest states in Europe, thus Flanders would not be the net donor of the union but rather net beneficiary. The second issue was language and here there is no problems at all. Both Netherlands and Flanders speak Dutch, unlike the French speaking Wallonia. In general, there is much more cultural similarity between the two. Finally name Flanders has poor reputation due to being the same as that of certain character from popular American sitcom The Simpsons. A country with such name might struggle to get foreign investment. 

In case of the union with Netherlands, Flanders may keep all or most of their powers as a regional autonomy. That will make transition even smoother. Actual powers of the Flemish government can even be increased, even though 

Benefits of the Union with Netherlands so outweighs the outright independence, that perhaps this option should be the only alternative to continuation of Belgium with no option for outright independence.

Alternatively, Flanders can indeed become fully independent member of the EU and NATO. Some provisional arrangements have to be implemented to make sure the transition is a smooth one and there is no disruption to European Union or NATO. Security would be particularly important issue here as countries like Russia could try to use transition to damage European security.

Wallonia

Wallonia is by far the easiest to solve part of Belgium. Wallons do not want independence; however, some want to unite with France. Many Wallons dislike even increasing presence of Dutch language and want to promote French language as the only one in the country. 

Because of that union with France is a simple solution that serves their aspirations. Sure, Wallonia has huge public dept, but France is not a county that will pass on territorial expansion, even if it has to shoulder the debts of its new territorial possessions, Wallonia's population is but a fraction of French so annexation will not impact French finances in any significant way.

German Speaking Area

Small German speaking area in the far east of Belgium can be given to Germany. That will somewhat offset growth of France at expense of Wallonia.

Conclusion

Despite some opposition to Belgian dissolution, support for this option is strong and ever growing. It is much better to arrange a cohesive transition plan and carry it through than wait until Flanders just declares unilateral independence and plunges not only Belgium but the whole EU into chaos and instability.

Conservative Complacency

I often criticize various progressive and left-wing causes. Woke is insane and provide never-ending reasons to oppose it.

However right wing is full of their own problems and the biggest of them is self-righteousness. 

Just a while ago on X someone posted a simple question about income inequality, and it spewed a shitstorm of rightwing shit in comments. Half of them just downright said that it is wrong or immortal to criticize inequality or complain about it. Others added how most people "deserve to be poor". In the opinion of the modern right wingers that is capitalism.

However actual capitalism was different. In 19th century capitalists invented joint stock companies. They offered people shares of their business in exchange for their financial contribution. Seeing benefit for themselves people bought these shares and using all these money big companies were created. These companies later transformed the US into a superpower we know today.

In fact, even medieval Kings and so-called robber barons had to offer followers material incentives if they wanted to get anything done.

In contrast all modern self-proclaimed "capitalists" can do nothing but call equality wrong, free stuff immoral and minimum wage destructive. Unlike their 19th century predecessors, these "conservatives" have nothing but empty rhetoric full of self-righteousness. 

However, if you cannot offer people anything but excuses on why "they deserve to be poor" it's only fair that they turn to someone who can offer them actual money. Someone like Bernie Sanders or Andrew Yang. 

A very capitalist principle of the auction. Your business impotence and right-wing drivel was outbid by Andrew Yang's UBI. You have only yourself to blame. Turns out capitalism was uncompetitive and lost people to UBI.

In contrast UBI is actually better represent spirit of original capitalism. Shareholders have to be paid dividents and UBI is a dividend on USA or <Insert Your Nation Here> Inc.

How Fascism Works

Fascism works because fascist leaders promise to make life of citizens dominant ethnicity of a given country much better by taking land from their neighbors. Land is valuable thing, so some people are inclined to support it in hope of getting more land for themselves or their children.

To top this up there is an emotional appeal towards perceived national greatness. We will be better, grander and stronger and foreigners will both fear and respect us instead of despising and taking advantage of us as their currently do.

Finally, there is revanchism for our lands currently controlled by former occupiers. You can nearly always find or made up some documents that certain parts of neighboring countries were originally ours but was unfairly taken away from us by foreign invaders. Now its only fair to take these lands back.

All that make fascism work.

What does not work is the fact that to achieve any of that you almost always need to start wars. People do not like wars. Foreign countries are particularly alarmed as they see war in the air and unlike the invader, they have nothing to gain, only to lose so they band against the fascism to take it down together.

On 2014 War in Donbas

War in Donbass was a pseudo civil war:  Russian soldiers and special forces, disguised as local insurgents, pretended they fight a civil war as they covered up a Russian invasion. Russia recruited some locals for that as well, promising a lot or pay for participation. Russia did it because they wanted to make it look as much as a civil war as possible. Some locals did join, thus boosting Russian cover-up.

In contrast Ukraine made a point to expose Russian involvement as much as possible. 

It was as much of a war of information as much it was about situation on the ground. If Russia could convince the world, it's a civil war, they would have avoided sanctions and any responsibility for it. They later wanted to step in as a "neutral" party and serve as "peacekeepers" like they did in other post-Soviet conflicts. That is why they went to great length to cover it up and disguise it as insurgency. 

In contrast if Ukraine wanted to deny Russia its objectives and kept exposing its involvement in everything that happened in Donbass.

Why Cross of Burgundy so Rarely Used Nowadays

Cross of Burgundy was originally a flag used by Dukes of Burgundy and their military, which is mostly in modern France. 

It got to Spain because Austrian Habsburgs married the only daughter of last native Burgundian Duke and took over the Duchy. Their only son married Joana the Mad of Castille and Aragorn and took over what is now modern Spain. 

Habsburg monarch had great respect for Burgundy because Burgundian military was very powerful in its time and was bane of their French rivals. Because of that they wanted to use this flag to inspire fear in their enemies. That is why Spanish military used it a lot and still uses nowadays sometimes.

However, after last Spanish Habsburg, Charles II, died without heir and throne passed to French Bourbons after War of Spanish succession, there was a change in flags. 

Bourbons still remembered how much of thorn in the side of French crown Burgundians were and did not want to see their symbol anywhere. Burgundians often fought for English in 100 Years war and was responsible for many Valois (French) defeats, nearly destroying the country many times. Bourbons, who were branch of the de Valois dynasty, did not want symbols of their enemies anywhere.