Why Life in USSR was Not Good

Putin's regime like to propagate a narrative that 'wild 90s' were horrible times and that life was better before. While there indeed were certain problems during 90s and certain things were better during Soviet times that preceded them, fundamentally this narrative is incorrect. For majority of people, life in USSR was overall worse than during 90s. Ultimately people freely chose to keep 90s system over going back to how things were before. 

As much as communists like to claim 1996 elections were rigged, they were not. A bit more than 1/3 of all people voted for Zyuganov to return to how things were, but more than half voted against returning to past even if it meant keeping the 90s system. This was the ultimate verdict to Soviet past. No matter how much those voted for Zyuganov wanted to deny that, this is the truth.

I will agree that for those individuals, who voted for Zyuganov life did got worse and they had good reasons to want to go back. However those who voted for Yeltsin had equally good reasons to resist return to the past and their views should not be ignored or dismissed out of hand like current regime and their apologists like to do.

I already wrote an article detailing life during 90s where I admitted some flaws but also outlined what that era gave Russia and its people. Now I will cover the Soviet era that preceded it and outline problems that ultimately destroyed USSR.

In the past I did wrote a few articles outlining certain aspects of Soviet system. Not everything was bad and certain things were so good even reasonable people not emotionally attached to communist values might want them back. However on the summary Soviet times were bad. So bad people chose to end them when they god a chance and did not want to go back when given a second choice either.

The elephant in the room is of course consumer goods, or lack of them to be precise. Even before completely empty shelves of late 80s, choice in Soviet stores was scarce. Yes, defenders will claim that you could find things and that essentials were there, but that misses the point, or to be precise dismisses it.

Critics of 90s like to say that while during 90s goods were in stores, but people had no money to buy them, in 80s and 70s it was the other way around. People had money but there was nothing to buy, making whole money seem pointless.

Sure having essentials are good, but people want more than that, they want to thrive and have fun. If system does not provide them with that, they will not be happy. That will gradually sip away at the whole system.

Soviet consumer goods policy was deliberately astute, frugal at best, scarce at worst. Consumer goods spending was controlled by people with similar mindset to Puritans and monks. They believed that all sort of excesses is bad and provided public only with goods they deemed either healthy or necessary in amounts they deemed sufficient. Their rigorous crusade against anything wasteful and vain, that will make western recycling freaks look tame in comparison, severely limited goods available to public. 

Yes there were inefficiencies in the systems, mistakes as well as scalpels who too advantage of scarcity to make quick buck or to provide for themselves and their relatives and friends at expense of general public, but this problem would not have happened if there were enough goods to begin with.

Public on average found that woefully insufficient. Because of that black economy thrived. Smugglers, that in western world only deal in prohibited substances like narcotic drugs, provided Soviet public with all sort of goods, from t-shits and jeans to western movies and electronics. As absurd as it sound, prudes that ran Soviet consumer goods policy saw spending on even such simple things like print t-shits or soft drinks vain and wasteful. People who run consumer goods were more prude that most fundamentalist Christians in the West and they controlled what common people had legal access to.

That applied to entertainment too. Censors would only approve of movies and other media if they have a certain benign influence on public, either teach them something or promote Soviet way of life. They were so harsh that even an innocent purely entertaining movie with no political message will not see light of the day if it promotes vanity or does not instil communist work ethics. Lack of instilling Soviet values in some way was in itself seen as anti-Soviet or pro-Western. It's like saying that if does not promote Jesus then its Satanic and anti-Christian, but that was reality of Soviet entertainment. What could be shown in 'Christian manga' also could not be shown in communist movie and more. Here too smugglers filled the void with western media, that only served to endear public towards western way of life. Yes, there are a few Soviet era movies that public genuinely love but there were far too little of them. 

Consumer goods and entertainment were the ultimate foundation of Soviet collapse. Even Soviet own comedy show Yeralash made fun of it in the sketch where Western spy tries to escape from Soviet border guards and offers a Soviet kid a chewing gum in exchange for help. Kid refuses by saying that spy should have at least offered him western sneakers because he is not so cheap as to betray his country for mere chewing gum. 

As much as defenders of Soviet system would like to blame the kid, liberals and all other sellouts for lack of patriotism and western decadence as well as call for all of them to be send to Gulags, ultimately, it's not the "sellouts'" fault. If people will betray your country for a pair of sneakers, that is ultimately your system's fault. Blaming it on traitors' lack of morals, loyalty and patriotism is both wrong and foolish. It's your system that failed to provide these people with something that will give them stake in it so that they will have vested interests to protect it from foreign spies. There is nought to blame but the system. No matter how much you would lambast traitors from rostrums and beef up repression, people will still find ways to betray your system if it serves their self-interest. The more you repress them, the more satisfaction they will deliver from betraying your system. Some might even do it for free just out of spite for their treatment at the hands of the regime.

Your system is as good as what people will betray it for, if they betray it for a chewing gum, then its weaker than chewing gum. Do not underestimate the power of a gum. It deserves its own meme.

That raises the question: could USSR have survived if it spends more on consumer goods. Surely CPSU could have cut on space program or military projects to find enough money to raise standards of living and essentially bribe people to stay on their side. They could even replace people in charge of consumer goods with someone more hedonistic, willing to splurge a lot more.

Both yes and no.

Yes, bribing people will keep them on your side. Spending more on consumer goods will keep people happier and they will be more reluctant to abandon the system in favour of something else. Yes, people choose Western model (capitalism) because it promised them more consumer goods.

Does it ultimately solve the problem, no. 

Why not? To answer that question, you have to look at reasons why USSR did not provide its people with enough consumer goods to begin with. 

To put it simply they saw no need. If you tell a Soviet apparatchik that lack of chewing gum will destroy USSR, they will laugh at your face. Consumer goods or citizen satisfaction was always treated as least important thing in undemocratic corridors of power. Top brass always thought of their lofty ambitions and ignored people and their needs. They always though, but what these people going to do about it. They always believed people have no choice or agency.

Until in 1991 people proved them that they do matter. Lack of chewing gum did destroy a nuclear armed superpower.

Modern commies are no better as they clearly have not learned from their past mistakes and still believe people will sacrifice for their goals and values. Their continued support for Cuba and Palestine is enough of a proof that they learned nothing and will repeat the same mistakes if ever in power again.

Can then a democracy fix socialism by providing political competition to the party of principles by offering a more hedonistic alternative to communist orthodoxy? A goulash socialism. In theory yes, real democracy can better represent actual needs and desires of population and keep society stable. In practice again no. The reason for that is the attitude, communists have towards society.

Fundamental reason why Soviet system was doomed from the start, lies on even more fundamental level. It comes to ultimate attitude; communists have towards people. Communists see people not as customers to please or partners to negotiate with, but as children they have to educate. They erroneously believe that people can simply be taught what is good and what is bad, what to do and what not to do and they will do as their 'teachers' taught them too. This is both patronising and insulting. 

Fundamentally this teacher student relationship does not work as a basis of government. People hate being treated like children, no matter how much communists hate this fact, it is the reason why fundamentally every communist regime is doomed to failure. One can run a cult this way because members are all fanatics like you are who believe in the same thing you do. However its impossible to run a country full of all sorts of people the same way. Society will push back and destroy your system every single time.

To run a country and be loved one must treat people as customers, esteemed guests, or at least theater audience. One most constantly please them to retain their favour. When Caesar talked about 'bread and circuses', he meant this simple fact. Capitalism wins over communism not because people love rich or support inequality, but because capitalists understand this simple truth, well not so simple it seems. Communism pays too much attention to weaknesses of capitalism and because of that completely fails to understand its strength.

If not pleased, then people has to be negotiated with, haggle if you like. Its like in CGPGrey Video, Rules for Rulers, you must keep key supporters happy and if not love you on election day, at least prefer you to the alternative. To get people on your side one must offer them something they would want in return for their support or work. Democracy is ultimately all about this very negotiating and higgling over all sorts of things. Political parties offer all sort of policies that benefit certain groups of people to get these people to vote for them. Prime ministers negotiate with MPs and ministers as well as with foreign powers and so on.

Here one should not see key supporters in a narrow sense. That is unless you run a two-roads dictatorship like Equatorial Guinea where only oil industry contributes to economy. In a complex modern society every member contributes something which makes every member a kay supporters. A Soviet joke illustrates it well. They pretend they pay us and we pretend we work. If you want your economy to actually perform you need these people to actually work, not just pretend they do. Thus you have to treat them as key supporters, negotiate with them and offer them something good enough for them to put real effort into what they do. Without their real effort and contribution your society will always turn into second Cuba or Venezuela and they simply will not put any real effort, unless they were sufficiently compensated, bribed if you like, for what they do.

Because of the above, people with teacher's mentality, who seek to educate masses, is in principle unsuitable to run a county. In fact, they are unsuitable to run anything outside of some hobby clubs. 

As in Rules for Rulers video, a ruler has to balance needs of his key supporters and negotiate with them to get things done. Thus a person suitable to be a ruler is a shrewd negotiator who can figure out just what they could offer to all sorts of people in their system to keep them on their side. And it has to be a good deal too, one can get away with a scam when all one need is someone's money, but if one wants to run a country one has to offer ending deals that will remain good even as times go because people will find a way to get off the train the moment they start to think the deal is no longer good.

Because of the above, Soviet System had no real chance of surviving. Through sheer luck CPSU managed to bribe society with promises of brighter future where everything will be free and in abundance. However it failed to deliver and people will not fall for the same trick twice. Fundamentally it was no better than religion with its promise of heaven in the afterlife. Despite mutual animosity, Christians and Communists are the same kind of fraudsters.

Thus in order for Socialism to work, Socialists have to address all of the above issues and afterwards win back people's trust that they will not screw it like they did last time. That is a tall order and it will not get any easier. Fundamentally they are better off abandoning their system and get behind UBI that actually has chance of winning. People may be simple but they are not stupid. They want free shit, not bullshit and communists are alas full of the latter and short on the former.

On Slavic People

Recently I got thinking that there are few scientific misconceptions when it comes to Slavs. Countries like Russia like to falsify history and since they like to claim to be a leader of Slavs, they too mess with information regarding Slavic people to suit Kremlin agenda.

To begin with origins. Many claim that Slavs originated somewhere after collapse of Roman Empire and then rapidly spread across eastern Europe. I personally think its incorrect. Most likely Slavs were the indegious people of eastern Europe, much like Celts (Galls) were in western Europe.

The reason Slavs were not displaced to the same extend as Celts where is the fact that land in eastern Europe much less hospitable than that of western Europe so there was less desire by more advanced and powerful civilisations to claim these for themselves. Only Hungarians, that originated somewhere around Khanty-Mansiysk on the other side of Ural Mountains in modern Russia, took some of the better lands in the area, splitting Slavs into Western and Southern ones. The fact that Hungarians inhabit fertile plains around Danube while Slavs live in much less hospitable mountains both north and south of these areas clearly indicate that it were Hungarians who displaced Slavs, not the other way around. The fact that Czech and Slovak languages in certain regards closes to those of southern Slavs, rather than to Polish only further proves this point.

Speaking of languages, similarities between different Slavic languages make some people believe that Slavs originated much earlier that was likely the case. Slav languages are closer to each other than different Germanic languages like for example English and German or either of these two compared to Scandinavian languages. However, reasons for differences between English and German are due to the fact that English branched out of Lowland Germanic, spoken in coastal areas and Modern German originated from Middle German, spoken much further inland. English was further influenced by Celtic languages native to Britain as well as French, while German was not. If you compare Slavic languages to Romance languages that branched out after the fall of Roman Empire, then, with exception of French and Romanian, the other three Romance languages are actually mutually intelligible. A Spaniard would understand an Italian or Portuguese without much trouble. I had a friend from Peru who travelled around the continent and had little trouble understanding Portuguese when he visited Brazil. The same could not be said about Slavic speakers, who will have hard time understanding even their close neighbors, much less a more distant Slavic variant. That points towards much earlier origins of Slavic languages as well as much slower spread across the parts of Eastern Europe. 

It is also possible than Slavic and Germanic languages have common origins, but the link between two is lost due to the fact that both Eastern Germanic, like Gothic and Western Baltic, like Old Prussian, languages have gone extinct. If this theory is correct that it might be possible that both Germanic and Slavic languages originated from common proto-Baltic language that first split into different Baltic varieties between like old Prussian in the West, Latvian and Lithuanian in the east. Then these branches further evolved into Proto-Germanic and proto-Slavic that went on to spread further southwest and southeast respectively.

Finally on assimilation of Slavs. Slavs in general are more of people who adapt and imitate other cultures and traditions than the other way around. For example, Serbs adopted many of Byzantine symbols and titles, like double headed eagle and Tetragramic cross that Serbia still uses as its symbols. Even Russia still uses Byzantine double headed eagle. Complete assimilation into other cultures is also possible. For example, Romanians are likely Slavs who adopted a Romance language for themselves to be more like Romans who they admired. Germans did it too with Holy Roman Empire but not to the same extend. Assimilation of Slavs into Germans also happened, most of areas east of Elbe were once inhabitant by Slavs but are now German. Germans established marches in the area that gradually spread German way of life to local people, some of them are still around these days but they are tiny minority. This was not only done by German efforts alone. Local Slavic rulers, like those of Mecklenburg and Pomerania Germanised themselves and their people with no involvement of outsiders from western bank of Elbe. There was no evidence of any coercion to achieve these results. Most likely people willingly embraced German way of live, finding it superior to their own ways. Not dissimilar of how modern eastern Europeans embrace European Union and its reforms compare to old local ways of doing things. That particularly refuses Kremlin's narrative that Russians are some kind of non-European people who dislike European ways and prefer Mongolo-Asiatic dictatorship of Putin. The number of German cars, German music and culture that Russians consume, including those who propagate these anti-Western views paints a different picture. 

Generally, people are more inclined to emulate cultural practices if they find them useful, and Slavs are no exception. The anti-Western nativist narrative is mostly popular with Russian women and elderly, while men prefer alternatives to Slavic ways and often seek out these in other cultures. One problem with Slavic cultures is that it does not give men enough control over women so Slavic men often embrace cultures that give men more power in relationships.

These are my correction to current orthodoxy on Slavic people. Unlike other researchers, I am not paid by Kremlin to advance narrative that benefits Putin regime, so my views are more objective than theirs. Read and learn.

How Many There are Communists

In my article about Communist Values, I mentioned that Communist Values are disliked by majority and that Communists are clear minority despite their rather large numbers. Such statements are all and good, but what is the actual numbers. Just how many there are communists, rushing to feed Africans at expense of their own country's quality of life as well as how many there are those who think this is ridiculous and we should have kept the money. 

The answer is 25%.

How did I arrive to this conclusion? Simple: east Germany. At the end of its existence, east Germany held its only democratic election. Around half of all voters voted for CDU and their message for immediate unification with west Germany. That was all that mattered in the end. However, 25% voted for rebranded SED, promising to preserve socialism and further 25% voted for SDP and other smaller parties that campaigned on various other unrelated to unification issues. 

25% wanted to keep 'socialism' in the country famous for its brutal oppression and poverty as well as infamous attempts to cross Berlin Wall into the west. One could dismiss this as inertia and assume such sentiment would gradually fade away after unification. It did not, in various surveys after the unification the same broad 25% voiced their nostalgia for DDR. That too often was explained by uneven economic development and backwardness of certain parts of former DDR. Almost 40 years on however ghost of DDR still persists.

At the same time there is a clear upper limit to how far this ghost of communism could really reach. A successor to DDR's SED, Linke never manage to win outright any of the 5 and a half landers, created out of former DDR. They governed in collation with SDP and Grune in Thuringia, but never had an outright majority, always having to rely on and compromise with other leftists to govern together. 

In other eastern lander unusually strong vote for Linke coincides with even stronger vote for CDU, conditioned by no other sentiment than to keep commies out. Communist vote is strong, but an anti-communist is even stronger. 

Modern threat from the east, AfD, too grew strong for a while until they reached this magical number of 25% and then stuck around it. Currently only a little bit above it, but that can be dismissed as protest vote extra or statistical error. Despite general disillusionment, various economic woes, lack of charisma or vision of current coalitional government, the disillusioned voters are unwilling to give AfD or Linke a chance. Both parties reached a ceiling they could not breach.

Moreover, successes of ostensively far-right AfD often coincide with fall of ostensively far-left Linke, for example in most recent Thuringian election where Left used to run a rather successful and popular government. Combined Linke, AfD and BDW vote in Thuringia is higher than national average but that is because those who prefer west left for western lander and only die-hard commies have left behind.

Overall political and voter attitude towards these parties only further highlights this glaring rift between them and the rest of political spectrum. People either support these parties with no reservation or downright refuse to even consider them. It's pretty clear it's not competition of ideas or different economic interests, but a stark difference in values.

Neither Linke, nor AfD ever managed to break cordon-sanitare and never would. Chances of both parties are limited by this magical 25% number.

Germany has ample of data one can analyse but the same fundamental pattern exists in other left-wing countries. Left have numbers, it's never a one man or small group dictatorship in a strict sense of the world. There are always crowds that support far-left regime, crowds that leadership can rely for support and recruit from. Left wing regimes are never starved of cadre and can mobilise crowds to back them up in face of pressure or accusation of being undemocratic.

On the other hand, no far-left systems had a functioning democracy or civil society. The reason is simple: actual majority is against the left and given a free vote they will always vote to abolish it. That is why no communist state ever has a functioning democracy. Majority is disenfranchised, sidelined and suppressed, while cadre of filtered left-wing zealots and apologists are the only demographic who are allowed to express their views and participate in political debate. Democracy for select quarter of society and tyranny for everyone else.

However, why 25%? The answer lies in Myer-Briggs Personality sorter. The Diplomats group makes approximately 25% of all personality types. Diplomats' views by far most coincide with that of leftists. A sort of global mission, altruism, willingness to sacrifice and such are all the things' Diplomats and commies have in common. These traits often viewed as good and benign, but they too can turn brutal and evil when government puts in terms of either sacrifice of be executed as enemy of the system. Both diplomats and communists see themselves as sort of educators of society, pushing it towards some moral high ground. Both have tendency to be activists and campaign for causes they support. Both have willingness to sacrifice or even die for things they believe in. The list goes on.

In view of the above, struggle for or against communism is not that of countries or systems or even ideas, but a struggle between different psychological mentalities. Between MBTI Diplomats and every other group to be precise. Communist dictatorship is when MBTI Diplomats seize all power and disenfranchised every other MBTI type. Communist parties are parties of MBTI Diplomats values that seek to disenfranchise every other MBTI type. And so on.

That explains why communism has plenty of sympathizers in every country of the world. Why this ideology never dies out completely despite failing so many times. That also explains why most people in communist system are discontent and want the regime to end. Why communism always fall when free elections are held.

To sum it up, communism is not an ideology or economic system, but merely a reflection of psychological profile of MBTI Diplomats. Communist movements and parties are nothing but vehicles of MBTI Diplomats attempt to impose their values on the rest of the society by force or trickery.

Communist Economics vs Communist Values

Around a year ago, I deconstructed Soviet planned economy system into individual components to better analyze what aspects of the system worked and what did not (separate article here). I concluded that a hybrid system using best parts of both market and planned economies is not only viable but desirable for our future.

Economic aspect of Socialism is well covered in the above-mentioned article. However, it falls short of addressing another glaring issue with this system, socialist values.

Economic aspect defines how money is made. Economic models can be discussed in terms of fairness, but they also can be discussed in terms of how efficient they are, how much money they can or cannot produce. One can compare economic models based on rational metrics to see which preforms better or worse.

On the other hand, values determine how money is spent. Who gets what, how much and why. While some may rationalise their values by listing various arguments why one is more deserving of money than the other, it all is fundamentally a rationalisation of either one's own self-interest or believes.

Values of any kind are a touchy subject, when someone even suggests that everything you hold dear in you hears as universal principles that makes one human, is nothing more than utter nonsense, many would respond with violence. Nonetheless the issue of values has to be addressed if we are to really understand socialism and move forward towards a solution that actually works.

After all, as Gregor Strasser showed us, you can take socialist economic model and merge it with Nazi values. If it can be wedded to Nazi values, then it can also be merged with other value systems, conservative, liberal, social-democratic, hedonist, transhumanist, anything really. 

So, in this article I will look at communist values separate from their economic model and draw conclusion.

To put it mildly communist values are unpopular with majority of people. Yes, they have their supporters who stand by them against all odds. Sometimes such supporters form a closed echo chamber associations where everyone agrees with each other and further amplifies their erroneous perception that everyone in the entire world, with exception of billionaires, are in agreement with them in principle.

What inhabitants of these, sometimes rather large echo chambers fail to realise, that would outside these echo chambers is larger than the chamber itself and people out there do no share their values in the slightest. A common mistake all echo chambers make.

It's simple to test it. Take a simple question of say: "should we help a starving person by giving them free food?" Worded this way most will agree. However, this is not how reality works. To give a starving person food, one has to take it from somewhere. So, when you instead word it like: "should we all eat less and share with the starving, so they do not starve?" you are going to get very different answers. Sure, some will still be on board and say such sacrifice is a universal human duty, but most will be against it. It will soon devolve in accusation of classism, racism and more. All the things we so often see in online debates around various socialist topics.

As you can see socialist values are unpopular with public. It's not that people fear that billionaires will lose their money if socialist take over, what they fear is that socialist will take some of their food to feed never-ending starvation countries in Africa. Because of that no matter how much socialist will continue to bash billionaires and expose issues with capitalism, the public will not switch to their side for one simple reason. They do not want to eat less so that African kids do not die of hunger. 

Take Social Democrats, who abandoned socialist values and said they only care for wellbeing of members of their unions and working class in their country, not just everyone who starves. They by far more popular than communists who maintain hardline stance on both capitalism and values.

In view of the above, the biggest obstacle toward socialism are socialists themselves and their values that majority simply does not share. Because they do not share these values, they do not want to volunteer and sacrifice for the cause they could not care less.

One may even say that every communist system failed not because economic system in itself was inefficient but because government, guided by socialist values, spend money on things people did not care about and wasted it all. People embraced capitalism and democracy not because laisses-fare capitalism better than planned economy, but simply because a more liberal system allows them more disposable income to spend on whatever they please, not what government believes is important.

People are fundamentally selfish and no amount of 'education', brainwashing, shaming or even psychiatric treatment aimed at changing psychology will ever change that. Communism fails simply because communist values contradict this basic principle of human nature. It's a failure of values, not of economic model.

As Marx prophesized, future will be economically communist, but it will not be built around communist values. UBI models merge economic model of communism with liberal value system. This will be the future. Meanwhile cultural communists and their values will forever languish on the ash heap of history.

Nations and Cultures that Role Playing as Other Cultures

During Dark Ages when Goth conquered and controlled Rome, a Gothic king once remarked "a wealthy Goth plays Roman, a poor Roman plays Goth". The meaning was that both Romans and Goth found each other's cultures appealing and actively tried to live as members of another's culture. Of course, such pretences had certain differences with how people of their own culture acted, but the point remains. Certain foreign cultures do appeal to people, and they strive to emulate them in their behavior, sometimes becoming a sort of tribute culture.

However, I can tell you more. What if most cultures we currently have are but an emulation of some other culture by a certain group of people. Shocking, isn't it.

I arrived at this conclusion, when looking at French I noticed that they are basically Germans, pretending to be Romans. Franks (a Germanic tribe) conquered Roman Gallia and liked it so much, they decided to emulate Romans in every way, including language. French technically is a Romance language, like say Italian or Spanish, but it's not mutually intelligible with other Romance languages. Its fancy but weird and kind of out of place. This proves that it did not evolve organically but rather a product of Germanic speakers trying to speak Roman Latin. Overtime it evolved into a direction that is neither Roman nor Germanic, as its speakers kept inventing new things.

French are by far not the only ones like that. Everyone heard of North Macedonia's dubious claims on being descendants of Alexander the Great. As much as this claim is clearly made up, Macedonians themselves want to believe it's true, not because it's some tourist advantage but rather because they simply like Alexander the Great and ancient Macedonians and want to be like them.

Dig a little further and you can notice that say Bulgarians are Turks who role play as Slavs. Their language is of Slavic language group but has a few peculiarities that are of clearly Turkic origin, including unusual for Slavic languages grammar, surnames and more.

Bulgarian neighbor to the north, Romania are basically Slavs who role play as Romans. Once again, the same traces give it away. Romanian is in Romance language group but has certain Slavic peculiarities. Romania's location, surrounded mostly by Slavic people and languages, but on Ancient Roman border also suggest that Romanians were Slavs who simply adopted as much of Roman culture and language as they could.

So how many more nations are role playing as something else. By my estimation a clear majority. Only a few people like Finnis, Hungarians, Germans, Norwegians and Ukrainians are just their own people, doing their things, not caring for much. Most others are role playing larpers.

Prussians and Austrians are Slavs, role playing as Germans.

Czechs and Slovenes are Germans, role playing as Slavs.

Montenegrins are Italians role playing as Slavs.

Croatians are Slavs, role playing as Italians.

Serbs are Slavs, role playing as Byzantines, ironically located west of Romanians who role play as (western) Ancient Romans.

Greeks are bunch of random people, role playing as ancient Greeks.

Turks are actually former Byzantines, role playing as Turks after they stopped role playing as Iranians.

Azerbaijanis are Turks roleplaying as Iranians.

Turkmens are Iranians, roleplaying as Turks.

Albanians are Turks, role playing as Italians.

Latvians are Balts, roleplaying as Germans

Lithuanians are Balts, roleplaying as Romans.

Poles are Balts, roleplaying as Slavs.

Estonians are Finns, roleplaying as Scandinavians.

Swedes are Scandinavians, role playing as Finns.

Danes are Scandinavians, role playing as Germans who role play as Romans or role play as French for short.

Belarussians are Slavs who role play as Lithuanians.

Russians are mix of Scandinavians, Tatars and Mongols who role play as Slavs who role play as Germans.

English are Celts, who role play as Saxons who role play as French.

Irish are Scandinavians who role play as Celts.

Portuguese are Swabians who role play as Romans.

This list might produce a plenty of heated debate, insults and the like. That however is not my intention. I want to shed light on this phenomenon of people imitating other people due to their love of their culture. I hope this article will shed light on this phenomenon and produce a serious discussion on the matter. 

Why Honest Racism is Better than a Disguised One

On X there are lots of posts that try to sell racism disguises as either Christianity or some other nonsense. Not even Elon Musk is safe from it, as he regularly talks about suicidal compassion, which fundamentally boils down to abandoning apartheid and giving South Africa to ANC was a mistake. Its not too hard to understand why they do so. Racism is not something socially acceptable in modern society so disguising it into something that is socially acceptable like religion seems like a smart move.

Despite of the above, I would argue that fundamentally it's better to be honest and call spade a spade. If problem is black people and what they do, then say it straight, do not blame it on atheism or Islam or pretend it's about saving Christianity. 

To really solve the problem one should name its real source. Any euphemism distracts from the issue at hand. Take Musk's 'suicidal compassion' for example, it's a too broad of a term that can affect far too many people aside from the actual problem you are trying to address. For example, it will be compassionate to help homeless people, poor people or people who suffered from natural disasters like hurricanes. Anyone can become homeless or suffer from a hurricane, white, Asian, Latino, not just Black. When you say compassion is suicidal, does that mean these people should not be helped? Even if do not mean it this way, it can be interpreted this way. This puts these people at risk in danger of being abandoned under the doctrine on 'no compassion'. No one wants to be left behind. So, if your vague definition leaves the door open to anyone personally being abandoned, this person will not support your ideas. Suicidal compassion leaves the door open to just this problem as with definition this vague anyone can be abandoned at any time.

Christianity is even worse than that. It leads towards pointless debates with atheists about theology while the real problem is being ignored. Opposition to Islam is no better, sure Palestinians are Muslims but so are Emiratis. Saying all Muslims are bad means those who build Dubai are bad too. No one in their sane mind will ever agree with you on that, aside from barracks communists who like to replicate Pol Pot experience, hardly an ally a 'Christian' wants.

That is why the problem has to be named directly. Accusation of racism will come, but they do come already over Islamism. They would have to be braved, faced and argued back, not cowardly dodged by saying you are 'saving Christendom' or 'compassion is bad'. You have to stand and argue that certain socio-ethnic groups are detrimental to wellbeing of society and have to be delt with. 

Do not just call them 'black' either as that too is too generic and too many will fall under this definition for it to ever succeed. If anything, you have to narrow the problem down as much as possible. Doctor cannot help you if you cannot explain what exactly hurts, police cannot find a culprit if you can only describe them as 'someone', you have to get into specifics if you want to eighter of them to be able to do anything about your problem.

There are billion Muslims all over the world, but there are but a handful of Hamas members. If you narrow it down to Hamas members and sympathisers only, then you can get people on your side. There are even more people you can call black, but there are only handful of criminals among them, if you can narrow it down to just these, then you can actually solve the problem. For example, in South Africa's case, instead of arguing in favour or apartheid, argue that ANC is corrupt and should be removed from power due to corruption, not because they are black, that way even some black people will be on your side and anti-racist posse will not be able to do much. Something more specific can be done about African American problem, I am not American, so I do not know how specify them further.

Hitler too did not label all black people as subhuman. Nazi racial theory went with a fine comb, selecting but few targets where one could argue about actual issues with these particular groups of people. He managed to rally most of Europe and more to his cause with his clever approach. If he would not target Jews, he might have got away with it too. Nazi racial theory should be studied in details and ideas from it used to argue causes for or against any particular socio-economic group.

Finally political views can also be used to target people. Communists support a lot of policies that are reprehensible for majority of people. If you will manage to successfully decouple them from people who want to provide welfare for citizens, you can successfully rally people against the red menace too.

There is smart way to approach issues or problematic people and generalising them is not it. Instead, one must be as specific as possible. Only then you will be able to successfully argue about necessity to address the issue these groups cause.

Builder, Benefactor, Scapegoat of France's Golden Age - Why History Constantly Repeats These Three Stages of Grows, Peak and Fall

Analysing history, one can notice that a certain patterns keeps repeating themselves over and over again in the same sequence over the course of time. A while ago I wrote about lifecycle of countries, how they are born, grown, reach peak, then grow stagnant and stale on top, then decline and finally die over the course of time that is approximately 9 to 10 longer than human life.

This time around I will write about different, but related cycle, that I dubbed Winner, Loser, Scapegoat. First stage, the Winner, is where someone one way or another discovers a certain winning formula and successfully applies it to achieve a lot. Second Stage, the Loser, is where successor or successors, confident in effectiveness of the formula, continue to apply it until they literary lose everything. Followed by, the Scapegoat, where at the bottom of the barrel someone is put in charge of the unfixable mess only to become a scapegoat for its ultimate failure.

To being with a history of France. Its easier to understand because here each stage is represented by exactly one monarch. They are in this order Louis XIV, Louis XV and Louis XVI, even numbered sequentially.

Louis XIV the Builder

Nowadays Louis XIV, the Sun King, is mostly remembered for two things, building a luxurious Versailles Palace and saying "etat, c'est moi" which means "I am the state". He is symbol of autocratic absolutist rule, monarchial excess, lucury and priviledge. Looking at him now its easy to think that royal life is easy and you will be very lucky to be born one. That is misleading however and even downright incorrect if you look at his life closer.

Louis XIV reign begun when he still was a child. At the time France was literary tearing itself apart in a seamlessly never-ending civil war over religion and other things. However he managed to turn things around.

Historians write a lot about absolutism or efforts of Cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin as well as his mother Anne of Austria, even though French prosperity not only continued but only grew in even after they were gone. Historians however fail to notice the real source of Louis XIV success and power, money, that was the real foundation for his absolutist rule. Read my separate article about it. 

Louis XIV and his associates and advisers build a system that turned France from unmitigated dumpster fire into a pre-eminent power in Europe, similar to what USA is today. Foundations to this system were money that came from two main sources, Medici Bank controlled by famous Medici family of Tuscan Grand Dukes, who first became bankers before they they became rulers of first Florentine Republic and later transformed it into a Grand Duchy.

If you ever wonder, the Austrians, French major geopolitical rival also had wealthy bankers backing them. Bankers are the secret sauce of success.

However money by themselves is no guarantee of success as was later shown buy Louis XIV successor, Louis XV. Money has to be invested property to produce even more money. The biggest source of money back in the days were silver mines in Spanish New World, that made Spain a a wealthiest nation in Europe, something Louis XIV managed to usurp from them by the end of his reign. To get a share of that wealth Louis XIV invested heavily in piracy, yes piracy. French colony of Tortuga would provide pirates all across the Caribbean with a safe heaven to restock supplies, repair ships and hire crew all in exchange for a fraction of the wealth they plundered. Read more in my article about piracy. Some pirates, or corsairs to be precise, made big plundering Spanish, some failed but the biggest winner of it all was French Crown who organized the whole thing.

Then there was war. Louis XIV loved war and, just like famous Carolus Rex, personally led his troops in battle. Unlike Carolus Rex, Louis XIV is not known ingenious tactical exploits and victories against all odds. There is nothing to interest military historians in a crashing defeat of Bishopric of Strasbourg by combined force of Prussian and French armies. 

However, what Louis XIV lacked in tactical genius he compensated with strategic provenness. His approach was simple, fight countries that has money and no army, brilliantly simple and supremely effective. Luckily for him Holy Roman Empire on French eastern borders had a few countries just like that. Holy Roman Emperor who lost a lot of authority due to Peace of Westphalia, was no longer willing to protect these little states and France took full advantage of that fact. Before Peace of Westphalia, during 30 Years War, France actually spent a lot of money to make sure Emperor loses the war. An investment they managed to recoup in the wars that followed.

Finally, to avoid wars dragging out and waste money, Louis XIV would use his money to hire proven professionals. During 30 Years War, French at various point supported Danes, Swedes, Prussians and Saxons against The Emperor. That war left France with a list of trusted contacts who knew how to fight and win. Swedes and Prussians together with Swiss mercenaries became the spearheads of French aggression. French alliance with them kept French domination over Europe.

Thanks to that Louis XIV managed to make war profitable and made money every time he went to war. At a pinnacle of his military career he went for the biggest jackpot of them all, the entire Spanish Crown, including their silver producing colonies no less. With some compromises here and there he managed to win it for his grandson and died just a couple of years later.

All of the above made Louis XIV very powerful but also fabulously wealthy, he used that wealth to build Palace of Versailles and many other things. He invited nobles to live with him in Versailles to keep an eye on them and make sure they do not rebel, solving the Fronde problem of his youth.

All in all at the end of Louis XIV reign France had it all, unlimited power, ridiculous amounts of wealth, fame, clot culture, powerful allies and best armies out there. It would be inconceivable to think that a successor to Louis XIV would somehow manage to lose it all and make France an even worse dumpster fire than it was before Louis XIV, yet Louis XV managed just that.

Louis XV, the Benefactor

Louis XV is known as Le Bien-Aime, the beloved. That is because it was his successor Louis XVI who had to face the consequence of his predecessor's years of misrule. To contemporaries and even some historians Louis XV was the beloved one.

To be fair contemporaries had all the reasons to love Louis XV. He not only lived the dream life in the world his predecessor created. He enjoyed the wealth and shared it and the lifestyle it provided with the court around him. It's under him that French court could really reap the rewards of the efforts of Louis XIV. 

Among other things Louis indulged himself in romance with women, Madame de Pompadour (actual person even if such a name sound like a frivolous invention of a romance writer) was one of his extrametrical love interests, possibly a reason for his moniker 'beloved'. People both loved and hated him for that. Women loved him for his virility meanwhile men like Frederick the Great snidely quipped that his greyhounds are his Madame the Pompadour.

Louis XV lived life of excess and because of that historians like to negatively compare him to his predecessor, blaming it all on him. Such differences were superficial however, daily life of Louis XV maybe differed from that of his Louis XIV, but when it came to governance and important things Louis XV did just as Louis XIV did. Just like the Sun King, Louis XV had his own cardinals as chief ministers, who in turn placed capable people in charge of different affairs of the state. However, where Richelieu and Mazarin succeeded, Fleury did not. That raises the question why? Were mistakes made and who made them?

Mistakes were certainly made, particularly in form of alliance with Austria against Prussia. However the biggest issue was not in these mistakes. Louis XIV made mistakes too and recovered from them, why Louis XV could not do the same?  The answer is the fact that reality around him has changed so much. Because of that doing all the same things his predecessor did, yielded Louis XV completely different result.

So, what did change? Actually, all of it, pretty much everything that build fortune for Louis XIV suddenly and rather abruptly ended for his successor due to no fault of his own. However, everyone, not just Louis XV, was too rich and indulgent in their enjoyment of the wealth to notice the problem until it was too late.

To begin with Golden Age of Piracy, through which Louis XIV made a lot of money to finance nearly all he was famous for, came to an end and it was entirely Louis XIV own doing. War of Spanish succession resulted in French Bourbons taking Spanish throne from their rival Habsburgs, a great success and pinnacle of Louis XIV great war efforts and at the same time foundation for all future ills that befell France in the coming 17th century. 

When Habsburgs ruled Spain, France supported Tortuga corsairs in their plunder of Spanish Treasure fleet, because stealing from rivals was all good and no drawbacks. However, when a grandson of a French king took Spanish throne, that suddenly became a problem. Tortuga Piracy suddenly became stealing from relatives and potentially weakening their grip on Spanish crown. Habsburgs have not given up on regaining Spain one day so help new Bourbon Spanish King, his French grandfather closed corsair shop on Tortuga. Corsairs did not take well to this change at all. They moved to Bahamas and continued their plunder just as before, but this time without paying French crown any tax on what they plunder and now also targeting French own shipping. Several decades of joint naval effort was needed to finally put them down, that cost a lot of money and naval lives. 

End of Golden Age of Piracy was a big financial loss for French Crown. It was also very ungrateful towards people who helped build all this French prosperity, as ungrateful as Putin's regime is towards businessmen of 90s who helped build Russia he now rules. However the worst thing was of course loss of revenue corsairs used to bring into treasury. However value of Spanish Crown outweigh these considerations in the eyes of French court. Back then they had other sources of revenue, like Medici money and financial expertise and war for wealthy Low Countries Provinces in Holy Roman Empire.

Out of these two sources, Medici dynasty died out in mid 18th century and even if cadet branch of bourbons inherited their Grand Duchy of Tuscany, by that time Grand Duchy was bankrupt and could no longer support France financially.

Finally, there was war, that used to pay. Here they fucked up eventually. It worked until it did not. Diplomatic revolution led to France having to fight an "army with a country" and no money instead of a country with money and no army.  Not to mention France used to be allied to Prussians so they should have known better how good these solders are.

Nowadays in retrospect it is easy to say it was a mistake but back then it did not look so bad. On the other hand the alliance did outnumbered Prussians significantly, Prussians were good soldiers but it was always a secondary power and client state of France, how well it could fair against its former master? France was promised Austrian Netherlands (modern Belgium) in exchange for helping Austrians with Silesia, a financially and territorially sound deal. Overall it was not too far fetched to expect a fast victory, that somehow always slipped away further and further but somehow was always within striking distance to keep chasing it. Fate was playing tricks with France.

7 years of that could not have led to anything good and it did not, money was spent and nothing was gained as a result. They did not won, Austria did not regained Silesia so it refused to hand over Austrian Netherlands too. France wasted money, lost territories in India and Americas and gained nothing but debt.

As you can see, Louis XV was not as bad as they make him out to be, but luck was not on his side. All ingredients of success that dependent on him were still there, he did the same things his predecessor did, but results were not the same. Why? Because reality have changed and methods that worked in the past, stopped working in the new evolved conditions. 

Louis XVI, The Scapegoat

By the time Louis XVI have taken over, things already looked grim. Half of original French Louisiana and lucrative Indian outposts were lost by his 'beloved' predecessor. France was loosing money. What did he do about it, the same thing The Sun King would have done, went to war. The result, like The Sun King, Louis XIV, Louis XVI won. Unlike the former however, he failed to capitalise on it due to sheer misfortune and that bankrupted his government, he ended up being guillotined during French Revolution.

Fate gave Louis XVI a chance that in certain regards looked surprisingly like the event that kickstarted whole French prosperity in the first place. 30 Years' War where French determined support for opponents of Holy Roman Emperor's opponents paid off in the end in the form of Peace of Westphalia. French ended up mediating that peace deal and it shaped it into something that ended up benefitting them immensely through weakened Holy Roman Empire that pave way for future French conquests in the east. Before Peace of Westphalia Alsace, Lorraine and a few other areas used to be part of HRE and in the years after they became French. Could a lucky break give Louis XVI a similar event where some other rebel will emerge out of vast holdings of some rival empire at French borders? 

Such an event did indeed emerge and it was famous American Revolutionary War for independence from the UK. France went on full in, supporting the Americans until they won. Afterwards they invited both parties to Paris to sign the peace and even drafted a peace treaty that immensely benefitted themselves. To avoid too much deliberation or alteration on the terms they showed Americans draft of what they wanted them to sign only a day before the actual signing ceremony. One can say they did all they could to make it a success. 

What happened next have shattered all their hopes and sealed their grim future. In a single day Americans managed to negotiate a better deal with British directly and next day signed it instead. Instead of regaining east Louisiana and extensive protectorate rights on native tribes, as French draft outlined, French got nothing. They spent money and effort helping out Americans but got nothing in return.

Louis XIV played it by the book, but somehow results were different. Some ingredients were missing. What went wrong?

Perhaps somehow Americans and/or the British and their mentality was different from Germans when it comes to deals? They were willing to talk with opponent directly. That particularly applied to the British, who instead of scorning the Americans as ungrateful and disloyal for rebelling against British rule, decided its better to listen to them and got a better deal as a result.

Possibly undue overtness of French own benefits set them off. France did not gain much explicitly in Peace of Westphalia, benefits came from sort of unforeseen circumstances as well as gains made by French allies. After loosing much of his former authority over princes of Holy Roman Empire, Austrian Emperors no longer saw them as maybe wayward, but parts of him country and no longer cared if some of them got nibbed by the French. In contrast French draft of Treaty of Paris was overtly beneficial to France, too overtly to not alert other signatories.

A Balance of Power principle, later documented in Congress of Vienna. A coalition effect (Rooting for underdog effect). Chinese may call it Curse of Heaven as this is more or less inversion of their Mandate of Heaven. 

Back before Peace of Westphalia Holy Roman Empire was seen as the preeminent power in Europe militarily and diplomatically (financially it was Spain that was not so coincidentally ruled by Habsburgs just as HRE was). France was but a little state on the fringes of that Empire, surrounded by Habsburg holdings on all sides. Back before peace of Westphalia most of Europe feared power of Holy Roman Emperor and were willing to aid his opponents no matter who they were, to create balance of power and avoid hegemony or any single state and/or ruler. Since then, however France have usurped this status from HRE and now this Balance of Power Principle worked against them in favour of their weaker opponents.

Just sheer luck or lack of it in this case. No one in their sane mind could have predicted that negotiations to end American Revolutionary War will end up this way. Only looking at that in retrospect does this outcome seem natural, back then hardly anyone would have bet on United States lasting two decades as an independent state, much less becoming a global superpower, it is now. Back then people would only bet on whether it will be UK or France who will annex them in the end.

In view of the above, one should ask if it's really fair to blame Louis XVI for all the bad consequences such as French Revolution. Was not he but a helpless victim of the tides of history beyond his control who did all he could, but it was not enough to change the ultimate fate of France.

Fundamentally, even if he could foresee all the outcomes, what could he have done differently to avoid such a fate. Avoid helping Americans in their War for Independence? That would not have erased consequences of 7 Years War however or French decline that have already started. Ultimately decline would have still resulted in revolution, because no one wants to go with less. Years of prosperity under Louis XV gave French people standards of living that was simply impossible to maintain. There was no path to victory, only several alternative path towards the ultimate collapse.

An Ever-Repeating Pattern.

The above narrative, Story of Three Louis-es, is but a one example of this same pattern repeating itself over and over again. Take for example capitalism of 19th and 20th centuries, that increasingly face the same problems, France faced before the revolution. 

In 19th century capitalism, was growing and booming like France under The Sun King, Louis XIV. All sorts of new factories were built, new cheaper and better commodities became available, it was growth all around that gradually build the world as we now know it, just like the Sun King build French prosperity together with his Palace of Versailles.

That was followed by the Golden Age, that includes both Gilded Age of 1920s with Art Deco skyscrapers, trains, jazz and many more, as well as post WWII prosperity with large cars and suburban homes. It was like Louis XV era.

Finally, it is no followed by a decline of Louis XVI where people in charge did all they could by the book created by the original capitalists of 19th century but fail to get the same results.

Collapse of USSR was capitalism own French Revolution and Wild 90s were an attempt to build a new system in a revolutionary chaos.

That was preceded by various attempts to somehow fix the system in 80s, just like Louis XVI ministers tried to somehow fix all of France's ills immediately prior to the revolution.

Currently we are somewhere close to the end of Bourbon Restoration, where attempt to put it all back how it was before French Revolution was abruptly ended by July Revolution.

Fundamentals between these two seamlessly unrelated eras are also similar. Just like Louis XIV made money with his wars and Tortuga corsairs, early capitalism actually created value, new goods and methods of productions were actually better. It was not just paper secondary economy that was booming but actual primary one. It was not just an improvement on paper, actual value was created and brought into the system.

The Golden Age was but an era of spending and enjoyment, with occasional pitfalls here and there. It was so good, no one could care less for some petty details like primary economy. People of Guilded Age partied like no tomorrow, just like courtiers of Louis XV. Strong believe that this system is so solid, nothing could ever take it down, was the dominant thought of both eras.

Finally late 20th century was like reign of Louis XIV doing all the right thing by the book but somehow getting different results. One might say Cola Wars was the same kind of death-kneel war for capitalism, like American War for Independence or 7 Years War was for French power. A lot of money was spent not on creating new and better value but merely on an attempt to steal this value from a competing corporation. A tug of war not dissimilar to struggle over lucrative lands of Silesia or equally lucrative American colonies. Nonetheless no matter how lucrative these lands are, they produce the finite number of resources and what one power have gained is something the other lost. In the same way struggle for equally finite cola market is not creating of new value but merely attempt by one megacorporation to steal from another what is essentially a finite market than can only produce finite revenue.

In contrast capitalism of 19th century created new markets by introducing new goods. Not dissimilar to how Tortuga corsairs brought new money into French economy. Fundamentally Spanish Treasure Fleets brought this value into Europe, French corsairs just redistributed it. However fundamentally value was coming from without.

However, all this money spent on Cola Wars and similar competition efforts for finite markers, had to be recouped somehow. Just like money spent on 7 Years War and American Revolutionary War. Thus a Financial Crisis of 2008 and several others of its kind, were the price we all paid for money wasted by the capitalists on their competition.

I am not endorsing socialism or the like, as fundamentally its but a opposite side of the same capitalist coin. However, a new socio-economic system for modern times is certainly long overdue.

As a General Principle

There are always 3 key stages, that are: the builder, the benefactor, the scapegoat. Alternatively, you may call them: growth, peak, fall or winner, loser, scapegoat as I originally wanted to title this article. 

In astrology there are always three signs between cardinal points, marking solstices and equinoxes and dividing the circle into four equal sectors. Each sector consists of exactly 3 signs, the first of which is cardinal, followed by a fixed and finally a mutable one. This trio is not dissimilar to the pattern I outlined in my article. A cardinal sign creates a system, a fixed one flourishes through it and finally a mutable one presides over collapse and gives way for a transformation for a new system to emerge. Roles played the three Louis-es during French hegemony and yet again repeated in the capitalism era.

In astrology these principles repeated again and again over the same never-ending cycle. However, there are 12 signs in total, that means the same pattern repeats itself four times in a somewhat different manner, before it gets back to the same point where it all begun. In real life, era of French hegemony of three Louis-es was replaced with British hegemony and capitalism that went through the same 3 stages as French hegemony. And before French hegemony there was Spanish and Portuguese and Ottoman hegemony, that was different from French one. However, we can go all the way back towards previous British hegemony under Normans and Plantagenets, sometimes informally called Angevin Empire. 

After something finally fails, we try something different. By the time we have tried four different things all repeating the same stages of growth, peak and fall, we long forgotten how it all begun and start anew with that thing. Why world works this way is everyone's guess. However, each system has its lifespan, after which it exhausts itself and demands change. 

Perhaps that is due to the fact that people in charge, no matter who they are, grow increasingly more and more demanding and oppressive until eventually people have enough of their bullshit and unite to take them down. When people had enough of Ottoman's abuses and domination, they helped Russia, kicked them down a peg. Now that world is tired of Russian abuses and hegemony, it is now helping Ukraine kick down Russia. So, life goes in circles.

However, it's probably not true that nothing changes at all, and everything repeats at infinite. It's more of a spiral where each new turn of a cycle is on a higher floor than the previous one, a spiral of 4 sectors, each 3 stages long, just like four seasons, each 3 month long, is how world moves on towards its future.