Some Details About How Gorbachev Really Was

Not just in Tbilisi, there was one in Baku and in Kazakhstan and in Lithuania and in Latvia.

Moldova, Georgia, Armienia, Azerbaijan and Chechnya slowly developed into a civil turned international wars and so on. The list

Also, Chernobyl happened.

Gorbachev personal involvement in some of them is questionable of course. He likes to present himself as someone who supports freedom and democracy, but secretly he likely encourages the violence against dissidents.

Gorbi orchestrated the August coup (he might have not been the mastermind of that, but he sure knew it will happen, was ok with that and did his part in it)

Gorbi was like Arthas in Northrend, first hired mercenaries to burn the ships and then told his people that some evil creatures did it and he had nothing to do with it. The video of the mission

Gorbi and crew wanted to remove Yeltsin, with whom he had personal animosity, but Yeltsin's office was elected so he could not be just fired. Disregarding that and just arresting him would look too undemocratic to do. So a some cunning plan such as martial law was needed. That later became the infamous August coup.

Gorbi first went on vacation and told Yanayev and the crew to do a 'the plan' while he is away. Then, when things did not work out as planned, Gorbi came back and told everyone that evil Yanaev and the crew did it on their own accord and Gorbi had nothing to do with it.

However, check the info and you will find out that all the participants of the coup were actually appointed to their offices by Gorbi himself.

Organizers did not call it a coup and did not say anything about removing Gorbachev at all. They just said he is sick and temporary unavailable to fulfill duties of his office. They did however announced curfew and brining troops to Moscow. 

It was Yeltsin and his supporters who called it a coup and called on people to all gather around White House to resist the coup.

That said Gorbi probably indeed tried to experiment with democracy and liberalization. At first that is. Gorbi of 87 and 88 was like that.

Gorbi of 85 and 86 was more of an Andropov 2.0 style hardliner.

Then after 89 Gorbi became major opponent of change, presenting himself as moderate. But that did not satisfy either side. Conservatives wanted no change at all and reformers thought that furthest Gorbi willling go it far not enough to make any real change.

Ukraine Should Invade Belarus

 

Ukraine should invade Belarus and replace pro-Russian Lukashenka with pro-Ukrainian Tikhanovsakya.

Lukashenko has long been a thorn in the side of Europe. They even dubbed him last dictator of Europe. Sometimes EU tried to engage him but that did not work out. Lukasheno remains stalwart bastion of dictatorship, defying everything Europe believes right and just. For example, fair elections or change in leadership.

European Union clearly indicated that they intend to see Belarus join European Union, but that can only happen when Lukashenka is gone and a democratic governance with fair elections are in place. That is why they invited Belarus to Eastern Partnership program. While Ukraine and Moldova did manage to cover approximately half of the way to join the EU as full member, Georgia is falling behind because their treatment of Saakashvili and protestors, Belarus stagnates and does not progress in that direction at all, they do not even try.

Already bad relationships only got worse after the electoral protests, that Lukashenka crushed with the help of riot police from Russia. European and other western Nations did not recognize the results. Some even went as far as to recognize his main opponent, Tikhanovskaya as rightful ruler of the country. She even has a government in exile in nearby Vilnius in Lithuania. 

Lukashenka responded with various measures that alienated the Europe even further. Lukashenka used fighter jets to ground RyanAir flight to arrest an activist who was on board of the plane. He brought in people from Syria and Iraq, promising them passage to Europe, then just send them to the Polish border, creating a border crisis. All that only further exacerbated Europe's desire to be rid of him. 

Finally, Lukashenko is currently involved in war in Ukraine, supporting Russia in various ways. Most countries consider him and Belarus a co-belligerent in Russian invasion. That can mean that he and Belarus is already involved in war and Ukraine will not be considered an aggressor if Ukraine invades Belarus. That can be considered an act of self-defense.

The internationally recognized Belarussian government-in-exile already exists. All that needs to be done is for Zelenski to meet Tikhanovskaya and agree on a mutually agreeable deal on future fate of Belarus. Later they can also meet European leaders to iron out the agreement with them as well.

Possibility of Success

While Europe wanted to remove Lukashenka for a long time, he was always able to survive by threatening them with Russian retaliation. Europeans do believe that Russia will protect Belarus from a military invasion.

However, that means nothing for Ukraine, as it is already at war with Russia.

Geographically Ukraine is in perfect position as well. Belarus inherited Soviet fortifications on their western border with Poland, breaching them will be hard. However, there are no any fortifications on their borders with either Russia or Ukraine. There are likely no border guards either. Because of that a Ukrainian army might even be able to make it all the way to Minsk, before Lukashinka even knows they are there,

Politically it is also easy to sell. Lukashenka is as much of an invader as Putin is. Replacing him with pro-Ukrainian and pro-European Tikhanovskaya will be a just enough cause for a war.

One final ingredient is the fact that not everyone in Moskow actually likes Lukashenka. Sure, they cannot go against him for their own political reasons, but should someone as Ukraine do it instead, they will be ok with that. Sure, they will criticize the invasion on TV and call Ukrainians Nazi (they do it now anyway). However, they will secretly be happy it turned out this way. Needless to say, they will not retaliate.

Because of all of the above a swift and well-orchestrated invasion will put an end to Luakshenka's dictatorship and bring new ally to Ukraine and the European Union.

On Nihilism and Different Eras

A response to this

Critics again, eh. Possibly some Christian who can be satisfied with ascetic monastic existence.

There is God and he is me. I, the only true god, it talking to you right now.

Life is currently shit because it is run by fundamentalist austerity mongering Christians who create artificial scarcity. Things will get better when they are overthrown, and more reasonable people will replace them. Similar to those who run things before 2008. We will have another Spring of Nations.

As a personal pet peeve, I would like to see every supporter of austerity, plastic bag bans, wooden spoons initiatives and so on to die a painful and miserable death chocking on the very wooden spoons they have created.

Genocide is nothing bad, all austerity supporters and boomers have to be genocided out of existence in the name of great justice. They caused all this austerity misery and made countless Millennials to commit suicides. These Millennials would not have killed themselves, if there were no austerity and spiraling cost of living crisis that boomers caused. Thus, Boomers are responsible and should pay for Millennial blood with their own. That is only fair.

Without consciousness you will just be used and abused by these Christian fundamentalists. I want to see the world opposite of what they try to create.

Anyhow, back during the Tokugawa Shogunate, their rival Mori clan had a yearly tradition. A priest would ask the clan leader: "Has the time to overthrow the Shogun have come?" Most years clan leader would reply: "no, the Shogun is still too powerful". However, shortly before the Meiji restoration, the clan leader has instead replied: "Yes, it has come."

As astrologer, I say that time to overthrow the austerity mofos will come very soon. Then we will reshape the world to out liking, just like Mori clan did after the Meiji restoration. Sweet, sweet revenge.

Secret Ingredient of Communism

When I was writing the comparison between Soviet and Western propaganda in one of the previous articles, I outlined reasons that made people support Soviet system. However, I forgot one and the final reason that made it all work: The Building (Establishing) of Communism.

People say communism means free stuff for everyone and that is true. However, there was little of free stuff in actual USSR, which is also true. So how that all worked then.

That worked as follows. Government told people that the system they currently had is Socialism, however a system they want to establish is Communism. 

Under Communism everything (all goods and services) will be free, and people will not even need any money to get anything. That would be a truly utopian society, that is worth aspiring to. Government works really hard to get the country towards Communism as fast as possible.

However, government claimed that Communism cannot be established right away. An intermediate transitional period is needed before Communism can be achieved. This intermediate period is what government called Socialism (it is different from Socialism, European central-left parties name themselves after). 

Under Socialism stuff is not free yet but stuff will finally be free, once all the conditions for Communism can be achieved. 

That promise of free stuff at a later date is what kept people engaged. That is somewhat akin to American Dream thing, but for everyone involved and not just for the successful individual.

Government of course kept people updated on the whole process, never failing to release another news flash about how here or there someone made Communism closer by some unspecified amount. 

Khruschev claimed that full Communism will be achieved by 1970. Brezhnev later revised that date to 1980. In 1970 they instead celebrated achievement of 'Developed Socialism', that is an intermediate stage between Socialism (their previous intermediate state) and Communism when stuff will finally be free. 

Then in 1980 there were Olympics to distract people. Then Brezhnev just died in office to avoid explaining why free stuff have not begun yet. His two immediate successors did exactly the same thing and also died in office.

Finally, under Gorbachev they postponed the date of achieving Communism even further, this time to 2000. 

At this stage people began to get disillusioned with the whole thing. They started to think the whole thing is just a fraud, government will postpone date of achieving Communism to a later date again and stuff will never get free.

Once disillusionment started to get hold over people in early 1980s, government had to get creative in keeping people engaged. Gorbachev announced Perestroika, but that was not enough, and USSR have collapsed anyway.

That of course left people cynical and mistrustful of governments, institutions and people in general. After all no one wants to spend decades working on something only to realize that they will never get rewarded for that.

That disillusionment still lingers heavily over the post-Soviet states. European Union was managed to convince some of them (Baltics, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia) that EU is the next best thing. The others remain in that disillusionment state as they seek things that will actually make them more prosperous.

Establishment of Communism myth/ideology/policy was also a reason why government could easily repress the dissidents with wide popular support for their actions. In communism heyday, opposing communism meant being against free stuff, as if claiming that things should not be free, and people have to pay of them instead. Government could reasonably call such people insane and confine them to psychiatric institutions.

Why Slaves/Service are the Most Valuable Commodity in a Free World

Being free is the opposite of being a slave. Freedom and Slavery are two polar opposites. It is almost a paradox to say that they need and seek each other. 

However, like in a magnet that where each pole attracts its opposite and repeals the same polarity. Free world and slavery constantly seek each other and occasionally meet in many unusual ways.

Here I will explain how and why.

While world 'slave' often used in historical and fictional context. West often prides itself on eliminating slavery. A word 'service' however used in many modern contexts and pretty much always in positive meaning. 

However, slavery is involuntary servitude by definition. In a way it is even more guaranteed service then a voluntary servitude. If slaves provide acts of service, then why oppose it. There is of course reason for that as well.  

Definitions

To begin with definition.

Freedom is ability to do or not do anything based on personal wishes, desires decisions and so on. Freedom is absence of servitude or subordination to any higher entity or power.

In contrast slavery in absence of freedom. A situation where person cannot do as they please and someone else controls life for them and uses them for their own benefit, including in ways that benefit the solely the owner and are detrimental to the slave. Slavery is state of permanent involuntary servitude and subordination to someone else.

Thus, freedom is the opposite of slavery.

Why Freedom needs Slavery

However why freedom needs slavery? Are they not mortal enemies that bound to fight each other until someone prevails.

The answer will become clear once you reconstruct the formation process of a Free Society.

People want and value freedom because they do not want to do what someone else says. They want to do what they themselves want. To that end they want a system that will guarantee that no one will be able to tell them what to do.

If you make that as a foundational principle of society, then you will have a free state. You will want to establish boundaries and guarantees that ensure that everyone freedom is safeguarded, and no one is impinges on freedoms of their neighbors. 

Various principles such as human rights, 'treat others as you yourself wish to be treated' or even 'non-aggression pact' (NAP) that used in Anarcho-Capitalism, stems from that logic and reason. They all exist to safeguard freedom.

Geopolitically there were also non-aggression pacts between nations. Military alliances, such as NATO also stem from the same basic desire to safeguard one's freedom, on both individual and national level. Even ancient Greek City-States used to form protective alliances to that very same end. In fact, their societies were centered around this desire to safeguard freedom.

However, once you have a free society with all the necessary safeguards and ensure freedom for everyone, then an interesting dilemma happens. You are free to do what you want and not do what you do not want, but so it everyone around you. Just as you do not have to do anything so is them.

So, if you want them to do something for you, then what do you do?

The simplest and freedom loving answer will be commerce or trade. You promise them something in exchange for something else. We make it a foundational principle of interactions between free human beings. That way everyone will be able to exchange goods and services they want and need. To make it easy we will create money that can be a token of exchange between parties. 

The whole system of such exchanges is called free market. There are plenty of books out there that explain it in greater detail so I will not go into further details. However, core principle here if you want something from someone, you need to give them something they desire in exchange for what you desire.

However, the whole system solves it only partially. What if you have nothing to offer in exchange for goods and services you want. Even if we make money a medium of exchange, you might not have enough money to afford what you want. It could also be that no one will do it for you no matter how much you have to offer them. Then what. Besides the whole negotiation process and haggling over price can be too long and tedious.

Thus, your needs will still remain unfulfilled. 

While some might embrace some spiritual path of denying themselves their desires, others will instead seek another way to fulfill them. 

We have found this path; even ancient Greeks arrived at that answer. Every other iteration of Western Civilization of Freedom ended up going exactly the same way. There were variations and they were called various names, but in essence they all were the same thing: slavery.

The differences were only in who was condemned to this fate and why.

After all, one can only have complete freedom if he is surrounded by people who cannot deny them their wishes.

Thus, free people constantly seek out ways to obtain slaves for themselves. Often willing to way large sums of money to for such unfree people. Slaves were always needed and desired. They cost more than many other things in the world.

History of Slavery

Slavery of course was present in the very first truly western civilization, that of ancient Greeks. It was also present in Babylonia and Egypt (that is debated though).

Ancient Greeks

Ancient Greek City-States might have been more primitive when it comes to technology. However, their social organization had many complex concepts that our nation building considers rather contemporary.

Their nations were small and never extended beyond city walls. Neighboring cities were always a foreign nation with their own governments. They had interactions with each other, but they were similar to modern nation/states, rather than cities within the same country. That itself is an extension and reflection of their freedom loving nature. If not for that they could have all united into a single country under same ruler, like Babylonians or Egyptians. However no, each city was free to govern itself as they saw fit.

Every citizen in that city was free as well and even had a right to vote on all matters concerning governance of their city. Similar to modern Swiss Landsgemeinde, that currently practiced in only two of its cantons.

Greeks also had a concept of citizenship that is very similar to our contemporary one. Only those who were born to a citizen of the city or were naturalized via special decision (i. e. granted citizenship by the city's government), were allowed to participate in city governance.

There was also a distinction between slaves and free foreigners. That is slaves were a special category of people. Once again, a clear boundaries and idea who is what and what they are entitled to.

Most Greek City-States engaged heavily in slave trade. In late antiquity, most of the population of Athens consisted of slaves. Yet citizens could never get enough of them and were always willing to buy more slaves.

Rome

Roman economy and life in general were also heavily dependent on slaves. Romans even conquered most of their empire solely to obtain slaves. They did not want Gaul as a territory so much as they needed Gauls as slaves.

Romans too had clear distinction between citizen and not citizen as well as between free man and a slave. 

Romans would not turn their own citizens into slaves (with exception of unpaid debts reason, but there were few such cases). Forcing citizens into slavery would be socially unacceptable and destabilize their society.

However, there were no such problems for foreign people, so Roman army went to the furthest reaches of the world (as it was known to them) as well as discover some new previously unexplored areas in order to find any people they could enslave.

Rome prospered while there were still people they could enslave. It begun to stagnate when they run out of any potential new slaves. Eventually Roman Empire collapsed as slaves that sustained it, ran out.

In fact, act of granting Roman citizenship to everyone who lives on the territory of the vast empire and not just to the people within the city itself as it was previously, possibly spead up the dissolution and collapse of Rome.

Dark Ages

What followed were Dark Ages. Little known of these times as records are scarce. However, chaos and lawlessness that came from constant fighting between various barbarians, ensured that people who were caught in the mess could be enslaved, by these or that group, that was not Roman and did not have to follow Roman laws or respect rights of Roman citizens.

Vikings, who raided shores of modern England and Ireland, also seek out to capture locals and turn them into slaves. I would guess other various barbarian invaders seek much of the same. I might even wonder if there were even actual barbarians and not just Romans, disguised as barbarians.

Medieval Times

Feudal tenures of socage, serjeanty, corvee or even knighthood were all forms of slavery with an asterisk. In exchange for 'protection' from the above-mentioned Viking raiders, a peasant agreed to work their lord's fields, pay him lump sum of rent money or serve him in other capacity. Thus producing a system of subservient dependence on the lord, who in turn held obligations to their liege who too had obligations to his own liege.

A complete medieval slavery pyramid where no one is free and even King answers to God through Pope. A grim inversion of the formerly free society where desire to control others or be safe, prevailed over the desire to keep one's freedom.

Because of that people often look down on Middle Ages and praise Renaissance where feudal tenures came to an end and society attempted to restore former glory of the Roman and Greek ancient times.

Renaissance

However, slavery did not end in renaissance. It just that society found someone else to enslave. Discovery of the Americas as well as African West Coast with its Mali Empire allowed for a triangular slave trade.

Mansa Musa of the Mali Empire was willing to sell people of his country as slaves to Westerners. Westerners wanted these slaves and were willing to pay him a lot of money for them. Eventually Mansa Musa became the richest man on earth and probably in history of mankind. When he went for pilgrimage to Mekka, every city he visited along the way, got their economy completely destroyed by the overwhelming amount of money he had and just gave away as charity. What was mere spare change for him was more that these cities made in years. That how rich slave trade can make one.

People who associate slave trade with racism, do overlook the fact that Mansa Musa was black himself and literary sold his own countrymen to slavery for money. Why he had no objection to doing so is another issue.

As is an issue of why White people would prefer to buy their slaves from him of all places. Possibly they were more resilient for the Carribean climate. Possibly they were more obedient and did not oppose their exploitation.

19th and 20th Century

After the US Civil war, slavery was abolished in the USA. Other Western countries did so some time before. Southern states did oppose this vehemently. The abolition ruined their economies and society.

However, what came after was simply a slavery with an asterisk. Prison system in the US, Gulag in USSR, Nazi concentration camps. All of these were simply forms of slavery under new name.

The US has highest prison population in the world for that reason.

Soviet KGB plunged the country into a constant paranoia and terror in attempt to fill the quotas for the Siberian Gulag camps.

German Nazis decided to spare their own people and only subject foreigners to this fate. To that end they started WWII, once their run out of Jews and other ethnic non-Germans in their country.

So did Boers in South Afrika who created Apartheid Era Bantustans for the very same reasons.

Nowadays

Nazis were defeated, USSR collapsed, and Gulag prisoners were freed, Apartheid did end. So, is slavery finally over?

Of course, no.

US prison population is still high. Russia uses most of the ex-Soviet republics' nationals (particularly Central Asian ones) as de-facto slave laborers, called Gastarbeiter in Russia. Human trafficking reaches new and new heights. There are even innovative methods to enslave people, by making them dependent on addictive drug and force them to do some cruel work in exchange for new dozes of said drug.

Conclusion and Solutions

Western World still needs its slaves just as before and does not want to give up on it no matter what.

So how can we solve the problem?

One such solutions are robots. Robots do not have free will and will do as their programmers command them.

Another solution are women. Women seem to not value freedom as much as men do. Many eastern civilizations solve the very same problem by simply enslaving their women and subordinating them to men. They do not call it slavery because for them woman and slave are simply the same thing. the Chinese and Japanese character for slave is simply a combination of that for hand and for woman.

Asian women are often viewed as submissive, so western men do want to marry them instead of free Western women.

Extra Thoughts

Chinese and Japanese character that 'means' citizen looks like spear pointing to an eye, implying that it is a subordinated subservient status of a state fearing being. That is rather different meaning from Western idea of citizen.

In general, Asian societies function differently from Western ones in that regard. They seem not only much less free, but also much less aspiring freedom. 

Modern Western Fascination with Japan comes from that reason. That is probably the country that contrasts with the West most. People saw how subservient Japanese women are and wished to find out how Japan managed to achieve that. They We want to replicate that in our own women or at least import Japanese ones.

How Index Funds can fix Corruption in Post-Soviet States

In post-Soviet states, just like in the West, it is forbidden for politicians to own companies or shares in companies.

However, unlike in post-Soviet states, in the West politicians can own Index Funds as well as other such investments instruments that disperse the investments across the broad pool of shares.

The reason Western politicians allow Index Funds it to tie their income and prosperity to performance of the economy as a whole and not just some particular company. 

If a politician owns shares of Coca-Cola company for example, he would have vested interests in promoting Coca-Cola Company interests at expense of its competitors (Pepsi, RC Cola or Dr Pepper). That will eventually lead to monopolies and economy and prosperity will suffer overall.

However, if politicians own Index Funds, their prosperity is instead tied to the whole economy and not any one particular business. This they will instead have a vested interest in making sure economy functions properly and offers a fair treatment to all companies. 

They will have no special reason to oppose new companies or protect old ones. In fact, if new company will be more successful than the old, the whole economy will grow and their personal wealth with it. 

Because of that, when politicians in the post-Soviet will have money in Index Funds, they will gradually act like those in the Western countries.

Danger of Nations Believing Their Own Lies

There is a phenomenon of when one lies so much, they themselves starting to believe in their own lies.

One example is USSR and Russia that in attempt to become like the West ended up imitating more of the old Soviet propaganda clichés of what Capitalism was and not the actual Western practices. This approach gave birth of a unique Russian thing that is even called Russian Oligarch, because it hardly has any comparative examples anywhere else in the world.

However, roots of Russian Oligarch can be traced back to Soviet propaganda about the West.

It is no secret that propaganda is biased and often untrue. However, propaganda not only promotes the system, but also misleads and outright lies about how the rival system even functions. After all reality is complex and nuanced and masses better react to good vs bad cliches. Thus, often completely untrue narratives take room in collective unconscious.

How Soviet Propaganda Depicted West and its economy.

Picture depicts a capitalist sitting on a chair atop of the enslaved worker and holding Bible.

Soviet propaganda, when talked about the US and Capitalism, used to portray it exclusively as a system, controlled exclusively by powerful tycoons such as Rockefellers, Vanderbilts or more modern Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. The actual US free market economy has plenty of small and medium size businesses as well as the ability to start your own, but propaganda of course omitted that. 

You cannot hate a system where a family or a group of friends started a small shop together and run it privately. If you show them that, people will start asking uncomfortable questions such as 'why we can't have it in USSR'. So Soviet propaganda simply overlook existence of all small and medium size businesses in free market economy. 

Instead, they called market economy capitalism and portray it as run exclusively by fat ultra rich tycoons, who are all in the league with each other to keep people miserable. A system where millions of people have no choice but to work in appalling conditions for an ultra-rich tycoon and endure privations and misery so that he would be able to afford himself another mansion or super-yacht. That is a system one can truly hate. And USSR propaganda shamelessly claimed that the entire US and the Western world lives like that.

To spice it all up, Soviet propaganda could even provide life footage of life in the US. Of course, they made this footage exclusively in economically depressed regions, such as Detroit, Haarlem borough of New York and Rust Belt region in general. 

In reality, the US is not only the Rust Belt, but it also has many nicer places all over the country, in fact all areas outside of Rust Belt are rather well off. Finally Rust Belt came to be so poor because of the changes in the economy and not because the US government or tycoons created it intentionally. It continued to exist because the US did not have a readily solution to this problem and not because anyone wanted it to continue this way. However Soviet propaganda claimed that Rust Belt is not only intentional, but that the US and capitalists plan to turn the entire world into a Rust Belt.

However, that again will make people question why we can't have the better parts. No, propaganda needs a scary boogaloo to make people support your system. Soviet propaganda made it a simple choice between like in Detroit or like in USSR.

That gave ordinary Soviets the illusion that all Western Countries are like Detroit and run by greedy selfish tycoons.

Soviet propaganda mongers then made full use of their propaganda concoction. Once they convinced their people that Uncle Sam wants to turn everything into a Rust Belt, they could use it to convince soldiers to interfere in places like Hungary, Czechoslovakia or Afghanistan. Saying it is needed to save these people from being Rust-Belted. 

People who trusted the government could truly believe that USSR is doing would a favor but protecting it from being Rust-belted by the US and Capitalism. They could also believe that people of the world are grateful to USSR for saving them from the grim fate of Detroit.

Soviet propaganda also claimed that people who oppose the system wish to condemn everyone to Rust Belt like existence. Thus, winning popular approval for jailing any opponents of the regime. 

'Capitalism' after the USSR

Then when USSR finally collapsed and Russia and other post-Soviet states embarked on path of democratization, they inadeptly went on recreating the Soviet propaganda cliches into their new economies. They have done so because that is how they understood the West.

With that they went on and turned the post-Soviet states into their own version of Rust Belt. As absurd as it sounds. And they have done it intentionally, by design. 

It produced the so called post-Soviet system dominated by oligarchs, mafia, corruption and under the carpet deals.

This post-Soviet system actually baffles Western analysts a lot. They call it variety of names, including transitioning state, captured state or even mafia state. Whatever it is, it is not the same thing they have in the West.

However, for people inside these post-Soviet states this is capitalism. That is how they understand capitalism. This 'capitalism' in turn prompted people to seek more pro-Western government, which in turn made oligarchs to defend the system by adopting anti-Western propaganda, just like USSR did. Irony is that Soviet propaganda now defends the anti-Soviet system from the west that wants to make it less anti-Soviet Western. 

Oligarchs vs Tycoons

They do not even equate Russian oligarchs with their closest Western analogue, business tycoons. Russian Oligarchs have too many unique characteristics, tycoons lack.

Western Tycoons often owe their position to aptitude in business. Some like Warren Buffet or Rupert Murdoch do acquire existing businesses, but the most praised, like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos or Mark Zackenberg often create their own business as start-up. Vanderbilt and Rockefeller too created their own businesses. Sure, modern Rockefellers merely inherited wealth from their predecessors, but the originators build it themselves. 

In contrast Russian oligarchs often owe their positions to networking, connection and friends in high places. They are mastermind of networking and build durable networks that hard to dismantle even by the governments of post-Soviet states. Even if President or Prime-Minister wants oligarchs to be dealt with, oligarchs have enough friends in police, courts and public prosecution to procrastinate any investigation indefinitely and prevent justice. 

Oligarchs do not build new businesses, they only take over existing profitable businesses, using their networks of friends. Then they defend their holdings from another such takeover, while using profits from the enterprise to keep these friends loyal. Thus, public prosecutor who takes money from oligarch secretly in cash will never progress a case against him to the court. If he is replaced, oligarch can simply offer cash to his successor.

Thus, the system oligarchs created in post-Soviet states has nothing to do with free market liberal democracy, west has. This ugly apparition is horrible product of misinterpretation of Soviet propaganda, corruption and ill will of its beneficiaries.

How the US propaganda depicts USSR

However, USSR is not the only country that used propaganda to demonize their opponents. 

The US was not as proactive and intentional in its propaganda as USSR was. Unlike the USSR there was no centralized effort to create a cohesive picture of what USSR and Communism was. Different people and interest groups contributed individually to the Western Image of USSR. Some of these depictions even contradicted each other. Because of that the idea of what Communism is, or what it should be even called, is much more diffused and blurred compared to the Soviet propaganda image of 'capitalism'.

Overtime whatever information they had about the USSR eventually condensed into an image of a totalitarian Orwellian state, as depicted in George's Orwell' 1984 book. See Big Brother watches you. War is peace and other lines from the picture above. Actual Soviet propaganda posters do give that kind of impression to people who cannot read what is written on them.

It was easy to equate the party and the KGB with the omnipresent Big Brother from the book. That is how they understood it. USSR gave them plenty of reasons to believe it is true, by jailing political opponents as well as because of GULAG camps in Siberia. Solzhenitsyn wrote his firsthand example in such camp. 

West of course saw a country that runs such camps a horrible place to live. That too united the West in its desire to protect their freedom from the Orwellian state. 

Soviet invasions into Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan did not help the image of Socialism either. That created the final bit of the puzzle of Communism/Socialism. Military uses brute force violence to force people to comply and obey.

Finally lack of private property in the USSR, that only applied to privately owned business but not personal property.

That created an image that USSR and through that Socialism, Communism and Eastern Bloc countries were all absurd and contradictory societies where black is white, and while is black. The fact that some letters in Cyrillic alphabet look like inverted versions of Latin alphabet only added to this perception.

According to the West Soviet system consisted only of two things: the totalitarian propaganda that brainwashes people to the level of complete idiotism and a brutal repression against all those who did not comply.

West also depicted Soviets as people who praise government for the totalitarian control and oppression it does. Speculating that some psychological differences between Westerners and Soviets cause them to accept this system.

Actual USSR

While most cruel things people believe about the USSR were indeed true, that overlooks the reasons why people actually supported it.

What Soviet Supporters liked about USSR was a charity state, that looked after its people. When it comes to various social support programs, it partially walked the talk as well, both internally and internationally.

It is this social security that bought the USSR government popular support or at the very least contentment of the population. Not its repressive measures.

People had little choice in the kind of help and support they will have, but support was there. For a passive and content person USSR could indeed offer everything. Government will pay for education, then find them job, provide accommodation, medicine was also free and universally available. Not sure if they could even find you a wife if you cannot find one yourself.

Problems would only arise if you do not like job or the accommodation and want to change it. There was little to no ways of changing any of that. That of course left a number of people indeed discontent with their lot. After all you would rather live in Sochi than in Vorkuta, but alas government decides on that.

However, government indeed conditions society to compliance, so one could not expect even social understanding for desire to better one's lot in life.

Things will get worse if you do not want to work at all. Protesting things will make it even worse. In general, there were very little opportunities to get out of system loop.

Government always acted like they have everyone's best interest in mind. Sometimes it did good things. Other times it was like the Garnier de Naplouse, the Hospitalier Doctor from first Assassin's Creed. Regardless of what USSR did, it always acted like it is trying to help.

However, free accommodation even in Vorkuta and a guaranteed job would make a less picky person wander if that is not too bad. So, the US conveniently overlooked these facts from general public.

Social Causes

Another thing USSR liked to do it championing various progressive social causes. They poked their noses in the US segregation and other inequality and never failed to mention to their own people that they do not segregate Black People like the US used to do. That was due to the fact that the fact that there were no Black People in the USSR.

USSR also spend a lot of money on various African Liberation movements, such as in Rhodesia and South Afrika. Because of that their current governments likely to have Russian connections. Perhaps it is through these connections, Russian corruption spreads to these nations and slowly destroys them from within.

Implications to the US the Western World

1984 created a false illusion in the west that blatant brainwashing and totalitarian oppression indeed can create and manage a state and society.

Woke idiots even trying to use these tools to push for their agenda.

Modern conservatives indeed use Orwellian image of 'Socialism' to oppose any social change and preserve status quo. 

I do hope they will not succeed in implementing Orwellian kind of 'socialism' in the West.

Final Note

There is one Soviet book that perhaps illustrate Soviet understanding of the differences between Socialism and Capitalism. Dunno. It is a children's book, but I think it was influential enough. Name 'Dunno' sounds stupid, but that is a name that meant to nod towards the main character's ignorance. Books are possibly similar to Noddy.

Dunno in Sun City meant to depict communism, that is what they aspire it to be. Dunno on the Moon showcased capitalism as they understood it. The latter was even made into a cartoon in the 90s, as a reflection of the era perhaps.

On Peace in Ukrainian War

Sure, idea of negotiating with Putin sounds outrages at this point. Putin cannot be trusted. Certainly, no real concessions should be given to him in any peace of ceasefire deal.

However, there is one reason Ukraine needs peace, or at least an illusion of peace at this moment. That is because private investors are wary of investing into a country at war. They feel that there is much more risk of losing money in a country at war that it is in a country at peace. To appease their sentiment Ukraine needs to produce an illusion of peace.

To that end it could be useful to negotiate with Russia and sign some sort of Cease Fire.

Of course, should they prove to be uncomfortable negotiations partners and demand some real concessions in exchange for peace, they should be ignored. Instead, a sort of unilateral declaration of end of war should be adopted.

Zelenski could simply announce that Ukrainian Military halted all Russian advances and effectively prevented Russian Military from advancing any further into Ukraine. Thus, Ukraine won its freedom and independence and obtained de-facto peace. That can be supplemented with a map of safe for business maps, that will showcase areas far from reach of Russian weapons. Insurance can be used to cover occasional losses from high range Russian missiles.

This is statement is actually true. Aside from small and insignificant Bakhmut in Donetsk Oblast as well as other small towns also in Donetsk Oblast, there were no any significant fighting anywhere else in Ukraine for over a year now. Thus, with exception of fully occupied Luhansk oblast, contested Donetsk oblast, Crimea as well as areas south of Dnipro River in Kherson and Zaporizhya Oblasts, everything else is safe for business and investment. 

Why Poor People Should Not Have Children

There will be no jobs, no prosperity and no future for any kids anyone will have in current times.

So do not have kids unless you have a fortune of properties and millions of dollars for them to inherit and live off.

19th and 20th centuries were and era of population growth. Back in the days demand for industrial factory workers as well as advancements in medicine allowed population to increase exponentially. Cities like Moscow came from having only 100 000 entirely within the current Garden Ring Road in 1890 to current 12 - 20 million (depend on count method), sprawling beyond much larger MKAD. 130 years made city 20 times bigger, just think of it.

It is over now.

Industrial robots do the manufacturing now, extra people are not needed in the economy. Because of that they will have no future and will end up homeless, prostitutes or such.

People who do not realize that are fools who condemn their children to misery and deserve to be chemically sterilized.

Why Wars Inevitable

It was inevitable. The fact that it happened despite everyone's desire to avoid it only shows that it was inevitable.

Wars happen because there is an underlying fundamental reason that causes them:

The amount of awailable resources is less than the number of people who wish to possess these resources. Thus if there are no other agreeable means, by which these resources could be divided to everyone's satisfaction, a war happen where nations contest these resources by force. It is just like a competition in business world or even on an individual level.

In case of WWI Germany needed raw materials such as rubber and oil for their industries. These materials are not available in German territory or few of its colonies. There are plenty of them however in the colonies controlled by British and French, but they use these resources for their own industries and will not sell much to Germany. 

So, Germany could just lag behind, then fade into backwardness and obscurity and finally be divided by more advance powers, just like the Ottomans. Alternatively, they can attempt to take the territories they need by force.

In fact, I can trace every inevitable war all the way back to 7 Years War. Everything that happened afterwards was an indirect cause of that war. Including American and French Revolution, Napoleonic Wars, Revolutions of 19th century, both World Wars, Cold War, NATO, EU and so on.

7 Years War could have plausibly ended differently and in turn dramatically alter the world we have. However, fundamentals of social change would have remained the same even in the event of victory of Quadruple Alliance.

7 Years War also was fundamentally caused by the Pragmatic Sanction and War of Austrian Succession. You might say that at this stage it was clearly a fickle random chance that did not gave Austrians a male heir and they had to go with Maria-Theresa, however there could also be some fundamental reasons behind the gender a child will get. That is why some people have only sons and others only daughters.

All Major Cultures Make Women Subservient to Men

All major cultures make women subservient to men. Arabic, Indian and Japanese cultures have little in common. However, they all agree that women should obey and be subservient to men. This societies have a lot more internal cohesiveness and peace. With women put in their subservient place, society could go forward and work towards building a civilization.

Until a while ago that was also the case for the Western culture as well. Image of 1950s housewife still exists in people's consciousness. Only boomers in 60s suddenly decided to change that. Because of that it is a hypocrisy to suggest that feminism somehow western and progressive. It is not. Feminism is merely a toxic stupidity, boomers brought into the world.

Roots of women subjugation can be traced back all the way to the ancient Greeks. All Greek city-states with exception of Sparta kept women locked in back rooms of their homes without letting them out. In that regard Greeks were much like Muslims, though Muslims added hair covering, which again is something many women in Greece do.

Greeks believed that anything women do and say is merely a hysteria and should not be taken seriously. 

Thus, a civilization that gave us democracy, philosophy and science, the actual things that make life better and more advanced, did believed that women should be obedient to men and stay in the kitchen.

Arabs, Iranians and Indians might as well have copied these Greek traditions, when Alexander the Great conquests spread Greek people and cultures to these areas of the world.

Each of these civilizations gave the world significant scientific and cultural contributions. 

Romans too did not give women any rights. Women were restricted to homes and were controlled by their families or husbands. I do not need to explain that Roman world of Augustus times was a pinnacle of civilization. 

Medieval Europeans too did not give women any rights. In medieval legal codes women were considered property of men. 

Middle Ages were different from Dark ages before them, where barbarians were destroying everything. High Middle Ages actually had advancements in architecture and technology. Sophisticated Gothic architecture, that many cathedrals are built with is actually a product of this era.

Eventually Middle Ages gave birth to Renaissance era and further advancement of culture, art and technology.

Male dominated social norms more or less carried on until the 20th century.

Even Jews, who are often known for giving women various rights, have various Orthodox denominations actually suppress women as well.

The only cultural exception that gave women equal and even greater rights than men was Sparta.

However, Sparta was somewhat an antithesis of everything we know as Greek. They never had a democracy like other Greek City States. Sparta was autocratic, discriminatory, cruel and abusive society. 

They literary killed their own children if they were too weak. That eventually possibly led them to them extinction.

They discriminated against and abused the Helots whom they used as basically slaves. Gender equality did not meant equality between people for them.

Because they abused Helots, Spartans lived in constant paranoia and fear that Helots will start and uprising and destroy them from within. That paranoia made Sparta a police state similar to modern North Korea. 

Spartans despised and banned philosophy, culture, art and science. They believed that society does not need anything besides marital ability. Again, similar to what North Korea does nowadays.

Cruelty and abuse were norm of everyday life in Sparta. They were as primitive as Gym-junkies. It was a society that literary thought that value of a person is determined by how much he can lift. Even cavemen were more progressive than they were.

Despite they marital focus they were not exceptionally good on battlefield either. They were about as good as other Greek City-States, who also practiced arts, philosophy and science.

Sparta fell to Macedonians and then to Romans just as other Greek City-States.

Eventually all these practices driven Spartans out of existence altogether.

Nowadays Athens are capital of Greece. It was a major city throughout the Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman times as well.

Sparta is merely a puny village that is hard to find on the map.

So, we must reinforce the idea that women must be subservient to men. Without it out society will slowly and gradually devolve into becoming another North Korea. 

We must stop that while we can.

Different Eras are Much More Different from Present Time that People Realize

Back during the US Civil War era there were no progressives in the modern sense of the world.

This picture erroneously assumes that countries and people do not change as history progresses.

The erroneous Flintstones logic where he drives a prehistoric car to a prehistoric workplace, has a prehistoric pet, hangouts with prehistoric friends and so on. The are made to look 'faux' prehistoric but otherwise essentially elements of contemporary to the 1970s.

Actual people who fought in Civil War were basically the same as modern day Amish or even more poor and primitive than that. Except that it was not by choice as technologies that Amish do not use were not invented yet. So, everyone had to get by using horse driven carriages, mounted on the horse or on foot.

Back in the days Union side was probably jealous of the relative wealth, the South had compared to them. Slaveowners could afford 'founding father style' look with fancy coats, jabot and leather boots, while North did not have anything better than Amish fashion.

The US still has some Amish communities here and there. Of course, nowadays they are nothing but stubborn people who refuse to embrace modernity. However, they showcase life how it was back in 19th century well enough.

People of earlier centuries lead even more primitive life, compare to which even Amish might look fancy and sophisticated.

Life has changed a lot since 19th century or even 1970s when Flintstones were the thing. You can't apply the same logic and principles to modern people who has to deal with modern 21st century problems. 

Send People Who Support Austerity to Russia.

This video inspired me to come up with this solution to end austerity once and for all.

Maybe we can solve all the problems by making all austerity mongers go and live in Russia to enjoy its 'rustic beauty' or whatever they call poverty.

Then people like me can actually enjoy my hedonistic consumerism in Australia in resort facilities.