Additional Information to Rules for Rulers Video - Types of Dictatorships

 

I often cite CGPGrey's video, Rules for Rulers in my articles. The video does offer good insights on how power structures operate. However, there are certain deficiencies with that video. Not per se inaccurate statements, but rather omissions that lead towards misunderstanding.

The most important of these is the statement that both most ruthless dictatorships and most complex democracies are incredibly stable and between them lies valley of revolution. That is not incorrect per se, but one will be forgiven if they would come to believe that so called valley of revolution is small with only a few countries falling there. Meanwhile stable plateaus around them are large and most countries fall on either one or the other side of the said valley. In reality it is the other way around. Ultra stable countries completely on one of the other ends are rare, most countries fall someone on the slopes and most famous and talked about fall right in the middle.

To begin with, as Grey explained, a stable dictatorship is the one with just two roads, one between the resource and the shipping port and the other between presidential palace and the airport. That is correct, but what are the real-life examples of such a dictatorship? It cannot be Russia or China as they have many educated people and many roads, infamous for its brutality North Korea does not fir either, they have enough education to build weapons and nukes and enough roads to move parts between plants. Not even Cambodia during Pol Pot could readily be called that. Before I give you the example in the next paragraph try to guess one? I doubt you will manage as they are so obscure, they never make the news.

An example of two road dictatorship would be Equatorial Guinea or Brunei Darussalam. 

Equatorial Guinea is a particularly good example. A very small country, that delivers all its income from oil. It never makes any news at all. Ever since oil was discovered there it was ruled by a single leader who ruled since 1982 and holds second place in terms of length of rule among the non-monarchial leaders. While before oil was discovered it was known for certain brutality, afterwards it became rather peaceful. Its leader is not only fabulously rich but also gets to shake hands with various global leaders. There is no particular censorship or restrictions, because there is no particular need. There is a single brutal prison, but virtually no instability or risk of instability. Why censor anything when population cannot read or write anyway. It is not known for good human rights record, but neither it is a repression mill that sends millions to concentration camps like China or North Korea.

A somewhat nicer example is a Brunei. An absolute monarchy rather that dictatorship, it too is very stable, and its ruler ruled even longer than Guinean dictator. Economy consists entirely of oil exports. There is no democracy in Brunei but there is plenty of money and low population. That allows ruler to simply placate people with money and not to worry about anything. There are no opposition or any protests in Brunei or any instability at all.

A stable two road dictatorship is by definition very primitive; they have no instability but also no crazy cults of personality, weapons, elaborate propaganda or censorship, not even cohesive repression system or secret police. They do not need any of that as they are already stable and have nothing to fear. Their population either too backward to even understand what a democracy is or too rich to care. It's the slopes of the valley of revolution, where crazy news making things started to happen.

Population that could not read or write cannot revolt, but neither it could build anything. Sometimes they might even have trouble operating weapons made by others. Needless to say, such a country could never be a challenge to liberal world order.

A slope (slippery slope) between the valley of revolution and a two-road dictatorship plateau is where crazy things begin. This is where people are somewhat educated and somewhat connected, thus more able to revolt. However, they are not too educated so can be misled by a relatively crude propaganda machine. To prevent them from revolting dictators, invent various insane ideas, cults of personality and so on. It is there where leaders declare themselves living gods, master of beasts, prophets, warriors and so forth. 

Uganda, Zaire, Central African Republic and Libya under Ghaddafi are good examples of such states. Each were famous for their colourful dictators who made outrageous claims about their history

In addition to insane cult of personality there is also a crude police state to suppress occasional protests and opponents of the regime. Sometimes there are paramilitaries to cause genocide, or a civil war though sometimes it is done by regular military. 

The amount of repression and abuse is clearly higher, not lower than in a stable two road dictatorship. Brutality of the regime is a response to ever increasing discontent among ever more educated public. In a stable two road dictatorship overly extensive police state was wasting money on irrelevant as public was not inclined to revolt anyway. In a slippery slope one however it becomes a necessity as without it the regime will be overthrown. Just as Grey correctly stated, some roads and some education makes people more likely to revolt. This government in such dictatorship has to constantly struggle against all forms of protest and opposition to its rule. 

All these extra structures, like secret police, regular police, paramilitary, censorship office, propaganda office and so on add to the number of keys to power. because of that rules of sloppy dictatorship do not rule as long as their two road counterparts. Too much hassle to constantly juggle all the crazy ideas to keep public at least distracted if not content. Unlike the two road dictatorship rulers, the sloppy dictatorship rulers typically do not die natural death in office. Instead, they either, assassinated, die fighting to keep power, die in prison after being overthrown or die in exile.

Regimes like these are much more common than two road dictatorships. Few countries could enjoy unlimited money from a very lucrative resource. Most preside over mixed economies with some rudimental private sector and foreign trade that spreads modern ideas of freedom and democracy. 

The exact nature of each country's economy determines how far or close it is to a stable two road dictatorship or the center of the valley of revolution. More income from resources, the closer it is to stability. More diversity, private sector and education, closer it is to the very bottom of valley of revolution. When dictators deliberately destroy certain sectors of economy or drive educated people to emigration it is not because they are stupid and do not understand economic value of the things they destroy, it is because they know these things push their country towards valley of revolution and endanger their own rule and life.

Sloppy dictatorships sometimes have some domestic industry, but more often than not they are dependent on western democracies even for weapons they need to keep their power. Because of that such dictatorships will never be able to compete with western democratic world. 

There is one final type of dictatorship that treads the tightrope over the valley of revolution. All the big names, such as Russia, China, Iran and even North Korea are of this type. These countries want to have the same level of technological development as western world without compromising on dictatorial nature of their regime. That is a contradiction in itself as people educated enough to build spaceships or nukes will by definition be educated enough to understand that democracy is better than autocracy. I wrote an article about such situation, specifically in Russia, but I will expand on it in this one.

I called this type a tight rope dictatorship because running such a country is a careful balancing act, not akin to walking a tightrope while dodging curveballs, that occasional liberals throw in your direction. One slip-up can cause the whole system to come crashing down like a house of cards. Collapse of USSR was one such event.

In such a complex regime just some propaganda and some form of police state will not do. Propaganda should be so 3d chess level advanced so that even literal rocket scientists would be fooled by it. Police state should be clever and careful to act like they merely go after criminals and not pursuing opponents of the regime. When someone arrested for something, the whole criminal case is carefully fabricated around them to make it look like they actually broke a law and not just repressed due to their political stances. Censorship too not just ban things but forge fakes to fool people. 

Broadly speaking tight rope dictatorships are like a country size reality show or a theater. Nothing there is what it seems, telling lie from truth is nigh impossible. Fake news rule, the day. Real information is either suppressed of portrayed as fake. 

Good example of this is how war is portrayed. USSR used to get out of their way to claim that all combat reports from Afghanistan are made up by CIA and in reality, soviet soldiers and Afghani people get along just well. Modern Russia depicts it war in Ukraine in much the same way, no information about shelling of casualties, but lots of footage of Russian soldiers repairing this or that buildings in the occupied territory. 

Every dictatorship always insists that the bad guys are always them, not us. And when some information to the contrary emerges, then these dishonest foreigners (typically Americans) fabricated it to smear out glorious benign and humane system. If you watch or listen to tight rope dictatorship media, then you will be led to believe than all these foreigners ever do is plot to destroy glorious dictatorship X, rape its women and drown all their men and children in wells. (from actual North Korean propaganda). That supposed to convince the population that tough defence measures and strong dictatorial leadership are necessary for very survival no less.

Then those Americans not always play their part of bloodthirsty villains and sometimes say things like would not it be great if we and X be friends instead or come down the capital with a reset initiative. Leaders then has to host them, while secret police and loyal media forge top secret fake memos, allegedly stolen from Department of State that prove it's all a ruse and Americans still plan to destroy that nation X. Whole a lot of work that has to be constantly done to keep it all from falling into the valley of revolution.

Then there are occasional curveballs like Alexey Navalniy, who releases videos about Putin's Palace and then claims that great defender does not spend all their time and money protecting the nation from foreigners but rather spends on their personal vanity projects while country goes without.

Number of keys and their unique skills needed to keep a tightrope dictatorship together is rather huge. Actually, competent secret police, professional propagandists, plenty of actors to make fake news. To top it all you need a director and scriptwriters who will manage all this this open-air theater to perform a cohesive plot together. You cannot have it when secret police arrests people for working for Japanese intelligence when propaganda claims that it is Americans who is plotting to destroy the nations. Coordination is needed. 

All the people used by sloppy dictatorships are needed here as well, all a lot of agencies and people. Tight rope dictatorships typically have bloated public service, both formal and informal. Many organisations that would be private and independent in a democracy are actually secretly part of government in a tightrope dictatorship. For example, in Russia complex networks of ownerships connect every single TV channel and even newspaper to the government.

Economically there is certain parity between resource extraction and other industries. That is typically achieved by adding various weapon making factories as well as prestige projects, like space industry, to an existing base of resource extraction. As much as these dictatorships relish the opportunity to make their own weapons and spaceships to be independent of "collective West", each such industry produces educated people, who in turn make democratic revolution more and more possible. To pre-emptively combat potential revolution, a complex theater state is built on top of the police state and other repression structures. This unwieldy house of cards is held together by a delicate balancing act much akin balancing on the tightrope; hence I called it such.

Tight rope dictatorships could be somewhat advanced technologically, but they are always very unstable. That is why leaders constantly talk about stability. If balancing act is subverted by either opponents of the regime, external actors or a domestic scandal, the regime collapses and falls down to the bottom of the valley of revolution.

When dictatorship either runs out of lucrative natural resources to sell, income dwindles, or a scandal provokes revolution that takes down the regime French Revolution style. Post revolution the country has two options, either try to build new even more elaborate tightrope dictatorship or finally accept the inevitable and start moving towards democracy. Being right in the middle between two extremes, both options are equally possible at this point. 

A country with a solid resource rich base will most likely choose the dictatorship option. That is why Iran or Russia ended up even worse dictatorships after revolution compared to what they were before.

A country too poor of resources will have no other options but to move towards democracy. When you cannot sell oil, you have no other choice but to produce wealth the same way, Westerners do, by producing added value. That require educated citizens who in turn will progressively have more and more power compared to traditional keys, such as military, police and bureaucrats. Police and military will have no choice but to accept civilian control and limitations on their power, typical of liberal democracy. Bureaucrats, who until recently saw themselves as privileged almost aristocratic class, would be called and treated as public servants instead. Servants as in serving people, not bossing them around like medieval villeins. To say that "forces" and old keys are not too thrilled by the whole prospect will be an understatement.

Because of that nascent democracies all suffer from a risk of authoritarian backsliding. Old keys to power, unwilling to part with their old privileges will keep thinking of ways to cling to them. New added value democratic economy still does not produce enough wealth to make destroying it equivalent to destroying everything. It is still possible to return to old ways and old keys will not stop trying until they exhaust all their options.

As for the options, then poor dictatorship has only one truly viable path, that of becoming a client state of a larger dictatorial power. Syria (under Assad) and Belarus are that kind of regimes. Old Warsaw Pact Eastern Bloc was also of that type. To make it happen there of course has to be a willing patron with some money to spend. 

As to why would some country just spend their money to prop an ailing brutal dictator from across the world there could be several reasons. One is to simply increase number of dictatorships around the world. Geopolitics often revolve around ideological strife so by increasing number of dictatorships around the globe, dictators could boost their numbers relative to collective West, represented by NATO and OECD. 

To top it up, there are certain non-material benefits a patron can extract from a client state. For example, basing rights or espionage assistance. Russia is propping Venezuela or (until recently) Bashir Assad of Syria because Russia wants to retain its ability to base military there as well as to afford its spies a friendly territory where could enjoy full support of local authorities. Recruiting locals for Russian espionage efforts is also an option. 

Drawbacks however are obvious as well. Not only each client state costs a lot of money to maintain, but they also add to the overall complexity of the regime structures. Sure, patron gets near unrestricted use of client's land and population but in exchange the client becomes an extra domestic key to power that sometimes can meddle in affairs of the patron. Belarussian Lukashenka once tried to become leader of Russia itself and managed to build certain support among Russian population. Client's state different culture, language, religion and remoteness could occasionally cause further complications and misunderstanding.

For a client state it's also a rather shaky arrangement. Sure, elites get to keep their privileges and power over people, but in exchange to bowing to foreigners. A patron knows that client has no other choice and might want to flex their power in cruel and insensitive way, purging certain sections of client's elites if they feel like it. Cultural misunderstanding could lead towards ever accumulating offences. 

Most importantly however general public will be even more outraged than they already were, keeping them, from revolting might require interference from patron's own military, like in Budapest in 1956 or Prague 1968 or most recently in Syrian civil war. Such occurrences are drain on client and patron alike. Sure, you could try to keep exact relationship between your states secret, but if public is smart enough, they will figure out, especially if patron extracts wealth from a client (or perceived as such), like in Warsaw pact.

I originally wanted to also add sections about types of democracies, but this article became so long, I eventually decided against it. Maybe I will write a separate article about democracies later. I still need some time to think of more content for democracies to make it informative enough.

Dictatorship alone ended up both much larger than I originally envisioned and much more informative. By now it's a comprehensive guide to dictatorships. I however still think that watching CGPGrey's video first would be useful to understand this article better.

This is how dictatorships really work. You should understand that idea that people admire strongman is mostly a fantasy. What determines whether a country is a dictatorship, or a democracy is not people or dictator's own charisma, but the underlying economy of the country in question. Resource rich countries are dictatorships and added value economies are democracies. Read my article about Paradox of Nation's Wealth to understand more.

Political Realignment of People

 

Recently I watched a video that declared that UK's Conservatives are doomed. It was broadly correct when it came to facts, but I felt that it missed to the overall trend behind this phenomenon. After all, not only Conservative party is failing, but new parties spring left and right and become popular near overnight. The whole political system is in disarray.

However, why it is in disarray? Why now suddenly public became discontent with two main parties and frantically jumps at almost any alternative? What have suddenly changed.

To put it short, the traditional political alignments of different segments of population have changed. Original party system was built around idea that poor and working class are left wing while rich business owners are conservative. Nowadays however rich have become increasingly progressive on social issues while continuing to be conservative on fiscal ones. On the other hand, working class became increasingly conservative on social and pretty much every other issue with exception of workplace relationships. An alignment most parties and politicians struggle to understand and by extension find their way to work with.

To explain how or why that happened we need to look at history. Throughout the 20th century what we mean by left and right was constant and did not change much at all. However back in 19th century political landscape was rather different.

For example, in Australia, before Labour party became a thing, politics were a contest between Protectionist and Free Trade parties. Neither of these two parties could be conventionally classified as either left or fight. Both represented business interests, just Free Trade represented those who import and trade in foreign goods whole Protectionists instead represented local producers. None of these two parties were more conservative or progressive than the other, these monikers only came later. Neither could be called left or right wing in a conventional sense of the word.

Things have changed when Labor became a thing and eventually won its first government. Both traditional parties found it expedient to put their former differences aside and unite against Labor. That is when we first got now traditional left vs right division. Labor that brought sweeping change was dubbed left and their opponents right.

At first these divisions were only about economic interests. Labor represented hired labor, and their policies represented interests of this social class. Both Protectionists and Free Trade represented employers instead. With advent of Labor, this unifying factor allowed them to unite into one party to oppose Labor. When in power Labor will expand powers and protections for the working people and limit the power, their bosses have over them. Labor's right-wing opponents (that changed their name several times in Australia) would instead try to roll at least some of these provisions back to bring back power in the hands of management.

However, as time went on, each side of politics were adding more and more policies to their agendas. Since Labor was more open to changes, regulations or raising taxes, most reform minded people of all flocks favored them over the right wing. Labor was the "cool" party that gets things done while "boring" tories only oppose things. So, if one wanted any kind of social change, Labour was the party to join. Government bureaucrats too prefer labour as it was more open to taxes compare to right wing. Eventually this transformation left original values, and both parties bases far behind, and they got completely engrossed into their own bubble.

Throughout the 20th century this worked. Shell-shocked by power of labour movement, rich business owners had no agenda beyond crawling some of their former power back. Labour remained the progressive force.

However, that does not mean that these alignments are natural: that working class is naturally progressive and change minded or business owners are naturally conservative and averse of change. Already in early 20th century Gregor Strasser and Benito Mussolini proven that working class is fully open to support a conservative nationalist agenda so long as their economic interests are looked after. However, fascism was defeated in WWII and these facts were forgotten. Strasser's and Mussolini's experience was dismissed as abnormality. Traditional alignment continued throughout the 20th century.

As time went on, both major parties were further departing from their roots, Labor started seeing itself as a party of change, fighting against backward tories, who do not even have policies to speak of. Tories were too lazy to even refute it as their anti-change do nothing policy of no polices were winning them elections anyhow. 

As parties stagnated, further and further petrified into their molds, their core bases evolved as economy and technology changed. From the start not very attached to the whole progressive thing, working class gradually became more and more conservative as time went on. Technological transformation and resulting automation put many jobs in jeopardy. Immigration, that is often seen as left-wing policy, actually benefited rich business owners while exposing working class to increased competition for jobs and housing. Pro-LGBT policies also do not benefit working class that much as most of them straight and wish their children will be so as well. It is rich who can benefit from more colourful and diverse cast of people. 

Working class instinctively reacted by opposing change and insisting that jobs and workplace privileges have to be preserved. That put them at odds with their own "progressive" party that by that point so used to be pro-change and progressive, getting back to roots seemed too alien to even consider. The reaction in Australia was a formation of One Nation. While media dubs this party far-right, it is actually closer to Labor's base than to Liberal one.

As working class became more conservative, rich went the other way around. They became more and more progressive. Not only technological change opened new avenues for them to manage their business better and differently but many of progressive social changes came to appeal to them as well. From opposing the change Labor brought in early 20th century, rich came to advocate many new ideas from progressive playbook. Some even coined a term SPEC (socially progressive, economically conservative) to mark this change.

Despite change in social values and attitudes, the core economic interests of each class remained the same. That somewhat anchored electoral system to traditional allegiances. No matter how socially progressive rich has become, they still prefer low taxes and fiscal conservatism of the right wing. At the same time working class still needs its trade unions and workplace laws to protect their economic interests.

However, when leaders like BoJo, Liz Truss or Starmer in UK take their negligence of the base too far, the base finally decides enough is enough and goes shopping for alternatives. Current British 5 party and more coming extravaganza is direct result of this realignment of political system. It is the same in the US where Trump won working class with his socially conservative but economically syncretic policies. 

In Australia so far traditional alignments still holds as parties have not moved too far from their bases yet. Yet the same underling factors exist here as well. Parties are still either broadly left or right on both social and economic issues. Meanwhile voters are increasingly either, socially progressive and economically conservative (SPEC) or socially conservative and economically progressive (anti-SPEC). There are parties somewhat corresponding to new alignment as well: If teal independents are SPEC then PHON or NXT is somewhat anti-SPEC. Who knows how long this mismatch between parties' policies and electorate alignment will continue.

In the end of the day parties will have to realign themselves with the economic realities on the ground. A socially progressive, pro-immigration, pro-LGBT, fiscally conservative party will represent rich business owners as well as the minorities in question. At the same time anti-immigration, traditionalist, nationalist, but economically hard left distributist party will represent working class and poor. The question is how long it will take for parties and politicians to fully grasp these current political alignments. So far there is no party that meaningfully represent either side of this debate, some get certain bits and pieces correctly, but none fully aligned with this new political reality. 

This re-alignment of parties is hard to understand because its cuts across the usual divides. New parties will be stitched out of parts of old ones, like Frankenstein. Nonetheless it is a very likely future we all have to deal with. However, if it would be different, then it likely will be even more strange that what I have described. Voters have changed and parties have to adapt of their will lose to those who will get new political realities better than them.

History of Cossacks

 

About the same time, when piracy have flourished in the Caribbean, a very similar phenomenon flourished in what is now Ukrainian steppes. Cossack "golden age" not only coincided with that of pirates but had a lot more in common with the latter than was initially apparent.

To begin with a little bit of background. In 17th century a peculiar territorial anomaly emerged in the Steppes of Ukraine. The reason for that anomaly were Crimean Tatars. Tatars were semi-nomadic people who often went on raids to pillage villages and capture people into slavery. The northern states of Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth and Russia could reasonably stop them in more forested areas further north, but in open steppe Tatars were unbeatable. Nipping the problem in a bud was also impossible, as Tatars enjoyed protection of then superpower, the Ottoman Empire.

That produced a peculiar situation where both Commonwealth and Russia wish to expand south but could not be due to constant Tatar raids. On the other hand, Tatars did not wish to settle the steppes at all, preferring to keep it as a playground for nomadic side of their lifestyle. Ottomans too had no interest in settling the area beyond the vert coast of the Black Sea. 

This situation produces a situation where a very large and fertile swathe of land remained completely uninhabited for a period of several centuries. Later it will be called Wild Field or Wild steppes. The borders of this land went from approximately Uman - Old Kodak fortress - city of Kharkiv in the north all the way to coastal cities of Kara and Aq Kerman (modern Ochakiv and Bilhorod Dnistrovski) together with Dzhankoy in Crimean Peninsula. Western border was Dnistro River and there was no Eastern border as steppe continued all the way to modern China.

Such a large and lawless area attracted all sorts of people who later became known as Cossacks. The name came from a Turkic word qazaq, which means wanderer. It shares ethimology with modern Kazakh and Kazakhstan. However, while modern Kazakhs are descendants of the originally nomadic Turkic people, Cossacks were the polar opposite of that: originally sedentary people who adopted nomadic lifestyle to survive in the steppe.

Steppe was dangerous of sedentary lifestyle, such as agriculture. A prominent home with large fields around it will be easy to stop many miles away and thus could easily become a target of a raid. A single Cossack with nothing but horse and their weapons much less so. Even if they were to be spotted, they could just hop on their horse and ride away. It would be nigh pointless to chase them down across the near endless steppe.

Final ingredient that sparked the age of Cossacks were domestic pressures in the north. Population grew; free lands were running short and aristocratic class kept increasing burdens on common peasants, making them ever poorer. One way to get away from ever encroaching greedy nobility was to flee south and live freely as Cossack.

That is how first Cossacks came to be. Those from Russia tended to flee to the steppe for good. Some of those from Commonwealth were instead seasonal Cossacks, living in the steppe during the summer then returning home for winter. 

At first, they were on their own, roaming the steppe, hunting and occasionally robbing careless travellers. However, ss time went, they became ever more numerous. It became necessary to somehow share the steppe. At the same time, it became possible for Cossacks to band together and start raiding just like Crimean Tatars did.

Eventually a several Cossack Hosts Emerged: Zaporozhian, Don, Kuban and Yaik ones. They were centered around major rivers as rivers provided Cossacks with water and a form of protection from both Tatars and their own governments. Zaporozhian host (Sich) was located on Khortytsia Island in the middle of Dnipro River. River provided a good defence from strictly land-based Tatars. Other Cossack hosts were in less immediate danger and likely just settled along the river.

Hosts were government in a surprisingly democratic manner. There were certain differences in governance between hosts, but they government mostly as follows: Each host was divided into several Kurins, each 100 homes large. Each Kurin will elect two officials: a Kurenniy, who will be in charge of living arrangements, and a Sotnik, who will command them in battle. In turn all Kurenniys will elect Koshevoy who will manage living arrangements for the entire host, akin to a quartermaster. Likewise, Sotniks will elect Hetman (Ataman in Don and other eastern hosts) who will be overall military commander.

Elections were held every year. To get elected Hetman, one must often propose a lucrative raid target together with a plan on how to succeed in plundering it asunder and returning safely with all the loot. Hetman that poorly performed in their role could lose their head at the end of their tenure if Cossacks vote to punish him. Other roles were less ambitious and dangerous in consequences. They mostly required to convince fellow Cossacks they could trust you.

In fact, the CGPGrey video about pirates actually closer to how Cossacks governed themselves rather than pirates.

Cossack outfits too varied between hosts. Zaporozhians wore, vyshivankas with sharovary and cut their hear in an iconic oseledets fashion: bald with a single long strand of hair. They also had colourful coats and a fur hat with upward bent brim and feathers. Don Cossacks instead wore a North Caucasus style outfit: large black fur coat with extended shoulders (I think it's called Cherkeska) and a tall square black fur brimless hat, called papakha. 

Overtime Cossacks became quite notorious. They raided, plundered and then returned back to their fortified island host of Khortytsia. Once they managed to even plunder Constantinople itself.

Unlike Tatars, who would only plunder Christians in the north, as they had obligations to the Ottomans, Cossacks would more often target Muslims. Most Cossacks were Christian and would rather avoid targeting fellow Christians from countries they have recently fled.

Some of their raids were so daring, they managed to even get Ottoman Empire concerned about the damage they are causing. Ottoman Sultan even send Zaporozhian Cossacks a letter, demanding allegiance to him, just like they demand of Crimean Tatars. Zaporozhian Cossacks famously responded with a letter full of scornful insults. There is even a painting dedicated to that event.

Just like Spanish, Ottomans brought Cossack issue to rulers of Commonwealth and Russia. Their response was that Cossacks were independent outlaws, often wanted by authorities of the countries in question, and that neither ruler had any control over what Cossacks do.

In fact, aristocrats in Russia were very much on the Ottoman side of the issue for their own reasons. Russian peasants who disliked working for their aristocratic landlords, would often steal a horse and flee south to become a Cossack. That led to drain on both workforce and horses. Aristocrats too often petitioned Tsar to deal with Cossacks somehow, only to hear the same response of what could they do about it?

Decline of Cossacks came much later than that of pirates. However, by the end of 18th century Russia eclipsed in power both Commonwealth and Ottomans. In a series of wars, Russia conquered all the areas around the Wild Fields.

From their new position of power, Russia decided to pressure Cossacks into allegiance to Russia, just like Ottomans demanded some time before. In their demands Russia actually went further than Ottomans, expecting not only allegiance but also right to appoint Cossack leaders as well.

Zaporizhians refused just like they did before. Russian response was fast and decisive: Russia brough artillery and levelled Khortytsia fortifications to the ground. Zaporozhian Cossacks tried to reorganise themselves on Danube River instead, but eventually Russia got there too and destroyed Zadunaiska Sich as well.

Don Cossacks instead accepted Russian government demands. That allowed them to continue well into 19th and even 20th century. In this subordinated to Russia period, Atamans or Koshevoys were not elected. Instead Koshevoy Ataman (dual role) was appointed by Tsar out of officers of Russian army with no connection to Cossacks. Tsars also insisted that Cossacks stop admitting any new runaway peasants into their ranks and instead return them to their owners.

Despite these changes, life of ordinary Cossacks remained autonomous enough and unique Cossack culture and even dialect further developed in that time.

In this new role, Cossacks eventually became known as an elite cavalry of Russian Empire, that managed to distinguish itself in various battles in Europe. Cossack recreations in modern Russia try to recreate this version of Cossacks.

Final end of Cossacks came from October Revolution. Cossacks mostly fought for White Army, that lost Civil War. Bolsheviks eventually dissolved Don Cossacks and integrated them into broader society as part of wider reform program. 

Some Cossacks managed to escape to the West and later fought in RoA on the side of Nazis, hoping to restore Cossack autonomy and culture. Nazis lost and members of RoA were suppressed. 

In modern times Ukraine likes to take pride in exploits of Zaporozhian Cossacks. In Ukraine Zaporozhian Cossacks are part of national spirit, character and heritage. Iconic Zaporozhian Cossack outfits are often worn as a patriotic statement.  

Separately from Ukraine, there are Don Cossack revival attempts in Russia, that instead aim to recreate Don Cossacks in their 19th century version of loyal to the Tsar elite cavalrymen. 

Truth About Piracy

  

I often cite CGPGrey videos about various topics, including the one about piracy. 

While pirate video is rather relevant to the times we live in now and issues we face, its actually very inaccurate about realities of Golden Age of Piracy. So, I decided to write here about actual history of piracy.

To begin with a little bit of background. Spanish and Portuguese were first to discover and colonize new world. Treaty of Tordesillas divided it among themselves precisely to avoid information leaking to other kingdoms of Europe. Thus, by the time French and English found out about Americas, Spanish already hogged up and garrisoned pretty much everything of value with only few small barren islands in the Caribbean remaining unclaimed.

To make matters worse, Spanish found a lot of silver in the area and begun mining it. Seeing how Spanish ship all that silver in loaded to the brim galleons, got Frech and English really upset with envy. However soon they figured out a simple solution to this problem, just steal the silver. After all trip from Maracaibo in Spanish Main to Sevilla in Spain is long and perilous, and Spanish shipped their silver completely unguarded, so if it will get lost to pirates they will not even find out when and how. Thus, piracy was born.

First pirates were probably members of French and English navy, who hoisted the black flag to avoid getting their kingdoms entangled if something went wrong. The money they made from captured Spanish silver was so huge, soon everyone started doing it and piracy boom begun.

The amounts of silver, Spanish shipped was so huge, French and English navies soon found themselves short of personnel and ships, so they began recruiting volunteers, private captains with ships and crews. Soon private crews started plunder Spanish shipping on the high seas. These privateers (or corsairs in French terminology) came from all walks of life and were actively encourage and supported by French and English governments.

To give privateers assurances of support and at the same time entitle government to the fraction of what they could plunder, French and English issued so called "letters of marque and reprisal". These papers could make anyone a sort of "private" member of the navy, thus in theory guaranteeing them protection of French or English crown as well as entitle them to be treated as prisoners of war in the event of capture by the Spanish. Most importantly however they allowed them to access to ports of the issuing country. When in some peace treaties you see phrase "prohibit unrestricted issue of letter of marque and reprisal", it is about this practice.

French issued these letters to pretty much anyone with a ship and a crew without asking it how they obtained ship or the money. That is how French colony of Tortuga became known as pirate haven. Colony economy consisted entirely of taxing the booty, these privateers would bring.

English instead prefer their own traders. Back then it was possible to form fully legal joint stock company for the purpose of pirating. Such company could openly sell its stock on London stock exchange to raise money to buy a ship, hire crew and then go to the new world to plunder on high seas.

From legal perspective this privateering was considered capturing prizes of war and legal documents refer to it in such terms. Letters of marque were legal vehicle that allowed law to treat piracy as legitimate combat. That is how famous pirates, like Sir Francis Drake got their knighthood and other forms for recognition from government.

Eventually however Spanish got a gist of what is going on and threatened France and England with war if they do not stop this piracy. Unfortunately for Spanish, profits from piracy were so huge, French and English would rather stay in perpetual war than stop the plunder.

Thus, Golden age of Piracy truly begun. All sorts of ships and crews would steal Spanish silver and then turn it over to French or English on Tortuga or Jamaica, who offered them full support, assistance in repair and resupply and so on.

On their end Spanish refused to recognise letters or marque as legitimate prove of military status, threatening pirates with noose if they got caught. They also ramped up security of their treasure fleets, making it harder to for pirates to plunder them. 

Finally Spanish eventually found out where pirate friendly French and English ports in the new world were located and sent their armada to level both Port Royal and Tortuga to the ground. That did not stop the piracy however as when Spanish left, French and English simply came back and rebuild.

This is how majority of all pirate crews operated. Sure, there were occasional rouges who attacked everyone and port in wilderness, but these were rare. They make for a good story, but not for a good career option, as rouge pirates would pretty much always end up caught by one or other side and executed.

On the other hand, privateering was a way to riches and even social advancement. It was a business that people who counted money for living would invest into. Yes, there was risk that Spanish will capture you, but back then risk of perishing in a storm was likely higher.

Plunder-fest would occasionally come to a pause when French or English needed an alliance with Spanish for some war in Europe. On such occasion governors of Tortuga and Port Royal will instruct privateers to halt attacks on Spanish. Pirates would temporarily turn to other activities such as cutting wood in Belize. However, once that war will be over, the pirating will resume.

The definitive end of Golden Age of Piracy unexpectedly also came from Europe. War of Spanish Succession eventually placed French Bourbons on the throne in Spain. That turned France from enemy into a friend of Spain. 

Not willing to further damage now friendly Spain, France begun cracking down on piracy. Near overnight Tortuga turned from pirate heaven into a hostile port.

Pirates fought back and re-established themselves in New Providence on Bahamas. This time they were actually independent and unaffiliated with any power. Their settlement flew black flag. However, that was short lived.

England did not want to be at war with both France and Spain to continue the plunder. England also found new way of making money in the new world, running sugar and cotton plantations, using West African slave labor. Finally French likely offered them something like share of profits from Spanish treasure fleets, if they turn on pirates.

Times were changing and safety of shipping routes were more important that theoretical booty from occasional daring raid. 

All that sealed fate of piracy in the Caribbean. Eventually, now cozy and friendly with each other, the three kingdoms went on to destroy New Providence. England later colonised it to deny pirates any free land to base themselves on. Age of Piracy came to an end only to be remembered in fiction.

Why Dictatorships Need Wars to Exist

 

It is undisputable truth that in a democratic society, war is unpopular. Near any war provokes massive protests that destabilize the country. General public cries about lost lives. Pragmatic people make multibillion estimation on how much war costs. No matter where you look its near universal opposition to war. Only few groups like fringe die-hard irredentists or neo-nazis support wars.

Because of that for any democratic government war is always a PR and popularity nightmare that almost always eventually takes government down in a disgrace.

In view of the above is near impossible to believe that in a dictatorship it is completely the other way around. Not only war does not increase discontent among the population, but it also actively reduces it. It works so surely and effectively that most dictatorships go to war not for any external reasons, but simply to solve the internal problems.

If that sounds too wild and unbelievable then try to explain why Iran-Iraq war happen in the 80s? War lasted a decade, a lot of people died, but border between two nations did not move an inch. Before the war nascent post-revolutionary Islamic Republic regime was in its infancy and could easily lose power. Saddam Hussain in Iraq also was far from secure. After the war, Iranian Islamic Republic could not be more entrenched and popular. Saddam Hussain also was secure enough to not fall down after failed invasion of Kuwait and decisive American retaliation during the Gulf War. 

Both dictatorships were strengthened, not weakened by war. 

However, why exactly dictatorships are strengthened by war. Are people who live in dictatorial countries any different from those of democratic ones? The answer is no; it's not the people that are different. The difference comes from the system itself.

Dictatorships are known for either not having any election or having fraudulent vastly rigged elections. That might give casual observer the illusion that dictators do not need to fear public opinion as they can always rig their way to victory.

That of course is an illusion. Revolutions of Spring of Nations and Arab Spring clear showed that public might rise up against the system and no amount of electoral rigging will save a dictator against such an uprising.

Because of the above, any dictator always cares about public opinion and being popular enough to survive. In fact, dictators actually care about being popular much more than democratically elected Presidents or Prime Ministers. In a democracy the worst that can happen to unpopular leader is that they lose the election, perhaps with extra disgrace of also losing their parliamentary seat. However, that is worst that can happen, fallen leader will continue to live in comfortable retirement and possibly write memoirs for extra income. In a dictatorship falling from power often means either exile or even a literal death, like in Muammar Gaddafi case. For a dictator it's their life that is at stake. They cannot afford being too complacent about popularity.

The fact that dictators cannot afford being unpopular leads towards the one thing that differentiates dictatorship from a democracy: censorship. Since cost of falling from grace in a dictatorship is too high a dictator cannot afford anything to tarnish their image. One guy criticising the regime or just complaining about prices can lead towards rather painful or even bloody downfall.  That leads towards not only censorship but also a repression.

Overtime such repressions can get very brutal. Any scandal big and small can potentially be fatal. Thus, dictator will go to great length to suppress any information that can be detrimental to them keeping their power. The more desperate the dictator is, the worse offences he is willing to make if he believes it will allow them to keep power. 

However, there is catch. The worse censorship and repression get, the more and more people grow to dislike the regime and dictator at the helm of it. Further escalation in censorship will lead towards even greater discounted followed by further escalation of censorship to keep lid on that discontent. It's a downward spiral with no exit that is bound to eventually lead towards all that discontent imploding on itself and taking the regime with it.

Facing the prospect of the imminent fall, a dictator will readily do anything to avert imminent end, no matter how insane it sounds. Even using nukes does not seem like a bad idea if the alternative is dying at the hands of rebels like Muammar Gaddafi.

That is where dictator often finds a solace and security in an unlikely place: war. 

However, why population that was about to storm the presidential palace suddenly quiet down when war is called? Would not calling a war only make things worse? Would not media and public grill already unpopular dictator for such a wanton warmongering. No, because a dictator already destroyed all independent media. 

In a liberal democracy freedom of speech together with independent media can keep government accountable. When George HW Bush announced that they will invade Iraq because Saddam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction, media and public questioned whether Bush lying or not. After the invasion media asked if any WMDs were actually found to verify Bush's reasons for invasion. Government could not produce find any WMDs or even prove they existed in the first place. As a result, media and public broadly denounced the war as unnecessary.

In a dictatorship such scrutiny is impossible. Media, already destroyed or severely damaged by censorship for reporting on various scandals of the regime, will not be able to hold government to account on war or investigate their lies. 

That gives government near free hand to make up any fake reason for a war and expect public to just believe it. Unless a dictator completely stupid, they will be able to glue together a narrative where callous enemies attacked them first (or planned to attack them, but our smart leadership managed to make a preventive strike first), so the nation had no choice but to defend or be rolled over and slaughtered. That will force public to accept war as inescapable disaster they have to live through and do not blame government for that. Brits did not blame their government for the Blitz during WWII, they blamed Hitler. So long a dictator can convince their people their opponent is the aggressor, they will have such a free reign for a duration of the war. 

However, why war? Why not just lie about something else instead?

That is not possible because most dictatorships fall due to internal problems. No matter how good you are at lying, public still sees the reality of life around them. When government keeps saying that life gets better and better while all people see around them is ever increasing poverty, misery and other problems, then eventually even people without much aptitude for critical thinking will start question the government. Especially when common people getting poorer and poorer, government bureaucrats and dictator themselves prosper beyond wildest dreams, like its typically happens in most dictatorships. In a dictatorship like that a sudden revelation that a dictator owns a luxurious palace or a superyacht can easily galvanise a revolution.

In contrast to that external problems are infinitely better for a dictatorship. Public cannot really know or see for themselves if a certain country X is really hostile and planning to invade them or not. That gives a dictator freedom to make up any lie and expect it to be believed by the majority at the very least. Most of the time they opt to a so called "besieged fortress" narrative: every neighboring country constantly plotting to attack them, only waiting for a moment of weakness to pounce on their prey. That narrative it then further spiced up by scenes of massacres and genocide that such potential enemy will enact upon the losers after their hypothetical victory. As a conclusion they simply add that these bastards from country X will not dare to attack us while our glorious leader is in charge but will definitely attack if one of his "weak and stupid" opponents will take power. Not every dictatorship that ever existed followed that narrative, by any that lasted did. 

Public, that was constantly barraged by such narrative, can later be easily convinced that one of their "bitter enemies" attacked them even if in reality it was the other way around.

After a dictatorship have entered a war, they immediately feel many benefits. These benefits however can only last while war is ongoing, thus pushing dictators to prolong war for a long as possible even when everyone around them pushes for it to end. Sure, there is economic damage and possibly sanctions, but often these things cannot outweigh benefits. 

Benefits of being at war mostly revolve around the war time measures that can be misused to deal with political opponents and discontent. Thanks to war every critic of the regime can be labelled as traitor who damages nation's morale and resolve in times of war. Even during peacetime dictators often label their critics agents of foreign power. However, jailing a critic for being an agent of hostile country X, when only a week ago you shook hands with president of country X as you signed a cooperation agreement will not look believable. Actually, being at war with country X will give such claims much more credence. "When at war you either stand with your nation or you are traitor." Dictators can easily misuse this principle to eliminate as many of their political opponents as they see fit. By extension they will wish to prolong the war as much as possible to keep access to this opponent removing "wartime" tool.

During war censorship can also be increased without any repercussions. No matter how traditionally restrictive country is, public will grow suspicious of every criticism no matter how justified is repressed for no apparent reason. Once again, such suppression of freedom of speech can easily be justified during war time. Government can eliminate every independent media outlet, citing protecting national military secrets. During peacetime public would be outraged but war somehow makes this acceptable in the eyes of casual citizen.

There is more. War enemies can further be blamed for economic hardships as well. During peacetime it is hard for government to deflect blame for country problems away from themselves. Sure, they can cite sabotage from hostile country X as reasons, but that further raises question of why police and national security fails to protect the country from sabotage. In contrast during war, all damage can be blamed on enemy. Lack of fund to repair road or build schools and hospitals, that is because they needed for defence. Even food shortages can be explained by war needs. Every problem, including those that had nothing to do with war can be explained with war needs.

Finally, war gives a good excuse to eliminate entire demographics, hostile to the regime. Most revolutions are done by young men. It is also young men, who serve in military. War gives dictatorship a good excuse to draft this demographic into military and then send them to die on the battlefield. War conditions make proving it was done to deliberately exterminate them is hard. Thus, thanks to war a dictator will easily be able to not only rid themselves of the people who would otherwise storm his palace, but also frame their death as an act of cruelty by evil country X.

All that makes war a dictator's best friend and protector. However sometimes war is simply not an option as all potential opponents are too dangerous. Then what?

One option is internal enemy purge where one accuses domestic opponents of being foreign agents and then prosecute them. All problems country faces are blamed on sabotage by such "agents" thus convincing public that these people deserve to be punished. However, blaming problems on internal "enemies" comes with expectation that things will get better once all such enemies are caught and brought to justice. Of course, jailing government critics will not magically fix roads or build schools and hospitals, forcing government to tap into other demographics in search for mythical agents who sabotage roads and schools. Eventually it will lead to absurd levels of paranoia, where every grocery store worker will be suspected of sabotaging groceries on orders of evil country X. Even when done very skillfully where every repressed group is thoroughly blackwashed until public is convinced, they are to blame, it still results in ever mounting casualties. Mao and Stalin with their multimillion victims can be used as examples of "best-case" scenario, if there is even a best-case scenario in something like that. Certain supporters of these two even nowadays insist that all who were persecuted under these two were actually at fault. At worst it will be like Pol-Pot in Cambodia, who tried to pull off the same thing, but did not convince anyone his victims did anything wrong and shortly after was removed from power by his very allies who installed him in the first place.

Alternative number two is Venezuela Crisis scenario, where country collapsed and no one trusts the government, but lack power to remove them. Not only Maduro's hold to power is as precarious as ever, but country and its economy and institutions have essentially disintegrated. Venezuela is essentially already a country in name only and that will only get worse the longer Maduro will stay in power.

One final alternative is for dictator and his supporters to flee and live in exile if there is a country that will accept them and will not hand them out to the new government.

Compared to either of these two options, a war does seem a lot more appealing to most dictators. That is why dictatorships almost inevitable will lead towards a perpetual war. The only world where dictatorship is stable is world of Orwellian 1984. every dictatorship moves humanity that much closer to Orwellian dystopia. That is why free world must fight to make dictatorships extinct.

Why America Needs a Friendly Rivalry with Europe

 

Recently there was a lot of talk about Trump's new administration being hostile to Europe. Some went as far as suggesting that the US will abandon Europe altogether and EU needs to figure out how to do it without Americans.

On its part, Europe responded with a mix of shock and disbelieve on one hand and concerted effort to placate and appease Trump on the other one. European leaders insisted that transatlantic alliance is essential and there can be no alternatives.

Recently this somewhat subdued so most will be inclined to say that storm have passed and its business as usual now. 

However, there is no smoke without fire. There are reasons for such American hostility. These reasons are not obvious. As far as I know not a single pundit, expert of columnists managed to pin them down. So, I will explain why, as I wrote it in the title, America wants a Friendly Rivalry with the EU.

Reasons for these are within America's own psychology. Americans are culturally and traditionally opposed to taxes and big government: legacy of American Revolutionary war. That makes Americans much more skeptical about paying taxes that Europeans are.

To make matters worse a lot of Americans live in rural areas, where benefits of government spending are far less noticeable than in cities.

These two factors contribute to recent rise of various anti-tax movements like tea party. Even unrelated movements such as libertarianism are often taken over by anti-tax zealotry.

All these anti-tax movements put federal government in danger, no matter what they do. Ignore them and be perceived as corrupt and autocratic. Embrace them and put government revenue and by extension government functioning in danger.

Because of that government needs a solution that will allow them to somehow appease the population without reducing government expenditure and taxation. 

What that solution can be, a second cold war style rivalry. Back during Cold War era threat of USSR kept American public alert and willing to support their government to fight communism, even if that support meant higher taxes for them personally. Threat of Gulag and losing it all kept them content with giving a fraction to federal government to fight back against Gulag. Government in turn used these money to modernise not only the military and intelligence services, but many other aspects of the government as well. Even social services were seen as necessary to prevent poor from turning towards communism.

However, after USSR collapsed, together with sign of relief, came cuts to various agencies and departments that were created during the Cold War era. Now that communism is defeated and the US dominant position is unchallenged it's time to finally cut taxes and get rid of all these Cold War era departments. That sentiment eventually sprung various anti-tax movements across the US that now threaten to undermine American government itself.

Cold War or not, expenditure on military, espionage and even social services are still essential. The US will not survive without it. Just because Cold War has ended, dangers to American way of life have not. The only difference is that these dangers became less obvious for an average person. These arguments are something a rational person will understand. However anti-tax zealots are not rational and do not listen to such arguments. Thus, government needs an alternative solution.

If it worked during the Cold War rivalry, then perhaps emergence of a new rival that can challenge the US? Such rival will mobilise the country and at the same time give taxpayers a good reason to keep paying their tax.

However, who can become such a rival? War on Terror did not kept population engaged for too long. Russia is now too weak to challenge Ukraine, much less the US. Not to mention American attitudes to Russia have changed from fear to admiration. China would much prefer to divide the world into spheres of influence and each lord over their part of the world. Also, China is poorer and weaker than the US, not something average American will lose sleep over. That leaves the EU.

EU is just as rich as the US, has about the same level of technological development, possibly exceeds the US in quality of life and definitely has more cultural appeal. A kind of rival, the US will have to catch up to. That will allow federal government to even justify new taxes to pay for "keeping up with the Joneses Europeans". In short perfect rival.

However, EU is American original Cold War ally and has no appetite for any conflict whatsoever. Also, when it comes to security, the EU is still heavily dependent on the US and cannot just jump the boat at a drop of a hat. That makes transatlantic rivalry rather unfeasible. However not completely impossible.

To ignite transatlantic rivalry, Trump administration tried to provoke Europe emotionally, hoping that Europeans will retaliate in tit for tat manner. That however did not work as Europeans in general much more rational and levelheaded compared to Americans. European response was as calm and calculated as it could possibly be. 

In general EU struggles with emotional appeal. People who think rationally see only benefits from EU. However, those who think emotionally cling to national flags and perceived mythical national glory, no matter how fictitious it is. "We are descendants or space technology wielding Illyrians/Dacians and those idiots across the border are not, we cannot unite with them."

Back to American rivalry problem. Since Europeans are so calm and calculated, there is no point of provoking them, but there can be point in trying to discuss this issue calmly. After all Americans do not need a full all out second Cold War until the utter and complete destruction of either one or the other side, like the first one was. Americans need something like a managed rivalry, akin to a sport game. For something like that a discussion about rules of the game is needed. Such discussions of course have to be behind closed doors, so that public will not guess it's all a game. That way Americans and Europeans can appear to be fighting each other, but at the same time be able to come together as a team, if some real external threat will materialize.

A frank behind closed door discussion between the US and Europeans can solve many of their problems and will allow both of them to move forward in a very clever fashion. A managed partial rivalry that will solve many of the internal American problems will become possible.

How Shifting Goalposts Allowed Rupert Murdoch to Shift Politics Right.

 

Recent elections delivered Labor Party a record large majority. Normally it would be a good reason to rejoice for majority of people. After all most people are not rich business owners represented by Liberals. Most people are either employees or unemployed who are much better represented by the left while often demonised by the right.

However, this time around, reactions are more cautions. Sure, members of Labor are celebrating, but broader public so far is quiet. It is far from when Kevin Rudd won in 2007. Back then everyone could clearly see that time of Howard's Work Choices is over, and Labor will bring back justice. Why do people not feel the same now?

Back in the days I wrote several articles on how Labor got too gentrified and out of touch with common people. How now Greens effectively took over the left because they better understand how poor people live and what they have to go through. Greens have solutions, but Labor does not. It all was very damning for Labor.

It's not that what I wrote back then was incorrect, but it still overlooks a very important, but carefully hidden reason for our current problems: shifting goalposts.

It is well known that Rupert Murdoch's News Corp has a near monopoly on media in Australia. He is routinely accused of manipulating politics to suit his far-right bias. That all well and good but that is not enough. To really defeat Murdoch, you need to not just accuse him of manipulation, but to also expose how he is doing it.

Murdoch's manipulates politics by shifting goalposts. He and his media company carefully and deliberately misinterprets public opinion to suit their right-wing agenda. What does it mean? I can give a rather recent example.

In 2022-2023 prices on groceries and other things rose up dramatically. Media and public dubbed it a Cost-of-Living Crisis. During the electoral campaign this issue was named as the biggest concern by the Australian public. That led to bi-partisan consensus that fixing cost of living is what new government should focus on.

However, how one can fix cost of living? There could be many solutions: lowering prices artificially, rising salaries and social payments, making certain goods and services free. All sensible solutions.

However, none of these options were discussed by the politicians. Instead, politicians focused on cutting taxes. Cutting taxes was often reported to public as a measure to combat cost of living crisis.

However, why of all measured they could take, politicians focused on cutting taxes. There are many better options that would actually help people. Cutting taxes would only help rich, who can afford groceries anyway. The reason is Murdoch press. 

Murdoch newspapers ran a concerted and choreographed effort to equate Cost of Living with cutting taxes. They deliberately ignored and overlooked any and all alternative measures and insisted that solving cost of living crisis means cutting taxes. Phrase "Cost of Living Crisis" became a middleman that allowed them to pull this trick. First, they label, rising grocery prices "Cost of Living Crisis", then equated solving "Cost of Living Crisis" with cutting taxes.

If we remove phrase "Cost of Living Crisis" and directly connect 'rising grocery prices' with 'cutting taxes', then it is easy to see how much of a nonsense it is. There is no way to fix rising grocery prices by cutting tax. Remove the middleman phrase and its obvious. It is also obvious that government should not cut taxes but do other measures to combat rising grocery prices.

That is how Murdoch press operates. They use these middlemen phrases like Cost-of-Living Crisis to move the goalposts towards their real objectives: making rich richer and poor poorer. Public and government were misled into supporting a measure that does not benefit them in any way to solve the problem they acutely need actual solutions for.

Labor Party too fell victim to this "moving goalposts" strategy. Chalmers competed with opposition in how to better cut tax, making Murdoch happy. It does not matter if Coalition is in opposition if Labor simply does anything he and other ultra rich want. No matter who is in government, Murdoch wins either way.

However, this Murdoch's moving goalposts strategy is bad for the county. Public consistently does not get policy that benefits them. People lose trust not only in government of the day, but in system generally. They start thinking that maybe democracy does not work, and alternatives are needed.

All this is very concerning and dangerous. We need to act fast against Murdoch's propaganda machine if we are to save our democracy and country. 

Murdoch is in Putin's pocket and will turn Australia into another Putinstan if he is allowed to continue. Government should realise Murdoch is duping them and should stop listening to anything he says. There should be Royal Commission into Murdoch's collision with Putin and his editorial practices.

Hopefully incoming government will finally be able to reign in Murdoch's lies and tricks and fix Australia from the damage he has done.