Differences Between Different Christian Denominations

I sometimes hear things such as 'all who believe in Jesus go to heaven' or 'Jesus loves you'. I think these phrases originate from the US. Possibly that is what American Christians believe.

However, that is not the case with all the Christians.

"American Jesus loves you and Russian one will send you to hell for being a sinner." - Me

I will even list two most contrasting depictions of Jesus I could find:

They do give vastly different impressions.

That is the same with Christian denominations as well.

Some of them lean heavily into one or the other direction, others try to find middle ground.

I would say Eastern Orthodox Christianity as well as Puritans are on the extreme end of ascetism, cruelty and restrictions.

In contrast American denominations, such as Baptists, are probably on the extreme end of all loving and forgiving ones.

How that came this way

The major differences started from Protestant Reformation. 

Both Catholics and Orthodox held and still hold believe that sinners go to hell and only sin free people go to heaven. 

Eastern Orthodox even made the whole faith revolving around earning right to go to heaven after death, by being extremely pious and observant of all religious rules. Fear of eternal damnation in hell reigns supreme over the Orthodox faithful and forces them to comply with Church rules. Alternatively, they become atheist be rejecting the premise of existence of God. This particular denomination holds monks and ascetic monastic way of life in high esteem. Most Church leaders come from monastic background as well.

Catholics were somewhat easier on it and allow people to simply buy a forgiveness for their sins from the Church by giving it money. Just pay and sin as much as you want. That practice made Catholic Church very rich and allowed them to decorate their Churches in very opulent style. This, among other things actually led to Protestant Reformation.

While some protestants went on to embrace poverty and ascetism themselves thus becoming somewhat like Orthodox in process. Most protestant went the opposite way entirely and decided to address the issue of final judgement directly. 

Luther and Calvin went on to address this issue directly. Luther claimed that salvation and damnation is ultimately in God's hands and sin will not necessarily preclude people from being saved and go to heaven. 

Other theologians went even further and said that ultimately solvation and damnation have nothing to do with either sinfulness or faiths. Calvin claimed that each person from their birth is just destined to one or the other from the start and nothing can be done to change that. That latter does not even require any faith at all to be saved and go to heaven.

Later it was simplified by American Baptists into 'all who believe in Jesus go to heaven'.

Later Developments

As Protestant Reformation opened the door for more and more different denominations. Some like Mormons may not be accepted as Christians by other denominations, but they have their origins in Christianity.

Because of that simply knowing that person is Chirstian tells you surprisingly little of what they actually believe in.

Also a Batist Jesus is much better than Russian one.

Universal Faith

I was thinking recently that Muslims managed to sell the idea of women being inferior to men and should be subordinated to them at all times using their religion. 

They just say that God made women inferior to men and wills for them to be subordinated and obedient to men and it works. It made their women obedient and reshaped their societies. 

Perhaps it also allowed them to spread this idea far and wide.

In contrast people ban me on internet forums if I try to push for that in a straight face way without brining any justification.

So, I was thinking that maybe I need to start my own religion, that will incorporate these ideas, but will also mix them with other good ideas here and there. 

In fact, while at it I can even flesh it out into a cohesive full-fledged religion.

I think we can call it something like Universal Faith. 

Universal to Unite the World

I think many other people before me wanted to create something like a religion to unite the world around it. I am not opposed to uniting the world per se. I used to oppose religion because I do not want to be told what to do or believe.

However, since I will be creating a brand-new religion, then why not create something that can unite the world. That will allow my new religion to get more supporters. People who want religion to unite the world will likely join as well.

To make it even more universal, famous personalities of other religions should all be included into Universal Faith. They can be called Wise Men, Seers or Oracles. Oracles were specially blessed people who managed decipher some secrets of the universe and taught these secrets to humanity.

Jesus Christ, Prophet Muhammad, Buddha and many others can be included in this group. Each of them should be elaborated further as to what message they brought to society. Jesus taught people importance or mercy, generosity and love towards fellow man. Prophet Muhammad taught men how to lead the society and made women to submit to male authority. Buddha taught people that suffering comes from ignorance, stupidity or anger and that one should avoid these feelings to avoid suffering and be happy.

Pagan gods too should be added as Oracles who each taught humanity a piece of their wisdom.

Male and Female Relationship

We will begin with this issue. It is a reason why I am creating this new religion in the first place.

Issue with women not being obedient enough affect many people and places over the globe. Making women obedient is desired by many people: not only those who practice BDSM, but also by Alt-right, Donald Trump supporters and many other groups. However, there is currently nothing that can solve this issue.

Because of that if this new faith will be able to address this issue, it will be able to gain supporters and eventually take over and unite the world. It will be able to convert alt-right and other such radical groups into this instead.

Theology/Psychology on Gender Roles

As for actual theology to explain and justify it. Then:

There are huge and irreconcilable difference in psychology between men and women. These differences make each gender uniquely suitable for their own particular role in a society and relationship.

The fundamental rules of the Universe, that existed since the creation of the Universe, made genders fundamentally different from each other. Completely and irreconcilably different

Men, by their nature, are free and independent. These qualities allow them to lead and create new things and advance civilization. Thus, they should rule and lead. In doing so they will advance society towards new and better future.

In contrast women by their nature are inferior and subordinate gender. Since women are a subordinate gender, then men should take control and lead them. Tell them what to do, what to believe and how to behave. 

Due to differences in their psychology: women make poor leaders, but good subordinates. In contrast men make poor subordinates but make good leaders or independent actors. Because of that men should lead make all the rules and women follow these rules.

Women should never be made or allowed to make decisions. They are psychologically unsuitable for that. Men should make all decisions for them.

While women should be told to be obedient, men should be told to lead them. People should be told that female psychology makes them unsuitable for making decisions, so men should make it easier for them, by deciding everything for them on their own.

Different Social Structures for Each Gender

Because of differences in psychology, each gender should have different social structures that would allow them to live and function in society better.

Male idea of authority

Fundamentally every man wants to be on top. No man would simply acknowledge authority of some other man. Men detest hierarchies and do not want to be under someone.

Because of those men created democracy, so that every man's opinion is heard and counted.

When men select their leaders, they want someone who will listen and accommodate needs of everyone in the group ideally or work out compromises that will satisfy most of them.

Men do not like authoritarian leaders who just do what they want and ignore everyone else's needs.

Men do not like religion with a God on top. Men are naturally atheists. 

Female idea of authority

In contrast to men women actually like authoritarian leaders who forcefully push their will through.

Women do not want to be on top. Instead, they want to see strong manly alpha men to lead and rule.

It is this woman's logic that is behind totalitarian movements and governments of 20th and other centuries. It created communism as it was in the USSR.

Since women love authoritarianism, they should be controlled by a strong hierarchy with powerful leader on top. 

Such leader can as well be God. Because of that a new Universal Faith should be created to rule over women.

How to go about it

Since women need to be led by someone, then a religious authority should lead them and control their lives.

In contrast men should not be subjected to someone else authority as much as possible. Men should be given freedom to do what they want. 

Men however should be taught how to be the authority themselves. How to lead and control women.

There should be a democratic structure for men to govern their side of society. For men decision should be made by consensus, or by vote.

In contrast there should be authoritarian structures for women. A Universal Faith should control female lives. An all-powerful God and Creator on top of this hierarchy should serve as justification of the Authority of Universal Faith.

Conclusion

Because of all of the above Universal Faith will be able to unite the world and solve the relationship problem.

With that humanity will finally be able to advance into the future we all need and want.

Symbol

Finally, we can use 9-point star as a symbol of the Universal Faith. See picture above.

5-point start is too generic, everyone uses it. Islam uses 8-point star and Judaism 6-point start. Georgia and Australia use 7-point star. No one uses 9-point star.

9-point star not only looks good and distinctive enough, but also allows a notion of progress, it takes from past but makes it better. More sophisticated and advanced.

Outward points of the star stand for male superiority and far reach of their ambitions. Inner angles stand for female humbles, inferiority and willingness to submit. They are connected to each other to show that men and women need each other. Repetition of this pattern shows that it is Universal and unites all people. 

It also looks somewhat like a sun, because it shines upon humanity from its heights and keeps people warm and happy with its wisdom. 

On Global Problems

A response to this.

None of these. Choice of events kind of strange, possibly reflects on your worldviews.

Why warn about Arab Spring, aren't it good that people tried to establish democracy.

I do not think that world would have reacted sufficiently to actually prevent Invasion into Ukraine. Most importantly however is the fact that underlying issues that caused this war will not go away no matter the warning. So, there is no point of warning about that.

Warning about Corona would have made world much worse as some restrictions would be placed in advance.

Probably same with 9/11. Here you might say that towers would have survived, but it might have been that terrorists would have managed to beat all the restrictions and still done it.

What are the problems caused by social media? That sounds like a made-up nonsense that only concern some people. Too subjective anyway. In my subjective opinion.

Same with National Debt. Donald Trump already explained to you that when you owe a bank 1 million it your problem, however when you owe bank 1 billion it is bank's problem. National Debt is more of a problem to people who lent the US this money. US can simply default on all debt and there is nothing they can do about it. They can't invade the US militarily to force Americans pay. It is their economies that hinge on interest payments from the US. So, the US can easily fuck them up by defaulting and they will not be able to do anything about it.

In fact, we should spend more and end the stupid austerity. That is the only problem that matters in the world. End Austerity. Once again idiots will not listen to me and will likely impose it anyway.

Why Murdoch Press is Detrimental to Society

 

News Corp Longevity

In fact, it is remarkable how Murdoch managed to carry News Corp business on for so long without showing any signs of the inevitable death of his media empire.

Rupert Murdoch is painfully aware that he is losing his business to internet streaming. However, he figured out a rather clever strategy to mitigate these losses and keep his company afloat for foreseeable future.

To keep the remaining elderly loyal to Foxtel and News Corp he pushes for a message that ponders to the interests and worldviews of the older people exclusively. It mixes nostalgia with ever increasingly conservative message of how things were better in the past. 

That produces an echo chamber where old people's views are amplified by pliant media that in turn make their views even more radical and that in turn makes News Corp message even more radical and out of touch with the rest of the society.

To be fair internet has equally radial message as it is also an echo chamber, but of the younger people's views.

Why That is Detrimental to Society

This radical pondering to older people views by Foxtel eventually made them very close minded and oblivious to issues the rest of the society faces.

Because old people are oblivious of their problems, young people are increasingly cynical and disillusioned with the society as a whole. That creates rift between old and young who are by now unable to even understand each other.

Politicians Overestimate Murdoch

Worst of all though is the fact that politicians rely on traditional media for their understanding of society. Politicians tend to believe that Murdoch press if nor represents the society, than at least shapes it in many ways.

Reality is that Murdoch only has sway over older people at best. His constituency ever shrinks. Thus, relying on what News Corp says makes them govern only in the interests of older people.

Because of that younger people lose interest in politics and get disillusioned with society and government. In the long run this will jeopardize the very foundations of society. 

Final Words of Warning

Disillusioned youth will rally behind any radical movement that will manage to appeal to their interests and world views. Unless politicians will figure out how to listen to young people, we will have another Nazism and Fascism on our hands.

After all, if government ignored their needs for so long, why should young people even listen to any opponent of their agenda. Disillusioned youth will be willing to implement changes that benefit them even if they are opposed by the rest of the society.

End of Rupert Murdoch and News Corp

"Our companies are in robust health, as am I,"

That is a very lofty statement from someone who is 92 and a half years old. He is less than 4 years younger than Queen Elizabeth II was when she died.

While issue of Murdoch's own health is pretty clear: he might be looks alright with no visible ailments, but it is obvious that he will die soon. Human life expectancy is not infinite after all.

However, I personally would say that his companies are as bad as he his. They may be still look good, but their future is as grim as that of Rupert Murdoch himself.

That has nothing to do with Rupert's managing ability or lack of. The companies will fail not because Lachlan and other successors will mismanage them. They will fail because of intrusive technological change than affects media industry.

Decline of Traditional Media

Traditional media were in decline ever since internet became a thing. The inevitable reality of our world is that is it pointless to pay money for a newspaper that writes about things that happened yesterday if you can read online for free about things as they happen in real time. 

Because of that News Corp is doomed as horse driven carriages were when automobile became a thing. The fact that Rupert Murdoch tried to push for a legislation that will make Google and Facebook pay for publishing news, shows that he feels threatened by these new sources of news.

Thus, numbers that show News Corp domination of news market are misleading as it does not take into consideration these informal sources of news that younger generations rely on.

It is the same with Foxtel domination of entertainment market, numbers are also misleading.

Entertainment Market

On the entertainment market it is the same. 

While older generations still mostly rely on newspapers and Foxtel, younger generations prefer internet media and things like Netflix and Stan for their entertainment. Foxtel tried to create their own alternative to Netflix, Foxtel Now, however Stan alone has 10 times more subscribers and Netflix probably even more than that. 

Thus, when it comes to Millennial television, Foxtel clearly losing.

Both with news and entertainment, it is unlikely that younger people will switch to a traditional media as they grow older. So News Copr and Foxtel will die out together with boomer and Gen W generations who stick to the traditional media the got used to.

Internet Streaming

Internet streaming services were set up by younger future minded people. 

Because of that they cater heavily to young people's tastes, values and worldviews. Access to them requires one to be more than comfortable with online way of doing things, which is hard for older generations. Because of that their userbase remained young. 

However, it is ever growing as more and more young people are born and come of age to make use of these services. Because of that internet streamers are not concerned that their content is inaccessible to older people. 

Older people are also often unaware internet streaming even exists. This mutual ignorance prevents each side from understanding each other.

End of Murdoch

Because of all of the above, Murdoch is not an undefeatable emperor of the Evil News Empire. He is more of Ned Kelly on his last stand, who refuses to go without a bang. However, steam of his resistance is dying out.

On Rupert Murdoch

Recently I read the news that Rupert Murdoch have resigned from all his remaining positions in News Corp.

The Article

He even admitted that media is in cahoots with elites.

There is a lot of truthful words in his resignation memo. Though it is of course written in a misleading way as to create wrong impression.

Here a quote for example:

Elites have open contempt for those who are not members of their rarefied class. Most of the media is in cahoots with those elites, peddling political narratives rather than pursuing the truth.

It is not like this passage is untrue per se, it is just in context it gives the impression that what he means is that: media, other than News Corp, is in cahoots with elites and News Corp is pushing the truth. 

Words per se do not state that, however. You can even interpret them as this: since all media is in cahoots with the elites, do not feel bad that we are as well. That can almost sound like an admission to his critics.

The rest of what he said is equally wonderful words, that do require clever interpretation to get most of them.

However, yes, Murdoch media is in cahoots with business elites and its pushes messages that directly benefit the business elites, even if such messages are clearly untrue. 

Murdoch as Oligarch

In that regard you can even consider Rupert Murdoch the closest thing Western World has to a post-soviet Oligarch.

Just like oligarchs, Murdoch uses media to pursue his and his associates' agenda, rather than reports on events truthfully like a proper journalist would.

However, unlike oligarchs Murdoch does not need a supplementary income from another business to payroll his media empire. On paper at least.

Another difference is that there is no other oligarch like figures who push for a different agenda and push their own untruth in a similar way to Murdoch.

Harm Murdoch Causes

What he does is indeed damaging to society. Especially to the one that get used to the idea that journalism supposed to be fair and impartial. 

In post-soviet space people get used to government media telling them blatant lies out of political considerations. Thus, transition to oligarch-controlled media was actually beneficial to a freedom of speech. Monopoly of untrue message was replaced with a pluralism of untrue messages that come from different sources and pursue different interests. Oligarchs also had to be cautious about their lies, as they can be sure that rival oligarchs will not echo their message and will instead poke holes in their narratives to discredit their rival's media credibility.

The fact that what Murdoch does in the West is unprecedented and not matched by any rival media makes effects of his deceit even more grieve.

Because of that I would like to be cautiously optimistic that with Rupert Murdoch resignation, this era of blatantly biased propaganda.

However, I have one other reason to be optimistic about end of Murdoch and I will cover it in a separate article.

Anatomy and History of Communism

Lenin said that 'religion is opium for the masses'. 'Communism is heroin for the masses' I say. A heavier drug with even worse aftereffects.

Well, there are many different things that were called communism and socialism.

Marx himself even once said 'if that is what they call Marxism now then I am not a Marxist'.

It got way more convoluted and twisted ever since.

According to Marx, but not according to Marxists, communist will happen organically as part of natural development of economy, when overabundance becomes a thing. Society and economy would gradually develop from capitalism to socialism(welfare state thing according to Marx) and then to Communism. It would require changes to policies to accommodate this reality. Basic Income for example.

According to Marxists on the other hand, communist could be established via revolution by decree. Marx said it would not work this way. They tried in USSR and failed.

So nowadays:

Communism became associated with what USSR was and North Korea and Cuba is. (Some lefties do not like that term Communism is used to describe these regimes and call them Stalinist instead.)

Socialism is abroad idea of more equal social organization. I think nowadays it often boils down to making every business a co-op by law.

Democratic Socialism - Co-op businesses and democratic form of government. Bern describes himself as such but analysts call him Social Democrat instead.

Social Democracy - Market Economy and high social spendings on poorer people. Welfare State or Socialism according to Marx. Scandinavian model if you like. To the extend practiced everywhere in Western world nowadays.

Social Liberalism - As above but with more personal freedom. My favorite kind of.

Also there is difference between Capitalism and Market economy. Then can exist together but not always.

Market economy is when goods and services are trader freely on open market. Without monopolies, where there is only one supplier or buyer.

Capitalism is economy controlled by capital.

Capital means money needed to establish a business.

Therefore Capitalism is when only those who posses sufficient amount of money to establish a business could do so.

Well a cold reality of sorts.

In better societies capitalism is mitigated with easy credit and generous labor laws to even playing field and give everyone a fair go.

In worst examples on the other hand, capitalism divides society into privileged elite who do posses means to establish a business and the rest who do not. Those who do not have capital, have no other choice but to work for those who do.

That creates two class society of privileged business owners and landlords (Marx called them bourgeoisie) and those who work for them and pay rent (proletariat). Inequality between these two classes sometimes produces revolutions.

By virtue misfortune of being a member of lumpen-proletariat class, who does not posses means to establish a business, not does own a house. I tend to support left ideologies and politicians who cater to my and my class interests.

Well, me self-publishing a book is an attempt to become a petit-bourgeoisie, but since it does not sell well, I am still in lumpen-proletariat class.

On Differences in Conter-Culture Between Russia and The West

I was thinking recently that counterculture in Russia and the West is rather different from one another.

It is rather long post but I would appreciate if anyone can help me make more sense here. It is a soul-searching of sorts, but I think it can encourage an interesting discussion.

Official government endorsed culture in Russia revolves around serving the country. Anthem literally calls country 'holy'. Propaganda further calls it motherland, as if the country gave birth to you. It tried to equate country and family.

It encourages patriotism and unquestionable loyalty as well as unquestionable believes in government approved dogmas.

It is fervently anti-individualistic and tries to make everyone the same. It looks down on individual, says he is less than a bigger and more important country and society.

It also encourages spartan endurance of hardships and privation. Praises sacrifices for the country. It is anti-materialistic in that regard.

Overall, it attempts to mold a person as a small cogwheel in the system. A disposable cannon fodder and labor force for the system.

Russian counter-culture in contrast is stanchly individualist. It affirms individual will, individual needs and feelings. It celebrates freedom, individual freedom. It is almost libertarian.

It opposes government culture which it calls propaganda and values truth. It encourages to seek and speak truth to resist government lies. To not be yet another brick in the wall, cogwheel in the system.

It fights against being a cogwheel in the system which it calls being a slave. It looks down on people who follow the official culture, calling the cattle (bydlo) or zombie (zombified).

It is in tune with individual subjective feelings. It seeks individual happiness and fulfilment. Being true to yourself. Finding your voice among the noise government and normies push on you. True feelings.

It is often reflective and introspective. It constantly seeks ways to be free, to be yourself. To be genuine.

Because it likes foreign non-Russian stuff that it views as free and individualistic.

To the extend it is hedonistic or epicurean. It seeks to find true and good things and often rejects popular mass culture. It is hipster-ish to the extend.

Possibly Johnny Silverhand from Cyberpunk 2077 video game is a good example of Russian style counter-cultural rebel against the system. He is rock musician too.

I personally strongly relate to Russian counter-culture. Recently I realized that my worldview heavily influenced by that counter-culture. Because of that I instinctively gravitate towards different forms of counter-culture.

Considering how Russian counter-culture is, it it easy to think that all counter-culture is like that. That Western counter-culture is same. However recently I noticed that it is not necessary the case.

A least some of Western counter-culture is not individualistic anti-system but rather somewhat anti-materialistic. It rejects material wellbeing and seeks some spiritual cause, some sort of crazy social justice idea to serve. In that regard it resembles Russian official government culture more than Russian counter-culture.

On the other hand hard work ethics of normal Western culture is also similar to Russian official culture.

Things like individualism and personal individual needs do not fall clearly to one side or another.

This kind of dilemma puts me in rather confused position: where do I stand here in the West?

I ended up in anime community here on MAL because it is kind of counter-cultural but also hedonistic. It caters to individual needs and feelings. However is it all.

I staunchly guard my freedom and dodge all and every attempt to put a yoke on me.

However, is it all, maybe there is something more somewhere out there for me? Greater freedom and greater prosperity.

Summary

In simpler terms, counterculture in Russia is individualist and libertarian and mostly leaning towards Lib-Right, but Lib-Left is also there.

In contrast Russian mainstream is mostly authoritarian and statist, somewhat leaning left.

In the West however counterculture is mostly left and often lean towards authoritarian left at that.

That means Western mainstream is libertarian enough to the point where individualism will become countercultural.

In general, if politics in the West work mostly on left-right axis, politics in post-Soviet states are on authoritarian-libertarian axis. That is why pro-Putin United Russia is often described as centrist party, it has elements of both Western left and right. 

In post-soviet states it is a fight between individual needs and freedoms against those of the nation.

In the Western world it is intead between employers (right) and employees (left).

More on Why Mislead Public in Russia Supports War

Just found a video of how Joseph Goebbels depicted WWII to the German Public

In summary: it all chill, women welcome us as liberators and give us flowers, no one dies. Nothing to worry about.

I guess until allies took Berlin, German public did not knew better. Only after the war was over did they realized that it was far from how Goebbels depicted it.

Allies showed them concentration camps and Germans were shocked, they could not believe Hitler and NSDAP would do something like that.

I do not need to actually watch any Russain TV to tell that that Putin, Vladislav Surkov, Constantin Ernst, Dmitry Kiselev and Vladimir Solovyev depict their 'Special Military Operation' in much the same way.

Just so that truth does not accidently reach the public, they shit down all the independent Russian language media there like Echo Moskvy. So not so internet and English language savvy public is in the dark about war.

Paid war trolls know the truth but they are paid by Putin's government so they have vested interest to support Putin regardless.

Someone needs to break out the information blockade and tell the truth.

I guess I needed to make it clearer that those who are good with English or Internet know the truth. Like all visitors to this forum for example.

Younger generations (40 years old and younger) are proficient with these things and know the truth.

It is older generations who never learned English at school during Soviet times and afraid to touch computers just in case are susceptible to the propaganda. These guys have nothing other than propaganda TV.

As times goes younger post-Soviet generations slowly displacing older Soviet ones. That concerns Putin and co.

Since younger gens do not like him and think he is ruining their future they might get to organize something like Euromaidan in Ukraine and replace Putinist regime with a democratic young people rule.

That happened in Georgia, Ukraine Moldova, Armenia. Almost happened in Belarus in 2020. There were protests in 2012 and 2020 in Russia.

So Putin is concerned for his fate. After Euromaidan Yanukovich and his crew fled to Russia to avoid going to trial for all the embezzlement he and associates done. Ukraine and the world want them arrested, but Russia is one of few dictator friendly countries out there.

Putin's case is even grimmer, there is no any other dictator friendly countries further east of Russia that would refuse arrest and extradition request from new Russian government that would replace Putin's regime.

So he and his crew clings to power as if his very life depends on it.

Because it kind of Does.

On Ageing

Do you realize that people who were driven into homelessness and suicide will not sympathize with these retirement home dwellers. No matter how you describe their plights of having inadequate care in these facilities. They have homes, food and even employed some carers to take care of them. Money wasted on people who are soon to die anyway.

Dude who sleeps on a bench or in his car having it worse.

Dude who killed himself to avoid homelessness unfortunately will not be able to retire at all.

When I see plight of my Generation, which is hell a lot worse that boomers in retirement homes, I am filled with anger.

Yet government wastes money on these retirement homes.

Would you say that some fossil who will still die in 5 or so years deserve this life and care more that anyone who killed themselves, unable to put up with all that shit in the world.

I can only have one kind of mercy to these retirement home dwellers: euthanasia. They had their lives. They lived them however they wanted. Now the time has come for them to retire to the after life and give way to younger people.

People normally do not live that long. Medieval Kings only lived to something like 55, Ancient Egyptians only to 30. They are senile precisely because nature do not intend them to live this long. People do not even suppose to live past 60 to 70

Healthcare should not be used to keep dying people alive, it should only be used on those who are young enough to fully recover.

It should not be available past 65 years old, for people who can only survive with constant external care.

However euthanasia should be available so that they can die fast and painless death, with dignity.

Some of them did good, some did bad. May be those who done something good deserve a cenotaph (only after they died), similar to those who died in two World Wars so that others could live.

People praise the Greatest Generation (1900 - 1926, soldiers of WWII) precisely because they died for out future. They built it for us. They deserve this high moniker.

People hate boomers (1946-1964) because instead they destroy our future so that they can cling to their shitty lives for another couple of years.

US boomers dodged Vietnam War and let people like Pol Pot take over in Cambodia. Vietnam War was also about Cambodia and Laos.

How Putinism Works and How to Defeat It

Putin lies because he needs to be seen by people in Russia as a good guy. He will very likely lose power if his evil nature is exposed.

That is why he first made people believe in Nazi in Ukraine, then he convinced them that these Nazi commit crimes against humanity in Ukraine. From there on he can present his war as a war for a good cause, to stop these Nazi from committing their crimes against humanity.

From there on, if the West opposes Putin, those who believe in Nazi in Ukraine see the West as collaborators of these Nazi. From there on they can even think all of the West is Nazi sympathizers. That does not dissuade them from supporting Putin. From there on no matter how war actually goes they will not stop supporting him.

Many Western analysts fall for that trap and seem unable to get out of it.

Western powers should do more to address the original foundational lie about Nazi in Ukraine.

As absurd as it might sound, the West should try to convince people in Russia that there are no any Nazi in Ukraine at all and they do not commit crimes against humanity at all. Once this foundational lie is gone, those built on top of it will collapse as well.

Identity in America and in Europe

Identity in America

In America there is so little issue with borders because fundamentally there are nothing that truly divides the people.

As much as Canadians like to assert that they are not Americans, this is a purely identity issue.

That is Canadians speak the same language as Americans. More or less believe in the same set of Chirstian denominations. Have more or less fundamentally same world view, manners and idea of how to interact with each other. 

It is not like Canadians are so different from Americans that cannot readily coexist. It is simply that Canadians choose to be different. In choosing so they created several cultural rituals to differentiate themselves from their neighbors.

On fundamental level there is very little that divides the two. Culture in North America is more akin to an outer layer of paint, painted over the fundamentally same 

All of that makes it very easy to simply switch to a different culture or simply move to a different location. Then change again when you get bored.

The same is true for each US State. Many of them have ever expanding rostrum of additional State Symbols, such as State Animal, State Gem, State Bird, State Rock. All of these are just outer layers of identity, painted over the same basic nature underneath it. 

The very desire to think of something like a State Rock and then make it an official symbol is a fundamentally American and Canadian thing. It is somewhat copied in Australia, or perhaps introduced by Americans who came here. Though I saw few people who actually care for something like that. Other countries do not bother with something like that.

People with fundamentally different cultures in North America are Mexicans for example. However, Americans like to think that that is due to Mexicans being of a different race rather than a culture. Same as they think of Blacks.

In general, thinking that there are but 3/4 races, that are different in skin color is erroneous in itself. 

Dark skinned people from India and Pakistan are nothing like those from Africa. People from different parts of Africa are also different from each other. Even Ethiopians are nothing like even their immediate neighbors in Sudan for example.

In contrast while skinned people from Spain and tanned Latins from Mexico do share a language and many fundamental cultural characteristics.

I would even argue that a white American from New England has a lot more in common with a Latin from a Mexico or Venezuela, than a white Finn from Helsinki has with white Italian from Naples.

Identity and races in Europe

Europeans may be all white, but differences between them go much deeper than those between Americans.

They are different races rather than just cultures. Nazi did called German a race rather than a culture. Such claim in itself did not puzzle people around them. Instead, they had issue with them planning to genocide other races in Europe to make way for geographical expansion of German race.

People in Europe are very different from each other. Some more so than the others.

I however would not say that these differences will prevent them from ever able to work together. After all these races lived side by side on the same continent for such a long time, they are definitely able to understand each other. 

In fact, there were plenty of cooperation between them in the past. Common self-interest allowed people of different races and religions of Europe to work together. The same common self-interest will be able to not only keep, but also expand European Union. 

So common future is very much possible for Europe. Though it will be built on much different foundations. 

Actually, the US originally was built on common self-interest as well, even if people nowadays like to boil it down to identity.

Unlike Americans who not only think but also divide themselves with strict boundaries. European divisions are much more diffused. 

There may be firm lines that demarcate boundaries between nations. However, when it comes to actual identities and characteristics of the people, it is much more nuanced.

While people in national centers are close to pure representation of culture and identity of the said nation, people who live in the border areas are much less so. In many cases border people have a lot more in common with people across the border than with those in the national center.

Southern French has a lot in common with Catalonians in Spain or Lombardians in Italy. Back in the days they even spoke a language that is similar to Catalan.

In contrast north Italians are rather different from those who live in the south.

Of course, there are exceptions to this rule. In some places boundaries are very clear.

However overall Europe is much more diffused compared to the US.

Conclusion:

I good metaphor to illustrate these differences will be a color wheel and gradient.

Americas is like color wheel:

Europe is like gradient:

There are some areas of concentration of one particular color and a lot of diffusion as one color gradually morphs into another.

Potential End of Lukashenka

 

While Lukashenka does have some influence that allows him to not only stay afloat, but to also play Russia and European Union against each other.

However, if a both sides agree to work together to end Lukashenko's rule, it can be achieved readily.

How Europeans See it

Europeans clearly do not like Lukashenka. They call him 'a last dictator of Europe' and wait for the day when a popular uprising will finally put an end to his never-ending rule. 

From Russian point of view there are many other regimes like his, for example in Central Asia or in Russia itself. However, from European point of view what Lukashenka does is near unprecedented. 

At the very least there is nothing like Lukashenka's authoritarianism is left on actual borders with the EU. Other post-Soviet states, such as Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are functioning democracies and members of the EU and NATO. Ukraine and Moldova are on the way of democratization and eventual membership in the EU. They have issues with corruption, but at the very least they have fair and free elections, free press and other attributes of a liberal democratic society. Political leaders there do change if they lose elections and do not use riot police to suppress protesters and jail their political opponents.

Only Lukashenka and his Belarus defiantly stand against this trend, by consistently showing the EU how much everything there is not like in Europe and how much he is willing to cling to power using nothing more than blatant force. In fact, he is doing it even more obnoxiously than even someone like Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan, or Central Asian dictators. Sure, there is not that many protests there, but that allows at least a plausible deniability that people of Azerbaijan are content with Ilham Aliyev rule and do not want change.

Thus, Europeans clearly want a regime change in Belarus.

However European Union assumes that Russia will protect Lukashenka and Belarus from any potential incursion or invasion from the West. Because of that Europe and NATO do not contemplate something like an invasion into Belarus to end Lukashenko's rule.

So, Europeans opt by backing people like Tikhanovskiy and his wife for Presidency, as well as offering Belarusian youth a paid opportunity to study in Lithuania and Poland, so that they can travel into EU, see what they are missing in Belarus and then come back to Belarus and initiate change from within.

How Russia Sees it

While there are people in Russia who want Lukashenka to stay as he is to snub the West, if for no other reason. Cooler heads in Russian government might think that he is more of a problem then an asset.

Russian attitude to Belarus and Lukashenka is much more nuanced. On one hand they would not want to denounce him openly, as that can cost Putin popularity and jeopardize his control over Russia. Lukashenka has allies in Russia and Putin would like to avoid alienating them.

Because Lukashenka controls the pipe, through which Russian gas and oil is supplied into Europe, pushing him too hard might jeopardize these supplies and risk leaving Europe without energy and Russia without money.

Finally, since Lukashenka has allies in Russia, any move against him has to be done, bypassing this people. 

All of the above limits what Putin can do against Lukashenka. It makes it almost impossible to handle him unliterary. 

However, what if Russia and EU work together to end Lukashenka's long reign.

Conflicting Interests

The biggest issue with EU-Russia cooperation is the end results that can satisfy both sides.

Europe wants Belarus to democratize and become like Poland or at least like Ukraine. That will of course endanger Belarussian elites and will make Russian elites wary and anxious. Russia does not want another democracy on its borders as it will only encourage people in Moscow to push for such change in Russia itself.

On the other hand, Russia will want control over the pipeline that supplies gas and oil to Europe. To that end Russia would like to replace Lukashenka with more controllable puppet dictator or annex Belarus altogether. That will not work for Europe as that will only increase Russian control over gas infrastructure in Europe and give Europe nothing to compensate for that.

Potential Compromise

This leaves us with a possibility of a compromise solution that will satisfy both sides.

One such option could be Belarus democratization together with Russia getting a pipe under a military administration, like British bases of Akrotiri and Dhekelia.

Alternative solution would be to split Belarus halfway between Europe and Russia, with Tikhanovskaya government ruling West Belarus and Russia either annexes or forms a splinter state in the east. Vitebsk People's Republic.

Conclusion

However, if Russia and EU can reach an agreement. A military solution to Lukashenka's problem will become possible. With both Europe and Russia against him, Lukashenka will not be able to hold to power.

Lukashenka is Much more involved in War in Ukraine than It Seems

Western media likes to portray Lukashenka as helpless vassal of Putin, who is too beholden to Russian 'Tsar' to refuse him.

However, reality is that Lukashenka is much more influential than West wants to believe. He has a lot more sway among Russian elites that the US policymakers believe.

However, there is one more reason for Lukashenko to be involved. He has a lot more stake in keeping war in Ukraine going than even Putin and the rest of Russian elite. 

He is not just helpless accomplice. He is almost the main beneficiary.

Lukashenka's Influence

Lukashenka had rather strong influence within Russian corridors of power. Back in late Yeltsin's times he even gunned to becoming a President of Russia or a President of some sort of united state of Russia and Belarus. Union State is a legacy of these aspirations.

Russian Siloviki

Lukashenka is popular among segments of Russian Elites, particularly Siloviki. They occasionally help him out with various concessions, such as cheaper gas and various subsidies. Lukashenka occasionally shows some undue loyalty to Russia that panders to Siloviki's worldviews. Lukashenka does that by promising to mobilize the entire Belarus and hold out NATO Forces in potential war between Russia and the West. 

A more sober heads would notice that Belarus will be nothing more than a speedbump in any potential war between NATO and Russia. Not to mention it is very unlikely such a war will happen in the first place. So, they will see no reason why entire Belarus should pay 6 times less for gas compared to neighboring NATO member Lithuania, just to keep this ally afloat and loyal. Russia is losing a lot of money in this deal for nothing of real value.

However Russian Siloviki love Lukashenka's loyalty and use their influence to prop him at Russia expense.

Russian and Belarussian Population

Lukashenka is popular among certain segments of both Russian and Belarussian population as well. He has a kind of 'country simpleton' style of appeal. Similar to Robert Menzies or Barnaby Joyce in Australia, or Ronald Reagan in the US.

Since some segments of population in Russia have not get over the dissolution of the USSR, they see Lukashenka as fellow countrymen rather than a foreign politician. 

Lukashenka constituency heavily overlaps with that of Putin himself. Both are supported primary by older, anti-Western, patriotic and less educated people.

That gives Lukashenka a leverage over Putin, as he can turn significant portion of Putin's supporters away from him, if he condemns Putin. At the very least these people in Russia will question Putin's governance if he is to break up with Lukashenko is a ugly fashion.

Gas Pipelines

However, the final and perhaps the most significant leverage Lukashenka has on Russia is that pipes that supply Russian gas and oil to Europe go through Belarussian territory.

To be precise only some of them go through Belarus, others through Ukraine and Putin even build more on the seabed of the Baltic Sea to bypass both of these middlemen. However, pipes that go through Belarus are the largest of them all. 

Thus, Belarussian pipes are most crucial for the continued export of Russian oil and gas that provides Europe with fuel for their industry and Russia for their revenue stream. Without its gas and oil Europe will stop and freeze without any fuel and Russia will have no money to pay for its numerous imports.

Lukashenka of course uses this fact to cleverly play both sides, as they both depend on Belarussian pipes for continued functioning of their economies.

Ukraine too has history of using gas transit as leverage on Russia. When negotiations on gas prices did not went their way, Ukraine simply took gas, meant for Europe from their pipelines and used it for domestic consumption. Ukraine - Russia Gas Disputes. The issue was felt acutely in Europe. 

Eventually, despite all Russian pressure to make Ukraine pay more and Europe's pressure to keep gas flowing, Ukraine managed to extract concessions on both price and conditions.

No one wants to try what will happen if a country with much higher transit volumes will do the same. Lukashenka clearly uses it to get his way in many of his disputes with both European Union and Russia.

Why Lukashenka need War

While overall reasons for war for Lukashenka are the same as those for Putin, his situation is much more dire that that of the latter.

Lukashenka was nearly toppled in the Belarus Election Protests, so he and his 'elites' are much more fearful of losing power compared to Russian elites.

Both Russia and Belarus are peer-o-cracies (more details in a separate article), their elites have shared perception of threats to their form of government.

Recent elections protests, that Lukashenka possibly handled with the help of riot police from Russia, further exacerbated elites fear of losing power to the uprising.

Putin himself recently got some protests in Russia over his infamous palace and other issues. 

Because of that both Putin and Lukashenka desperately needed something to stem the potential upraising. War in Ukraine was that solution.

How far Lukashenka is involved.

It is very likely Lukashenka is as much committed to this war as Putin himself, if not even more so than Putin.

It is very likely that he sent some of Belarussian own soldiers to fight in Ukraine already. To make sure it is not traced to him, he ordered them to fly Russian flags and pretend they are Russians.

Him annotating the map of what looks like a potential further division of Ukraine serves as further prove of him being among the initiators of the war, rather than mere accomplices.

His continued involvement and continued commentary on course of the war further suggests that he is still more than knee deep in the whole thing, despite his best efforts to deny it.

How Russian Government and Other Dictatorships Work, based on Alternative History House of Lords

Many media commentors nowadays make an error of thinking that everything Russia does it but a will of one man, Vladimir Putin. 

Reality is that 'no man rules alone'. Putin too is beholden to his 'keys to power'. It is these keys are more obscure and opaque than they are in Western Democracies. Also, they are far less numerous then in a democracy.

The best comparison a real dynamics of Russian power system is that of the British House of Lords.

Russia is a peer-o-cracy or banon-o-cracy. 

Unlike UK there is no clear, publicly available list of peers, but it does exist informally. They themselves prefer the public to be unaware of their existence. However, they themselves do know who is in and who is not. When talking about them various experts use term 'elites' (elitta).

What is House of Lords

House of Lords is rather different from other upper houses of National Legislatures, such as the US Senate or even appointed Canadian Senate for example.

House of Lords have members who are hereditary peers. Nowadays they share the House with so called life-peers who are appointed for life just like members of Canadian Senate. However back in the days there were no life-peers, and all the peers were hereditary. 

However, what are hereditary peers are? 

Word hereditary here means they all inherited they place in the Lords from their parents, who in turn inherited it from their parents and so on. None of them were ever elected. You can even trace their lineage all the way back to medieval era Barons and other nobility.

From a modern liberal democratic society that raises the question: why they should be entitles to a political power based on their inheritance alone. However back in the medieval times or even generally in pre-French Revolution times, values were different.

In fact, monarchies are another such vestige of the times past, are also hereditary. One becomes a King not because he deserves it or people elected him, but merely because he was born first son of a previous King.

Peers and nobility in general work just like the Royal family itself, just one or several steps below in a feudal hierarchy.

Thus, a House of Lords is an assembly for these noble hereditary peers, that allows them a special increased influence over the government and the state.

Of course, in modern UK House of Lords is nothing more than a near-ceremonial vestige of the times past. Nowadays it hardly concerners itself with anything beyond opposing ban on hunting foxes.

It is directly elected House of Commons that provide for democratic representation and governance. 

However back 300 or so years ago both houses were rather equal in power they wielded. Only in 19th century directly elected House of Commons grew to assume dominant role in politics, while the House of Lords eventually grew increasingly passive at first, irrelevant next, near moribund later and eventually at the turn of 20th century it was even legislated into near obscurity by the Parliament Act of 1911, when they suddenly decided to oppose a government budget.

What if scenario

If you imagine an alternative reality where House of Lords not only stays fully hereditary but also manages to monopolies control over the state and its politics, relegating both King and the Commons to sidelines, you will get something close to how power in Russia works.

In this alternative reality, peers, fearful that something like French Revolution can lead to them loosing not only their power and privileges, but also their lives would play more active role in politics. They will band together just like barons against King John, but instead of agreeing on Magna Carta, will just seize control over state and government. Once Prime Minister and other key positions are in their hands, they will make sure that government answers only to them, creating a government by peers for peers.

To keep common men placated, they will not abolish House of Commons, but rig the elections using rotten boroughs and other tricks to make sure that only loyal to peers MPs are elected.

The actual Dynamics of Government by Peers for Peers

When all the ropes of government will be in their hands, peers would be driven by fear that commons might rise up against this peers' government. Thus, they will do everything they can think of to shore up their power and keep commoners as disempowered as possible.

However, a government by peers will govern only in the interests of the peers, often ignoring the needs of everyone else in the country. That would provoke people to protests and even uprisings against the government.

Such protests would only further exacerbate peers' fears of losing power and they will commit to even more repressive police state measures to keep common people down. Such oppressive measures will produce even more discontent among the population, which will result in even more protests. That will produce even more fears among the peers. A clear pattern here.

You can see these dynamics in play in Iran, Belarus, Russia, North Korea and China.

Eventually this pattern will lead to absurd measures, such as North Korea banning, computers, internet and mobile phones, in fear that people might use these things to coordinate an uprising. 

Putin poisoning his opponents and claiming that there are Nazi in Ukraine is also because of that.

How this relates to war in Ukraine

Occasionally protesters do win and overthrow the government, like it happened in Ukraine and Georgia.

Such events further exacerbate fears of peers in neighboring states and they double down on oppression in their counties.

Ukraine under Kuchma and Yanukovych and Georgia under Shevardnadze were peer-o-cracies. New governments in both countries did try to dismantle peers' system and peers' grip on power. They achieved partial success. 

Former peers in these countries often get investigated for corruption and abuse of power. Sometimes they just lose power, sometimes they even get arrested. 

For example, very influential and powerful Firtash, Ukraine analogue of Duke Buckingham, is now stuck in Austria, and fighting his extradition to the US to stand trial for corruption. Back in Yanukovych times he had control over gas transit and had both money and plenty of power. Now he struggles to stay out of prison as gas exports are controlled by someone else.

Firtash was on good terms with elites in Russia. They are concerned over his fate. They are concerned if they end up join him in this struggle, if someone like Alexey Navalnyi takes power in Russia. Their fellow peers in Belarus are equally concerned that it will happen to them, should Lukashenka lose power to anyone.

Also, House of Lords used to have a, now abolished, privilege that peers can only be tried by fellow peers. I think Firtash, Putin and Lukashenka personally believe in something similar.

For that reason, for example former members of Yanukovych era government enjoy protection and immunity from prosecution in Russia, even if new Ukrainian government initiated criminal cases against them and issues warrants on their arrests.

Current Development of Events

Meanwhile Putin uses war in Ukraine to drive young people out of Russia: either into emigration to the West, or to slaughter in war in Ukraine. 

Sure, that condemns Russia to stagnation and backwardness, as young people are the only one who can master modern technology and prevent country from falling back. However, Putin has other more pressing considerations: young people are much more likely to participate in protests and uprisings against the peer-o-cracy, so Putin wants young people somewhere where they cannot topple him.

That is how state by peers for peers slowly destroys itself from within. They will not stop destroying the future until they are gone for good: either through internal revolution or through the foreign invasion.

Putin's Elites are of course squarely behind him, it is for the Elites sake he is doing it after all. So is Lukashenka and his Elites in Belarus, who barely survived and clung to power after most recent election protests there. However next election in Belarus is coming so they have a lot to worry about. Protests in 2020 were bigger than previous ones in 2010 and 2005. They came much closer to toppling the peer-o-cracy. If next one will be even bigger, Lukashenka and Elites will end up joining Yanukovych and his crew in their exile in Russia.

However, Elites will not just give up as they see it as a survival issue. If protesters topple Putin as well, the only other dictatorial country further east, that can give them shelter are Kazakhstan and North Korea. They sure as hell are not thrilled to be exiled there. Not to mention Kim Jong Un might not be able to refuse the extradition request from Russia's new government.

What will happen in Future?

Peers or Elites in both Russia and Belarus will continue their losing battle to stay in power, until a revolution will finally succeed in ousting them like it did in Georgia and Ukraine.

Can some sort of deal be reached with them? Possibly. After all they are concerned with self-preservation. Given some assurances of safe exile and immunity from prosecution, they might agree to hand over the power to a democratic government.

Why European Attitude to Borders and Identity is Different from North American One

 

I remember this simple map that someone made to showcase the war in Ukraine. It is commendable as it supports Ukraine, however this is oversimplification of how borders and identities in Europe work.

However why Americans tend to think in such a simplistic way, while Europeans do not.

European Identities and Races Are Diffused

I made a separate more detailed article about difference in how identity works in Europe and North America. Here is the key extract:

Unlike Americans who not only think but also divide themselves with strict boundaries. European divisions are much more diffused. 

There may be firm lines that demarcate boundaries between nations. However, when it comes to actual identities and characteristics of the people, it is much more nuanced.

While people in national centers are close to pure representation of culture and identity of the said nation, people who live in the border areas are much less so. In many cases border people have a lot more in common with people across the border than with those in the national center.

Southern French has a lot in common with Catalonians in Spain or Lombardians in Italy. Back in the days they even spoke a language that is similar to Catalan.

In contrast north Italians are rather different from those who live in the south.

Of course, there are exceptions to this rule. In some places boundaries are very clear.

However overall Europe is much more diffused compared to the US.

Americas is like color wheel:

Europe is like gradient:

There are some areas of concentration of one particular color and a lot of diffusion as one color gradually morphs into another.

How that leads to arguments over borders

Because European identities are so diffused, but national boundaries have to be clearly demarcated, arguments over where the border should be can arise.

There were plenty of such arguments in history and many more still exist in many places in Europe.

In many places no matter where you draw the line, someone will be unhappy.

Some towns and cities have mixed ethnicity and culture population. When line had to be drawn, it divided the city against itself.

Disputed Areas

Even areas that have been in the same nation for more than 100 years, have some people who are more loyal to the previous holder. 

For example, Alsace-Lorraine was in France from the end of WWI. However, it was German until then. 

Germany in turn got it from France only in 1871, so France could argue they were taking back what was rightfully theirs in WWI.

However, Germany could also argue that it was German back before 17th century. so, they were only returning what was rightfully theirs.

People in actual area is divided between whether they want to be in Germany or in France.

Nowadays France allows use of German language in this area (Alsace part of it to be precise), making area effectively bi-lingual.  

Germany in turn allows French language in neighboring Saar.

History of Struggle for control over territory

Alsace-Lorraine is one of many examples of territorial disputes in Europe. There are many others. Such as Silesia, Kosova, Transylvania, Bessarabia, Skane, Schleswig-Holstein, Roussillon, Trent, Kresy, Crimea, Donbas, Smolensk, Ingria

Back when the US was just created there were some border disputes between 13 original states. Some took a while to resolve. However, they all resolved rather amiably and eventually people forgotten that they ever existed. From there on, new states in the US would be created on land, not claimed by any other state.

In contrast in Europe a lot of such disputed land would be fought over in a war and then was simply taken by force by the winner.

Such method of solving territorial disputes of course lead to bitterness, resentment and revanchism. The losing party continues to claim the land and will simply try to take it back/again in the next war.

Most of European land Changed Hands Multiple Times

I would say that most areas of Europe used to belong to a different country over the course of history. There are but few pieces of land that was always in the same hands. 

Possibly only core of Sweden (with exception of Skane), Denmark (with exception of north Schleswig), most of Branderburg lander of Germany and northern parts of Spain were always parts of the same country. Also, Paris and surrounding areas were occupied by Germans a number of times but was never annexed into any other nation. Also, Frech appanages do blur the line between foreign and local rule.

The rest of European land kept changing hands. Even such huge nations, such as Poland were once erased from the map completely only to return to it after 123 years of absence.

In contrast in the US, most areas were always parts of the same state. This provided their people with a sense of continuity and permanence.

The only exceptions are West Virgina, that was part of Virginia before becoming its own state, areas ceded from Texas, as well as Maine, Connecticut and Rhode Island, that used to be part of the Massachusetts.

Also, Hawaii were independent once, but join the US together as one state.

With exception of West Virginia all of these areas had little to no population when they changed hands.

Europe has much less valuable land compared to the US.

There is generally much less valuable land in Europe compared to the US, and many more people who need it.

In such land starved situation, it is only natural that countries fight over land, like descendants fight over the inheritance of their millionaire ancestor.

In fact one of key German reasons for starting war was to aquire more land for themselves.

Some Notes on Nistory of Switzerland

I like Switzerland as a country, it just sits there in their own mountains, being all rich and developed, and looks how all sort of people around them doing their own stupid things. People think it is pacifist or something, but its military actually one on the strongest in the world. They stay neutral because they could not be bothered to conquer the world. It is like me in a way or a guess the way I want to be.

They began as an alliance of three micro nations and beat Austria for their independence. They won many other wars despite being heavily outnumbered. Then they made a lot of money by offering other countries their uber strong armies. France was their regular client and with their help was able to win a lot of wars in 17th and 18th centuries. 

Nowadays they probably have enough money and clot to simply rule the world from the shadows by pulling strings of their numerous puppets.

More on why things are Currently Bad

Because people are divided over what is wrong and who is at fault?

Just some idiot posted in this very thread that problem is crime and vandalism, not cost of living and got some upvotes.

We who struggle with cost of living will not support this moron and he will not support us. Alas.

I will add that idiots in retirement homes also do not have cost of living issue as they have millions in their super. The only issue they have is lack of nurses and servants in their retirement homes. They will not support the protest either

.

Thus different people have different issues that demand different solutions.

The fact that millennials are not numerous enough to make our issues dominant just makes it worse. In fact it could as well be that we will not get what we want until we outnumber all the previous generations combined. Our only hope is for COVID to slaughter them all.