How to Solve Housing Crisis

Due to high demand and short supply, finding a rental home became next to impossible. Corrupt and spoiled real estate agencies do not make life better but abusing their control over this valuable recourse. Real estate market nearly turned into neo-feudalism where robber barons of real estate exploit tenants. 

Fresh radical measures are needed to fix this abysmal situation. Investment properties should stop functioning like noble titles and work more like services on the market.

First of all, we need to radically increase the number of available rental properties. To that end we need higher tax on properties as well as extra tax on unoccupied properties. That would put pressure on them to rent everything they have out.

Second, we need a serious restructuring on how real estate agencies and agents operate. To achieve that we need a mandatory ethics code on real estate agencies, with hefty fines. We should also ban real estate agents from working in the industry if they violate the code. Harsher regulations on real estate agents would prevent them from acting like robber barons and force them to act like personnel in any other industry.

Some other measures in addition to these should be considered to further improve the situation.

Only radical measures can fix rental market that have long gone out of control. Government should act as soon as possible to fix this problem to avoid society devolving into neo-feudalism.

Athenian Democracy was Based

 

Athenian Democracy was the most based form of government in history. It was responsive to citizens, had internal peace, excelled in commerce, science, philosophy, athletics and warfare. It was a success in pretty much all aspects in life and had highest human development possible. 

Athens were better than autocratic Persian Empire, much better than degenerate muscle head Sparta and still better than Roman oligarchic Republic.

Athenian Democracy was an individualist hedonistic egoistic paradise on earth. Here I will outline all the aspects of this success story.

Citizenship

Athens had a clear and active system of citizenship. Athens divided people into citizens, non-citizens and slaves. 

Citizens could participate in government but also had to defend the state. Non-citizens were free to live and do their business in the city and slaves were considered property of their owners.

It distinguished between individuals who has a stake in the system and therefore a say in country affairs from those who do not. That allowed people to both see and control that actions government takes are for the benefit of citizens. There was no situation where franchise was so large and dispersed, that government ignored certain sections of citizens. Outsiders or women had no say.

That produced a body of citizens with vested interest in Athenian State whose personal interests were connected to those of the Athenian State. Each citizens security, status and privileges were connected to existence and functioning of Athenian State, thus creating insensitive to participate in state governance and contributing to its prosperity.

While citizens were expected to fight in the military, they could also clearly see that they are risking their lives to defend their own interests, rather than those of the detached elites. That in turn produced a motivated and well-trained military that won no less that much more vaunted Spartans. 

Democracy

Direct democracy where each individual citizen could attend the assembly and vote on every law and issue in the state is essential part of citizen's satisfaction and loyalty to the system. After all people would not fight for a state that does not do what they want. Direct democracy ensured that state was always in touch with its citizens interests and well-being.

Anti-Feminism

Unlike Sparta, Athens did not consider women citizens, did not allowed them to participate in the assembly or vote. In general women were considered property of men rather than people in their own right. Women were typically kept in dark room at the back of the home, much like Muslims do nowadays.

That ensure that men's logical thinking, free of female hysteria, controlled all decision making.

In nearby Sparta, that allowed women more rights it led towards Kraterocracy and Social Darwinism as women tend to favor such policies, erroneously believing they produce stronger men. Military wise Sparta was no better than Athens and culture and science wise it was stone-age level primitive. Spartan quality of life was miserable, comparable with Somalia and North Korea. Its government was an oligarchy of old men.

In contrast Athens were healthy, young and vigorous democracy precisely because they avoided the mistake of giving women any rights. 

Life in Athens

Athens excelled in pretty much every scientific or cultural field imaginable. Founders of modern science and technology were all Athenians. Philosophers as well. Wisely organized life, outlined above, allowed Athenians to create all these things we now enjoy.

Sparta could not create science because their society were anti-science and anti-culture. Gerontocracy, women rights and Social Darwinism where the reasons why Sparta did not produce a single philosopher or scientist. 

Athens excelled at sports too. People were as physically adept as they were intellectually. Athens aspired for its people to developed in every aspect. In contrast Sparta only produced brain-dead muscleheads.

Outcome

Things produced by Athenian are foundation of our modern science, culture, technology and philosophy. This city is rightfully capital and biggest city of modern Greece.

In contrast killing of weak policy of Sparta led to them exterminating nearly all of their population and falling in obscurity. Nowadays Sparta is but a small village.

All that proves that Athenian Way is the Right Way.

Rome's Transition from Democracy into Kraterocracy

Despite Democracies and Kraterocracies are polar opposites if each other, occasionally transitions from one into another happen. Such transitions are often violent and chaotic, and society tries to adopt itself to a new reality. Modern trend tends to mostly flip Kraterocracies into Democracies, but the opposite also happens. Most famous transition into Democracy was French Revolution and most famous transition into Kraterocracy was fall of Roman Republic and rise of Roman Empire. 

Here I will explain why both of these, and other transitions happened and how such transitions normally go. This article is about Rome going from Democracy to Kraterocracy. I will write a separate one on the transition from Kraterocracy into Democracy.

From Democracy to Kraterocracy

Ancient Rome's transiton from Democracy (Republic) into Empire (Kraterocracy) is the most famous of such events. That does not happen just to backward Africans in Somalia and Uganda. The jevel and pride of Western Civiliation, Rome, was reduced to rubble and plunged into Dark Ages. What Kraterocracy destroyed over the course of couple of centuries, took more than 15 to build back. 

Why it Happened.

CGPGrey in his videos claimed that when some very valuable resource that dwarfs all other sources of income is found, then country turns into dictatorship. That happened to one of the most famous Republics in history, Roman Republic. Except the resource Ceasar found is rather trivial by modern standards: land. 

Before becoming dictator for life Ceasar spend a lot of time in Gaul (modern France), conquering and subjugating Gaul in the name of Rome. People talk a lot about crossing of Rubicon or famous opulence of early Roman Empire. However, there is surprisingly little information as to why it happens. To be more precise too little analysis of existing information. It is very likely that Ceasar found a lot of valuable goods, such as gold in his campaign, he also took many of the conquered Gauls into slavery.

However, what there was one thing, more valuable that gold or slaves and that is land. Italy is not very bountiful when it comes to agriculture, back in Roman times it did not produce enough to feed Rome. Rome imported grain from Egypt, making relationship with this state paramount. In addition to that shipping of this grain from Egypt to Rome was equally essential. 

These are all complex operations that required traders, shipbuilders, crew and so on. To manage all that a complex republican form of government was needed. People who do all these operations are essential for functioning of the Roman state, thus they all had to have a say in how the state and society operates.

However, most fertile in Europe land of Gaul (modern France) paired with readily available slaves from Gaul to work on it made all these structures unnecessary. All that was needed for prosperity was a strong army to force Gauls to work the land for their new Roman masters. Unlike educated Italians who with their trading and shipbuilding skills could just sail away from dictatorship, primitive Gauls knew no other way to live but to toil land. 

Possibly Gaul's psychology also made them more slave-able than Italians. Perhaps the entire tribe will submit if their leader surrenders. So, they had no choice, but work for their new Roman masters, Ceaser and his successors rather than the whole Rome to precise.

It is these facts that allowed Ceasar to cross Rubicon and install himself as dictator for life. It is these facts that kept this system in place even after Senate assassinated Ceasar. Ceasar needed loyalties of his own legionaries to take on Roman Republic. They would not have fought for a whim of one man, he had to offer them enough wealth to switch their loyalty to him from the Republic. Whatever Ceasar and his legionaries have found in Gaul was more than what Republic could have paid them, so they backed Ceasar against the Republic and then backed Augustus when Senate assassinated Ceasar.

After winning civil war, Ceaser alto took direct control over Egypt, further solidifying his and military's grip on food production. 

That is how Roman Republic have fallen to the rule of the military. First it became autocratic populism and then eventually Kraterocracy.

Why Roman Empire was a Kraterocracy rather than Monarchy.

Some people envision Rome as a monarchy where good and enlightened King rules together with his trusted advisors and Senate. It was anything but, there was no any succession laws and for every occasional designated successor, several more became Emperors as a result of coup or downright civil wars. For all effective purposes it was a Kraterocracy, a system where strongest or most cunning takes power by either assassinating his predecessor or defeating him on the battlefield. 

Even during so called Principate time of the early Empire many of the Emperors such as unpopular Tiberius, crazy Caligula or infamous Nero only held their power because military supported them. However, no matter how crazy Caligula was in the eyes of Romans, he was loyal enough towards his legions, so they simply forced everyone to accept his rule. Caligula was eventually assassinated.

By crisis of the 3rd century and so-called Tetrarchy, Rome effectively evolved (or devolved) into an institutionalized Kraterocracy. Every time previous emperor dies or killed, his top generals take legions under their command and fight their peers until only one out of four remains. He becomes next emperor and keeps power for as long as he manages to dodge assassination attempts.

How Kraterocracy Destroyed Rome

One trivial but erroneous answer would be war. Constant civil war since crisis of the 3rd century surely contributed to damage. Even more misguided would be to blame it on barbarians, that "conquered" Rome in 476.

However, neither of these were as important to the final outcome as the damage to social structures and social contract that Kraterocracy wrecked on Rome. Society only works together if they are united by common benefit or common gain. 

A pirate crew is united by prospects of sharing the loot. They perform their individual tasks on the ship, work together and risk their lives all for this material gain from the loot they can steal. Take common gain away and crew will disperse. 

Society fundamentally works the same way, so long as system can promise its members significant material gain for their contribution, they work in the system. Take that gain away and society falls apart. 

Roman Kraterocracy took that gain away. No matter what one did, it was impossible to match wealth or power of the emperor or his legionaries. Some more benevolent emperors, like Augustus spend some of this wealth on people to buy their loyalty and sympathy. Later emperors stopped doing that and crowds deserted them. 

Crisis of the 3rd century was the final nail in the coffin. The fed-up crowd tried to restore the Republic by lynching one of the barracks emperors only to see him being replaced with another barracks emperor.

Disillusioned with such a cynical slap in the face, citizens of Rome, started to ignore the society and fend for themselves. Rome as a polity and a nation essentially ceased to exist. Emperors and their legions were left on to exist on their own. 

Sure, some vestiges of Roman system, such as Senate continued in Byzantine Empire, but that was more a facade than a political body with real power: a folly, born from emperor's desire to keep appearance and legacy of the republic. Similar to how some African leaders imitate western world, so called cargo cult. 

Emperor's personalist rule managed to last a century in the east due to very defensible position of city of Constantinople, that could be defended with only a handful of soldiers. Every so often the eastern empire would be reduced to controlling only this city by invaders from either Balkans or Anatolia. 

Emperor's personalist rule in the West disintegrated under its own mismanagement in 476. Unable to recruit Roman soldiers from disillusioned Romans, Emperors went to replace them with German mercenaries. Eventually these mercenaries supplanted Romans and military force in charge.

Some of the disillusioned Roman citizens went on to found new trade republics, such as Venice, Genoa, Amalfi, Zara and Ragusa.

However, all these were but shadows of the society Rome once had. Culture, education, prosperity and quality of life, all of that fell to Kraterocracy. A once shining pinnacle of civilization became nothing more than rubble where Germanic tribes fought for control of what was left of the former glory.

Dark Ages slowly evolved into equally backward Middle Ages. It not until more than a millennium later, that Europe even attempted to bring back Roman glory during Renascence. 

Germany Saved Western Liberal Democracy from Kraterocracy of Stalinism

 

Many people who criticize Nazi Germany tend to overlook the fact that they were the last bulwark against totalitarian Stalinism of USSR.

Yes, Nazis were authoritarian, and they committed crimes against humanity, but they fought against the communist enemy that was even more authoritarian and committed even more crimes against humanity.

My own experience of growing up in Russia made me experience a lot of Social Darwinism, cronyism, favoritism, double standards and hypocrisy. It was (and probably still is) a country that does not care for its people and treat them as expendable resource or cannon fodder for its ruling class. No one was safe from ruling class abuses and exploitation.

During Stalin times that was even more evident that it is now. By 1930 even Trotsky and Mayakovski, who helped build USSR, disowned it as abomination and became vocal opponents of Stalin's abominable rule.

In contrast Nazis at the very least cared for their own people, even if they oppressed some others.

So, Nazis were bad guys, but they were fighting to protect Europe from something much-much worse than them.

People who believe in communist lies about peace and equality are stupid at best, hypocrites who want to plunge world into Kraterocracy at worst.

De-Facto US - Chinese Border

If you look on conventional map of the world, you will not see a border between these two countries as they are far away from each other. However, in reality there is an informal sort of border, that divides Asia into Chinese and American spheres of influence. 

Geo-politics in Asia are still dominated by Cold War Era military conflict between US and China. Nowadays the US and China try to trade and work together, but old battle lines from previous wars still remain. 

First Chinese American War 1950 - 1953

The Korean War ended up determining the borders between Chinese and American spheres of influence. Both sides wanted to take it all. 

Back in 1950s Kim Il Sung invaded, intending to push Americans out into the sea and unite Korea under his rule. Americans did not expect that, so they temporarily retreated to Busan but then reinforced they numbers and pushed all the way to Yalu River, intending to end Kim Il Sung rule for good and unite Korea under Seoul government. Americans reached Yalu River temporarily, reducing Kim Il Sung control to some pockets of resistance in mountains. Then China interfered on Kim Il Sung side with their 1 million volunteers. China too intended to push Americans out of Korea and Asia, they temporarily took Seoul but were eventually kicked out of there by the US. 

Eventually conflict reached stalemate on where is now Korean DMZ. China could not push any further south against the US resistance and the US could not push any further north against Chinese resistance. Eventually they agreed on cease-fire as further fighting was futile.

This DMZ serves as de facto border between the US and China. Somewhat recently after the North Korean rocket tests, the US probed on China over the North Korea issue. The US wanted to know if China will interfere on North Korean side, if the US invades North Korea to put an end to Nuclear Tests. The Chinese response vaguely confirmed that they will protect Kim's regime with military force.

How that Affects Modern World

The Korean DMZ is still a border between China and America, or in a broader sense, between American and Chinese worlds. 

After all each side have a number of other countries and people, plugged into their system. Each side has their own version of Korea for example. Chinese one is starving dystopian state that builds nuclear weapons. American one is prosperous market economy that builds Galaxy Smartphones instead.

That is why DMZ is still much more heavily fortified compared to other international borders, dividing Korea into Chinese and American halves.

To much of the Chinese annoyance, American side also has an American China, commonly known as Taiwan. Chinese probing over the Taiwan issues also showed that the US will defend it militarily, should China try to invade Taiwan. So as much as China wants to take Taiwan, it cannot. The geography of Taiwan favors America, giving China no chance of military victory. Because of that China occasionally flies its jets around Taiwan, unable to do anything about it.

In contrast in Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos) geography instead favored China. That allowed them to wage a successful war to push Americans out of Indochina and abolishing American Viet Nam together with Amercian Cambodia and Laos. The famous Viet Nam war would have lasted as long as American invasion into Grenada in 1984, if China and USSR were not fighting on the side of North Vietnamese government of Ho Chi Minh. After more than decade of trying to defend American Vietnam, the US withdrawn and let China had it. Now there is only one Chinese Viet Nam.

The southern border likely goes around Thailand. 

That leaves Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar in Chinese camp. Dictatorship of Hun Sen and PPC in Cambodia does suggest that its under China. Pro American Sam Rainsy party is suppressed there. Viet Nam and Laos are one party dictatorships officially, so there is no any doubt here. Finally, Myanmar with its military government is also a likely part of Chinese world.

Chinese tried to flip Thailand to its side with Taksim Shinawatra party projects, but Thai military would remove him from power to avoid becoming Bejing puppet, just like its many northern neighbors.

Why Borders are Like That

One might want to talk about people's will and freedom to choose, but there are a number of examples in the area that show it's not what decides the outcome. For example, in Myanmar people protest military rule to no effect. In Thailand Taksim is banned from politics, yet comebacks by stealth with his left-wing populism. No one in their sane mind would even consider that people of North Korea would choose Kim Jong Un over the South Korean politics and lifestyle. Yet it's the reality for people in these countries.

The reason for that are differences in how American style and Chinese style militaries operate. 

American military strength lies in Air Force and Navy. Thus, Americans are strong on sea and on flatlands, in the desert or open, forest less mountains. Such areas allow Airforce to easily and effectively target every military unit on the ground and eliminate them.  Areas that fit this description are either liberal democracies or otherwise pro-American.

On the other hand, China is strong in heavily forested or swampy areas. Airforce or other military equipment is not effective there. Because of that military outcomes boil down to number of soldiers on each side. Here China has advantage over the US simply because its population is higher than that of the America.

That is why Korea DMZ lies where it is. South of that line are flatlands surrounded by sea, where the US Air Force can obliterate everything. China does not date step there. 

On the other hand, north lies mountains covered in forests. Tanks cannot go up the mountain, planes and helicopter pilots cannot see the enemy positions under the leaves and branches of the trees. Thus, infantry has to do battle, but that means casualties and unlimitedly the one who can muster more infantrymen under their command.

Other areas in Chinese world all share this common characteristic. Thick Jungle of Viet Nam, Laos, Cambodia or Myanmar are areas where American might cannot penetrate. The US struggled to fix that in Viet Nam war, destroying Jungle with Agent Orange to create visibility for Air Force, but to no effect.

This geographic reality combined with technological ability determines the reality of the current world. Dividing it into Chinese and American sides. 

Paradox of Nation's Wealth

The biggest paradox that exists in our world is the fact that prosperity of the nation is opposite proportional to the wealth of natural recourses the nation has.

Take any place that is so barren it cannot produce enough food to feed itself (either due to being a desert of too far north to have enough sunlight for crops to grow) and you will likely see one of the topmost prosperous nations of the world.

On the other hand, take any county where food grows by itself in abundance and land is rich with gold, diamonds and other valuable recourses and likely you will see a dysfunctional society in constant civil war that suffers from starvation and all possible social ailments.

Common sense suggest that it should be the other way around. That rises question of why reality defies that common sense. 

Wealthy resources should generate prosperity for the nation, not make it poorer and more miserable. Why it's the other way around? However, reality keeps showing us that it does not. Diamond and gold rich Central African Republic, gold and what not rich Uganda or most other African countries are all examples of poverty and misery. 

Even more paradoxical is how countries too barren of any valuable resources somehow prosper against all odds. Japan or Finland has neither diamonds, nor gold. In fact, Finland can't even grow food in their cold northern land and Japan cannot grow enough to feed its huge population. Despite all that not only neither of these countries starve, but they are also among the richest in the world.

What causes these paradoxical and seamlessly illogical outcomes? Here I will write an article that explains why this is the case.

Poor, Resource-Rich Country - Kraterocracy

First a rule of thumb. If a wealth of nation is dug out of the earth, then intelligence, productivity and any other such abilities become irrelevant. 

If one wins and controls the source of wealth with violence, then violence is all that matters in such societies. Its economy, stupid. Thus, smart people in such prosperous societies would not build spaceships or make scientific discoveries. Simply because doing these things would not make one rich. The only thing that does is violence.

Wealth attracts rivals who wants to take it away. Thus, poorly defended prosperity would attract either internal or external rival who would try to take it away. That is why countries such as Poland occasionally invaded by Germany and Russia who covet Polish lands that are more fertile than Germany's or Russia's own.

After all, said and done the strongest military force would emerge as a control of the source of wealth by simply eliminating all its rivals to power. The are de facto ruled by Kraterocracy.

Why Resources Rich Countries are Backward and Unable to Innovate

No one builds anything sophisticated and progressive in Kraterocracy. Because even if one manages to build something awesome and profitable, then warlord in charge would simply steal this thing from you, keeping you as poor as before, if not poorer. 

Because of that smart people in such societies who capable of innovating, building spaceships and advancing science, do not do so out of principle and lack of personal benefits from doing so. Smart people in Kraterocracy either plot a coup, wage a civil war, flee such place for some other more smart people friendly one. If they unable to do either of these things, they kill themselves, wither slowly with alcohol and drugs or faster with lethal force.

Because of that it is pointless to try to educate people in places like Central African Republic or send them material aid. Aid would be stolen by their rich warlords and education would only help them realize pointlessness of trying to change such society.

Why Resources Rich Countries are getting Stupider with Each Generation

To make matters worse. Recourses rich societies keep getting progressively stupider with each new generation. Warlords in charge have all the insensitive to keep people as retarded as possible. Its naive to think that a smart person would not figure out a way to get rid of you and take your place. All stupid dictators who thought this way have long perished at the hands of their aides who then took their place. Those aides then knew better to eliminate anyone smart before they could eliminate them. 

Over time this dictator self-preservation process would live the country filled with people who are too retarded to organize the coup or start a civil, simply because that is safer for those in power.

That eventually leads to a country where ruling family/elite is fabulously rich and prosperous, while common men are not only miserable rich but also stone age stupid.

Since dictator can fear a coup even within their own family, then they would be incentivized to keep even their children too stupid to organize a coup.

Eventually the whole country would be filled with retarded idiots and the strongest of them would control the country through violence or threat of violence.

Some of these backward African dictatorships might have been both wealthy and prosperous back in pre-historic times but became completely backward nowadays.

What we do know for sure is that Egypt and Iraq used to be fabulously rich, prosperous and technologically advanced. Nowadays they are but shadow of former self.

Why Kraterocracy Routinely Exterminates its Population

This is something a person from an average democracy will consider not only morally abhorrent, but also downright stupid. 

However, thing is very different in Kratorocracy unlike democracy where each person is useful and productive member of society, in Kraterocracy each new core member of the regime is just an extra mouth to feed. 

After all number of diamonds or gold is the mine is the same and does not increase with more people in the society. So, if a person is not essential, then the remaining core members would be better off to simply kill and split his share among themselves. They will keep doing that until only the essential bare minimum of members remains, without whom the system cannot operate.

However, every year more and more potential claimants to this wealth getting born so the regime needs to keep exterminating these extra 'mouths to feed' to avoid shrinkage of their share of profits.

Sycophants in Kraterocracy

Aside from ruling class there is only one other type of person who prospers occasionally prospers in resource rich countries: a sycophant.

After all ruling class have to spend their days somehow and they often indulge themselves in one of another folly.

The folly not necessarily has to be hedonistic or self-aggrandizing in nature. Some of the dictators fancy themselves to be enlightened, benevolent of pious rulers. They might wish to advance science or build churches to showcase this.

However regardless of whether the ruler's folly is hedonistic or altruistic, the dynamics are the same. After all absolutist ruler does not want to hear things, they do not like.

Thus, a type or person, called sycophant, who cater to the ruler's folly, eventually emerges in Kraterocracy. Such people excel in flattering the ruling class and bending their appearances and believes to suit current fashion or tastes of current ruler.  Such people could sometimes amass wealth second only to the ruler himself.

Sycophant is fundamentally an actor who excels at faking whatever role the current ruler desires. In order to truly succeed in fulfilling sometimes rather tall expectations one has to be devoid of any genuinely.

With each new iteration of Kraterocracy, such sycophants would be more and more proficient in flattery, acting skills and faking than in anything else.

Rulers in Kraterocracy could be completely indulged into their delusions and devoid of understanding of reality. After ruler could be delusional about many things in life. Pandering to his delusions and agreeing with everything he said would get you further. In contrast telling them unpleasant truth might incur their wrath and end one's life.

Because of that even if ruler of Kraterocracy wishes to surround himself with scientists to advance science, such scientists will inevitably excel in flattery a lot more than in science. However, skills needed to succeed in such environment and not the same, needed to succeed in actual science. Dynamics of Kraterocracy would lead to the outcome where truly smart would be sidelined by cunning and deceitful. Then fake scientists who inevitably end up around the ruler would produce equally fake science that only looks real at first glance and sometimes completely useless in reality. Recent Medvedev's exercise in (ba)-nano technologies is good example of that.

Kraterocracy Over Time

When strength, cunning and sycophantly are the only skills useful for advancing in society, then overtime society not only hones these, but also gradually sheds away all other skills. Brains needed for science and engineering are not the same needed for navigating complex web of informal social rules and networks of alliances. Overtime even ability to former is lost and social smarts are all that remains.

Complex webs of social rituals and informal rules often permeate Kraterocracy. These keep rulers and privileged members of the elite safe from challengers by making it as hard as possible to advance anywhere in society. Because of that successful ruler of Kraterocracy makes these rules ever more complex and confusing. 

Navigating these becomes full time job for all those who want to get close to wealth and status. Simultaneously they keep all potential rival for the throne pitted against each other, rather than the ruler.

As Kraterocracy grows older, these rules becoming so stiffing, it becomes impossible to achieve anything at all. The society becomes dead end morass.

Because of such rules, Kraterocracy stagnates and eventually falls behind times. Even once unparallel superpowers, such as Roman empire eventually succumbed to this ailment and perish on ash heap of history. 

Why Kraterocracy Cannot Escape This Vicious Circle

Keeping current elite in power often conflicts with all forms of progress and change, thus people in charge prevent any change simply to keep their heads on their shoulders. Sometimes it leads to them losing these heads anyway.

Therefore, Kraterocracy grows progressively more backward and weaker, Unable to escape this vicious circle as mortal man cannot escape aging.

Just like a mortal men cannot escape death, Kraterocracy will eventually succumb to unwieldiness of its rules and collapse from within, unless it destroyed from without first.

All talented people either leave or get eliminated to preserve the power of the elite. 

For during Sengoku Jidai in Japan, modernists iconoclasts such as Oda Nobunaga were able to harness advance technology to pave their way to victory and power. However close to his victory Nobunaga was assassinated by conservative Akechi to preserve status quo. While Akechi lost to Hideyoshi, Hideyoshi did nothing to fundamentally change social structures of Japan. If anything, he only entrenched traditions and unchanging social order. 

After using guns, European technology and help and social mobility to overthrow previous Ashikaga Shogunate and become Shogun himself, Hideyoshi then banned guns, all foreign contact and social mobility so that no one just like him could just arise somewhere to challenge his own grip on power. The following Tokugawa Shogunate, continued this backward slide, eliminating all technology that could pose even theoretical threat to their grip on power.

Modern North Korea bans internet, computers and mobile phones not because they are stupid, but because leadership are afraid that internet can be used to overthrow their rule. That is not unreasonable concern.

Talent and Kraterocracy

However, what is good for rulers of Kraterocracy is not good for individual people or society as a whole. Therefore, smart people born in Kraterocracy wish to emigrate to a different country. Some call it a Brain Drain. However, it's pointless to blame west for this. Talented people have no place in Kraterocracy and cannot achieve anything there. Therefore, it is better that they pursue their talent and lack in non-Kraterocratic countries.

While some Kraterocratic elites do understand importance of science and technology, their societies are fundamentally incapable of rewarding people who possess these skills, much less grow them.

Rich, Resource-Poor Country - Democracy

Now we will look at the polar opposite of the Kraterocracy. A resource poor unlivable country that somehow managed to attain stellar prosperity.

After all, if you look at something like Finland's geography is anything but livable. A lot of it is covered in lakes and swaps so you could not even find a field to grow anything on it. Pastures for cattle are out of question as well. Even if you manage to solve all these problems, there is one other problem, summer is short, and sun barely shines for most plants to fully mature for harvest by the time autumn comes.

Because of all that you need some creative ideas to grow any food on such land. Such creative ideas in turn require smart people to generate them. Dumb people simply could not survive on such land.

Violence cannot help you on such land, taking a farm by force will do you nothing as without knowledge and skill to operate it you will not be able to produce food. That eliminated Kraterocracy as possible form of government.

Because of these tendencies, over time Finnish society becomes smarter and smarter, while simultaneously less and less violent. 

Other knowledge-based societies were Scandinavians and Greeks. Poor land with access to sea allowed them to prosper only by fishing and trade. Once again, these professions require craftsmanship and skill to succeed. You can steal a gold and become rich, but you cannot steal a ship and become rich. You need brains to even run ship, even more brains to actually build one. 

Then finally you need to know where and why sail to actually get to the resources you need to survive. Poles can grow their own crops and eat them with no further thinking needed. A Scandinavian has to figure out what to trade a Pole for his grain or how to steal it from him without getting caught. 

From Survival to Prosperity and Affluence

The intelligence and ingenuity that helped smart people to survive in inhospitable land can further be used to other ends, for example to enhance quality of life. Thus, the more time smart society exists the more and more prosperous it gets. Newer and newer inventions completely transform life and overtime the society becomes very prosperous.

Modern person might even say that Finland or Switzerland is very prosperous. Here however one needs to clarify that it is not Finnish or Swiss land that is rich and prosperous. The land both countries have is some of the worst even by European standards. It's Finnish and Swiss society or state that is prosperous. It's not natural wealth like Kraterocracy but rather manmade wealth created by members of these societies. 

Such wealth cannot be simply stolen by violence. After all, if members of such society will stop producing this wealth, the country will revert back to barren mountains and swamps.

Nature of Resource Poor Society

Because of the above conditions, nature of society is very different from resources rich country. A person who can build a ship can also take it and sail away if he does not like the society he is in, taking his useful shipbuilding skills with him. You cannot coerce someone like him with violence. Thus, a powerful warlord cannot rule such society through violence and coercion.

Because of that resource poor, skill rich societies are fundamentally based on voluntary cooperation or people's consent and typically government through democracy or other inclusive and consultative system. Fundamentally you need everyone to work together voluntary and have state in the society. Discontent can betray such society at any time either openly or by doing poor work that will ruin society. You cannot have that, so you need everyone or almost everyone happy with what you are doing.

To simplify terminology, I will call such societies democracies.

Value of Human Life in a Democracy

Unlike Katerocracy where humans are mostly rivals and competitors for wealth and power, therefore mostly a threat to eliminate mercilessly. In a democracy people are instead valuable members of society. Not simply because democracies are moral and kind but rather because societies like that can only functions by skill and effort of those involved. 

Survival and prosperity in inhospitable lands require a lot of people working together in a complex social structure that addresses all the issues that has to be addresses for mutual survival. If wealth is created by humans, then one needs more humans to create more wealth.

Because of that every lost human, especially in a crucial role, could make such survival less probable, especially if he had crucial skills. Some of such skills require long tertiary education to obtain, making replacement costly and time consuming, someone has to come to uni and study for many years.

Over time such societies tend to become ever more comples, thus requiring more and more skilled workers to keep functionning.

Because of all that value of human life in a democracy is high. 

Often such sentiment extends even to possibly useless members of society such as unemployed, retired or disabled.

Immigrants are also typically welcomed as they too can learn useful skills and then became crucial pieces of the puzzle of common prosperity. 

This maxim of more people = more wealth tended to be taken as an axiom (absolute truth) even if in certain situations extra people only add burden, for example during periods of recession and high unemployment.

Migration into Democracies

The above-mentioned characteristics makes a democratic society a better place to live. That does attract migrants from other places, including Kraterocracies. As much as some like to scoff at notion that people come to the US for Freedom or envy American freedom, it is actually true. 

Some decry it as brain drain that deprives their "home" contries from skilled. employees and keep such places undeveloped and poor. 

However reality is that human skills simply cannot be appreciated by a Kraterocracy. Thus, skilled people who stay or return there after sturies in a democracy, just wasting their skills and time on irrelevant.

Conclusion

All that produces a one-way flow of people from resource rich to resource poor countries. These two types of countries are total polar opposites of each other and everything that holds true for one is the polar opposite in the others. That infamous series of jokes about Russian reversal, such as in America you can always find a party and in Russia the party can always find you. hold true as well.

I will later write a separate article about transitions from Kraterocracy to Democracy and the other way around, as this article is too big already.

What Determines Outcomes of Wars

You do understand that wars are fought using Airforce who bombs down common solders and military installations they could not even see from up there while flying supersonic speeds.

It makes 0 differences if they all as frail as Hatsune Miku or as strong as Arnold Schwarzenegger, given enough fuel and bombs, either US(A)AF or Luftwaffe would obliterate everything and win. The only thing that decides outcomes of wars is the amount of fighter jets, bombers, bombs and jet fuel. Outcome of WWII in particular did boiled down to who could produce more aviation fuel.

All this effort and strength and friendship prevailing over adversity is Hollywood fantasy.

Just for those you who want to ask how it was before aircraft was invented. Artillery was fulfilling role of the Airforce, gunners would fire at enemy positions from many kilometers away based on information from scouts on where the enemy is located. Given enough guns and shells they too could obliterate everything no matter how strong or weak they are.

In future (and partly even today) wars will be fought using unmanned drones controlled remotely by a guy behind computer. Outcomes of future war might as well depend on how fast one can hit keys on keyboard or how well one can handle a joystick. So gamers who play violent video games are future war heroes. As well as programmers (software engineers) who program the drones.

Why I Support Ukraine and EU against Russia

I guess I will clarify why I do support Ukraine in its current war in Russia as well why I support politicians such as Navalny or Davankov who oppose Putin and Putinism.

Bureaucrats in post-Soviet states do not want EU because EU rules will prevent them from stealing and building themselves mansions at everyone's else expense. When everyone else rebels against that, they use riot police. That is how Putin and Lukashenka keep power, Yanukovych in Ukraine wanted to do the same, but lost to the crowd. Now Ukraine tries to kick all the remaining bureaucrats out of institutions of power and replace them with fresh people who would actually work and not steal. Bureaucrats in turn ask Russia to invade Ukraine and restore them to their comfort bureaucratic despotism.

If you do not hold high enough post in government bureaucracy to profit from their stealing schemes and own a Mercedes Benz and a fancy mansion on Rublevka, then it's pretty clear on whose side you should be. Slava Ukraini. 

My Opinions on Number of Popular Ideologies

 

I recently done one of these things where I listed my opinion on various popular ideologies that currently exist. Choice of ideologies is questionable as there are obscure Peronism and Luxembourgism, but there is no Social Libertarianism or even very common Social Democracy.

However, let's roll with them. I think many of these do need clarification as I listed a lot of them as mixed opinion, but even those I did not listed as such do need clarification.

Conservatism - This is one of the most ignorant and retarded ideologies out there. Ostrich or 3 monkeys' position: put head in the sand and see no problems, hear no problems, talk no problems. These institutions and traditions existed since time immemorable, and we should not change them now. This is what keeps existing fat cats in power and prevents us from getting anywhere. I can find no single redeeming quality in this ideology. Only brain-dead morons or the fat cats in power could possibly support that. If you are conservative but not Warren Buffett level rich, then I am sorry for your monkey level intelligence.

Progressivism - In theory it's a modern successor of Classical Liberalism that strives to make people free, but in practice it's just a degenerate traitor treadmill ideology that serves the status quo by disempowering young men. BLM and SJW are fake champions of freedom and what they do achieves nothing to make lives of young men any better or freer. Supporting them is a dead end. These traitors promise to lead you to freedom only to land you in concentration camp. Avoid them at all costs.

Moderatism / Apoliticism - Unlike conservatism they are at least honest. Doing nothing achieves nothing but at least they do not fall for fakes such as progressivism or 3rd way. That means that at least they are not retarded. 

Traditionalism - Overall I am against doing anything simply because "it was always this way". Some traditions are useful however, especially in face of retarded progressivism or feminism. Aside from opposing feminism, traditionalism do not have other purpose.

Indigenism - Aboriginal or first nations drivel is braindead retarded self-defeatism, unless you are aboriginal yourself. We conquered it fair and square, its ours now. Most indigenous people did not even have anything close to a nation of a state. Each tribe was its own people and fought wars against each other. Now they can just integrate in our society like any other regular member. No any special statuses for them.

Capitalism - I do not have any moral opposition to capitalism. Unlike Progressivism, he is partly misguided descendant of the Classical Liberalism who lost himself in spreadsheets and fiscal accountability that he no longer sees forest for the trees. Capitalism aims to maintain individual freedom build things but treats people like cogwheels of expendable labor force.

It professes Classical Liberal values in theory but could no longer embody them in practice. It devolved into very Feudalism but with asterisk that Classical Liberalism aimed to defeat. It still better than Feudalism though.

As much as in theory everyone is free, in reality only those who possess enough capital can actually set up their own business and majority without such means have no other choice but to work for those who have the said capital. Thus, society is divided into two classes of those with capital (bourgeoisie) and those without (proletariat). This division is almost as iron clad as those between lords and commons under feudalism. After all, where could a common men get enough money to start their own business. How can he possibly make it more competitive that big ones already established. Common men have neither financial means, nor knowledge necessary to achieve that. 

Wage slavery is a reality that capitalism has to wake up to and fix if it does not want to lose to more radical alternatives.

Marxism - Marx was good at pointing out all the issues with capitalism that devolved it into the neo feudalism. That last paragraph on capitalism is based on Marx's writings and of course holds true.

Marx however offered no solutions to any of that beyond vague statement that things will work out on their own somehow in the future. They actually did.

Because of that you can hardly call pure Marxism an ideology one can follow or support.

Socialism - If capitalism at least maintained individual freedom and opportunity theoretically then socialism eschewed all that completely. At minimum socialism wants all businesses to be controlled by workers like co-op by law. At maximum nationalize all enterprises to the state. Unfortunately, there is little clarity which what each of them look. 

Term Socialism itself is too broad to tell what final outcome it will entail.

Democratic Socialism would let workers vote to decide how all of that should be run. Undemocratic one would instead let party vanguard to decide for them.

Ironically enough socialism produces corporatocracy where everything in the country is run by one giant government owned corporation. The "socialist" state is even run much like a corporation.

Another issue I have with socialism that it puts needs of collective above those of individual, which is a dangerous slope. As someone who values his freedom a lot, I cannot accept that.

Idea of workers-controlled businesses is interesting, but ultimately not essential for individual freedom. So, I see little benefit over the capitalism in that regard. 

Nationalized Undemocratic Socialism is completely unacceptable, however.

That took so long, but that only covers economic side of socialism.

When it comes to social policy of socialism, then its ugly stupid and completely unacceptable mess of feminism that will lead to while women being taken by black men. 

Classical Liberalism - The glorious originator and a fundamental freedom fighter. Back in the days of Feudal class structures one's place in society was solely dependent on one's birth: if one was a first born in noble family, he would inherit status and wealth from his dad and will live a privileged life. If not, one was stuck in shitty misery without any opportunity to improve their lot in life. It is to this world Classical Liberalism brought freedom and opportunity to be everything one wanted to be. Now feudal rules are long forgotten ghost of the past and we all are much freer that our feudal ancestors.

Classical Liberalism is very based originator of many modern ideologies, from progressivism to libertarianism.

Modern Liberalism - official successor of Classical Liberalism who is somewhat confused on what it supposed to do now, that its original objectives are achieved. Because of that it's just a moderate centrist ideology that does little to address any of the modern challenges to freedom. It mostly maintains status quo, but unlike Conservatism it's not aimed at stagnation and does wishes to do good.

Marxism-Leninism - Socialism how it was implemented in the USSR and other socialist/communist states. The ugliest goblin, theoretical socialism could have turned into. It managed to achieve all the drawbacks of socialism without any of its advantages. It had no freedom, no prosperity, no workers control and nothing going for it at all.

This is an utter failure of an attempt at socialism that only completely retarded people could support nowadays.

Peronism - I read wikipedia and pollcomballanarchy on Peronism and could not really figure its ideology. Peronism is not an ideology, but rather a populism that says what people want to hear and promises everyone everything they want. That does explain why it is as popular as two for the price of one offer.

Peron himself could not figure out how to achieve all of that, but to avoid ruining the image of this ideology staged a coup to remove himself. Unlike Salvador Allende he did not die or even went to exile. He later returned to power for another attempt.

Trump doing the same thing in the US but faces much more criticism for his actions. May be that is because Libras are smarter than Geminis. 

 

Distributism - Idea of spreading wealth from well off people to those less fortunate is good and fundamentally makes people freer by making them less dependent on jobs and bosses. I do not particularly support the Christian roots of this ideology and have some skepticism over its intentions, but it probably aims good.

Trotskyism - I can give Trotskyists credit for refusing to accept a degenerate state, the USSR has become. At the very least they aspired to achieve workers liberation despite opposition and malignment from both capitalism and communism.

Luxembourgism - As far as I understand it's just another term for Democratic Socialism. It's better than other forms of socialism but still does not undress the individual liberty deficiency.

Transhumanism - I like technology and I think we should full embrace it to make our lives more comfortable and convenient. Stuff like robots, automation and Google Glass are not offensive, they are our better future. The sooner idiots realize it the better.

Christian Right - I wonder if they exist only to make Conservatism look less retarded. Idea to use a religion, where main protagonist was an anti-establishment rebel, into ideology what supports bashing the poor and stemming any attempt at change is both revolting and hypocritical. 

Christian Right proudly supports protecting property rights from the likes of Jesus Christ.

No seriously they are that retarded, or hypocritical.

Zionism - I am not a super fan of Zionism or Jews, but they do need a state to call their own. They have historical connection to this land. Also, overall, they are much more useful members of international community compared to Palestinians. 

On the other hand, I do have many Arab friends, so I do not particularly like to snub their favorite Palestine either. Maybe resettle Palestinians in some other land.

For Europeans Jews are basically Arabs and for Arabs they are basically Europeans, both consider them foreign.

Democracy - I support democracy, it may have flaws, but alternatives seem much worse. Other than absolute rule by me personally. Aside from myself I trust no institution or ideology to have unlimited control. 

Theocracy - Religion officials tend to support status quo, privileged and old at expense of new and young. This is Conservatism on steroids. See Conservatism and Religious Right section for explanation why its retarded.

Secularism - No gods, no masters. Secularism is freedom and ability to control your life without out lies from hypocrites. Very based.

Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Communism - Anarchism is more of a theory or an aspiration than an ideology that can be implemented. Out of these An-Cap at least wants to preserve individual freedom in theory. An-Com hardly so.

Environmentalism - wooden spoons, paper bags and cardboard straws are retarded and people who wish to replace plastic with these things are morons beyond any redemption. I do not give a flying fuck if that saves the planet or not, they are inconvenient to use and step back from technological progress. Also, they do not save the planet.

On the other hand, renewable energy or electric cars are good, but they can co-exist with existing ones. More cars and energy, the cheaper they are and better for people.

Minarchism - State should not be bigger than it needs to be but making it smaller in itself does not solve anything.

Monarchism - It's just an archaic remnant of the bygone past. Its unneeded and near useless, but not as retarded as say Conservatism.

Nationalism - When I lived in Russia, I thought that Nationalism is ideology of the most retarded people: those who would starve the population to build tanks for military to beat America and NATO all while China slowly eats at Russian eastern areas. Not only do they cause suffering, they do not even understand where the real threat is.

In Australia however I grew more Australia-Nationalistic. I support defending Australia by military means, expanding its influence and advancing out interests by means of military might. Here I can feel these interests are our interests rather than Kremlin only interests. Australia works much better for individual person than Russia and its military so far did not demanded any sacrifices from me.

Fascism - I do not like authoritarian aspects of fascism but I like its ability to eschew morals and other spooks in the name of advancing our interests at expense of foreign countries. When your life and future is on the line, things such as moral are nothing more than hypocrisy. I can admire fascism ability to ignore these things and relentlessly pursuer self-interest at expense of other countries. 

Fascism will not hesitate to feed me with food stolen from someone else it killed for me while Conservatism would only pray to their useless god as I die of starvation. For me choice is obvious and that is Fascism.

Libertarianism - The most based of Classical Liberalism descendants. Libertarianism realizes that goal of freedom is not fully achieved, and circumstances conspire to take that freedom away. In realizing that Liberaltarianism works its best to achieve maximum freedom possible. Of course, to really achieve that it has to become Social-Libertarianism, and not all Libertarians accept that. However, it's one of the few ideologies that sees clearly what the problem is and seeks solutions.

Georgism - As population grows, value of land grows more and more, thus turning property owners into a new aristocracy. Georgism is a potential solution to this problem. People should not be relegated to second class existence based on whether they own property or not. That is just back to Feudalism, even worse one that original one. Georgism is a potential solution.

Authoritarianism - As I said in fascism section, I do not like authoritarianism. One of the principal foundations of all anarchism is a desire to be free of authority. To not have any people who tell you what to do. Authoritarianism is the opposite of that, it's just someone who tells others what to do. There is even nothing to justify it at all.

Stratocracy - Rule by military is not the best thing in the world. It can only be justified in very limited situations, like to oppose Chinese populist Thaksin Shinawatra in Thailand.

Anarchism - Anarchism is a theory and a most noble aspiration to live free of any authority. So that no one can tell you what to do. We should work to make it reality.

Libertarian Socialism - In theory it's an attempt to reconcile collectivism of socialism with individual freedom, however I do not fully understand how it will be achieved. I do support Social Libertarianism but that is not the same thing. Just like Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism are different things.

Technocracy - This has potential to be useful, but at the same time there is a risk it can turn into dictatorship of the false science. There is no guarantee that everyone who calls himself scientist or has some credentials is really an expert on things and has our real best interests in mind. Technocratic Liberalism is somewhat better.

Neo-Liberalism - We should spread Liberalism and out way of life globally. People like Putin, Kim Jong Un and Xi Jingping are enemies of freedom and run completely inhuman authoritarian regimes that treats people like cattle. We have to fight to put an end to these practices.

Imperialism - We should take land and resources from others and make them ours for the benefit of all of us. They do not think of our wellbeing so why should be care about theirs. 

Anarcho-Egoism - This is the most based holy grail of ideologies. Nothing cares for individual freedom quite as much as this. This is the most fundamental of all principles that should underpin every good ideology. This is what I support most. I am Egoist and proud of it.

Social Democracy - Not on the list, but important. Its bland and boring, but it's probably the only thing that currently unite us. Social spending is the most fundamental aspect of our society. Even right-wing support only reduction but not cancellation of it. Only completely braindead rightists would support cancellation of social spending. 

Communism as a Religion

Communism is often known for its atheism and rejection of god and religion, however that is only a surface understanding. Atheism in USSR was very different from Atheism in the Western World. You might even say that communism in itself was a religion.

When ideology stops being just sets of ideas and principles and becomes something of a dogma that requires faith then it gets dangerously close to becoming a religion. In late 1920s USSR did cross that line at full speed without looking back, read more here.

While the early party was open to discussions and debates, things did change when Stalin entrenched himself in power, communism evolved from an ideology to a religion level unquestionable dogma. 

Before becoming a communist, Stalin used to study in Seminary to become an Orthodox Christian priest. In power he did used things he learned there to reshape communism into a new kind of religion. Lenin became communist Jesus and savior of working people from capitalist oppression. Various revolutionary heroes were like apostilles and Stalin himself was akin to a Pope.

Faith in communism and zealotry in exercising this faith was required for successful career in the USSR. Open questioning of communist dogma was as persecuted as heresy during inquisition times. Rival religions such as Christianity were not tolerated and persecuted. 

This communist religion and believe in "Brighter Future" (that mostly consisted of promises that everything will be free, read more here), promised by Lenin and his party is what motivated people to work and kept disparate ethnicities that inhabited USSR united. 

That also led them to invade other countries to spread their one true faith to unbelievers in places such as Afghanistan. Comintern had clear aims to spread communist globally. They trained Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung, Robert Mugabe, half of the African leaders and many others to spread communism to their countries. 

Czechoslovakia, just like during Jan Hus times managed to produce its own heretical version of communism. Just like Austria invaded and took control in 1400s in 1968 USSR invaded to enforce communist orthodoxy on them.

In the end communist faith proved to be false, countries flipped back, different ethnicities of the USSR all went their own way.

Why and How Donald Trump won?

Whether you agree with him or not, Trump is smart. He told people what they wanted to hear, promised things people wanted and won. People wanted more jobs and less employment competition from immigrants, Trump promised all that. It does not matter if left accuse him of populism and racism, guilt does not work on independents. He did not do much of what he promised in office that is why he did not won re-election.

Hillary did not promise anything at all. People asked for student debt relief. Bern who promised that almost clinched the nomination. He should have been at least VP candidate with his results. Yet Hillary ignored him and the people. Picked some other guy for personal loyalty to her and gave some vague promises that something may be done with student debt without numbers and clarity.

Other Republicans and right wingers cannot beat Trump or match his ability to appeal to people. DeSantis and even a number of politicians in Australia tried to imitate Trump's appeal but achieved nothing. After all people do not vote for the actual pro-business conservative right wing.

Artificially Created Jobs Breed Torism and Employee Abuse

Some may argue that jobs provide people with dignity and means. However, that can only be applied to necessary non artificial jobs in low unemployment economy. Only under such conditions there exist parity between employee and the manager. In such a situation manager cannot afford to lose an employee if he is too hard to replace due to either low employment of rare skills the employee possess. Only under these conditions does employee possess negotiation power to negotiate better wages and working conditions.

Such conditions cannot be replicated if government created jobs artificially. Management in such jobs know that it does not matter if no one does this job, so they can act abusively and exploitatively towards employee. After all, if employee quits or fired due to a disagreement with management then management does not lose anything, and employee loses source of income. That is doubly damaging if economy is poor, unemployment is high, and it's hard-to-found new job. Managers of such jobs can go on extensive power trips with no repercussions.

Because of all of the above having a artificially created job devolves into literal masochism that tramples on the very dignity it was supposed to provide. People are much better off on a dole or dead than to be employed under such conditions.

Crisis of Representation and Shortage of Democracy in Contemporary Democracy

By now representation aspect of our democracy reached a crisis and some original solutions are needed to fix this issue.

When modern representative democracy took its current shape in early 19th century society was radically different from what it is nowadays. A system that was adequate for these times overtime got outgrown by society and technological progress.

Bach in the day's population was much smaller, and MP could reasonably know most of the people in their electorate in person. Thus, it was feasible to call it representation.

However, over the course of last 200 years population skyrocketed and by now one MP represents so many different people its physically impossible for him to actually knew or understand what people even need.

Because of that MP are completely reliant on staffers, aides and middlemen. However, staffers can act in faithless self-serving manner. They can prevent complains and suggestions they do not like from reaching the MP or in contrast inflate representation of groups they personally agree with.

This skewers democracy into effectively bureaucracy: rule of staffers and bureaucratic middlemen.

To make it worse media begun to act increasingly in biased, self-serving. Adding media-cracy as a second corruption of the democracy.  Murdoch press shamelessly lie about issues, underrepresenting the issues they do not like and inflating those they favor. 

Dual issue of bureaucracy and media-cracy compromised the democracy to the level of medieval robber baron acracy.

Solutions

A single/group issue conseils that deal with some particular problems or issues can be the other one. One big parliament that handles all issues is good, but it just cannot solve all the problems simultaneously. Some specialized sub-parliaments are needed for different areas of life or different demographics. Not committees or sub-committees and most problems look different from top down compared to bottom up.

Effective means of direct democracy can be others. Internet already allows people to vote on issues directly from their computers. Effective methods of verifying identity already exist. All we need now is political will to make it broadly available and influential. 

Other Organizations 

This problem does not only affect politics, but other spheres of life as well.

Over time of the last 200 years organizations became so complex and multilayered, that faceless bureaucrats you have to deal with have much more influence over daily life compared to distant and often unreachable upper management. Some of them deliberately ignore official polices and embark on shameless power trip at expense of their clients.

Solutions for other Organizations.

To solve these issues, we need effective mechanisms of addressing these problems, a workplace democracy as well as effective and simple way to use feedback mechanisms can be one such solutions.

Company employees need opportunity to vote manager out of power.

Clients need opportunity to vote out company officers they interact with personally.

Hiring process too cannot be left to completely unaccounted HR departments. Workplace democracy should have a say in that as well. An impartial hiring system should be available for potential employees, possibly based on their ability to solve test issue.

Selective Multiculturalism

I was thinking recently. On one hand I am not one ethnicity racist person and have good relationship with people of different cultures. On the other hand, I am not super accepting and welcome just everyone, I am selective and get along only with some people.

That made me think of a middle ground between ethnonationalism and global one people multiculturalism. A kind of common values union, selective multiculturalism or even multicultural racism. Even actual Nazi of WWII era actually had selected ethnicities they deemed worthy of cooperation. 

That way I and people I can get along with can coexist and problematic people can be excluded and segregated.

Modern worlds practice this sort of approach as well, places like North Korea are ostracized by majority of the world.

Chart of My Ideologies vs their Opposites

I hope this chart will not only help you better understand the ideologies I support vs those I oppose.

By Africa I mean only the most dysfunctional and high birth rates states of Sub-Saharan Africa and Sub-Saharan Africans, such as Somalia, Zimbabwe, Niger, Central African Republic, Rwanda or whatever is Robert Kony doing, not just all black people. Too long to fit this whole definition.

How Labor Party Can Revive its Fortunes

 

The short answer is by embracing left wing populism.

The long answer is I will explain why below.

Populism is Popular and Electable.

Left Wing Populism and Populism in General are currently on the rise throughout the world. In some counties such as Greece they even win elections outright (Syriza) and in others such as Spain, they participate in government in coalition with traditional left wing (Podemos).

They are popular in Australia as well. Pretty much every reasonably successful crossbench 3rd party is populist in one way or another. The Greens promise to boost to all social security payments and increase government expenditure in general. Nick Zenophon Team and later Center Alliance promise to revive local manufacturing, One Nation too advocates to increased spending, reviving manufacturing but also limit immigration to reduce competition on labor market. Even right-wing spoiler parties such as Palmer's United or Jaquie Lambie Network vaguely promise improvement of living conditions.

In total populism, mostly left-wing populism, now readily amounts to around 20% of the electoral vote. Combine that with Labor own 30% and you have guaranteed electability for a foreseeable future.

Right wing press does attack populism because they understand its danger to their electoral prospects. Murdoch press routinely mislabels One Nation as far right despite them being mostly economically left-wing.

However, populism is here to stay.  The reason is changing socio-economic conditions.

Socio-Economic Conditions

Labor and Labor like parties rose to power and electability when working class (employee class) became a majority among the population. This was preceded by establishment of large factories and other large organization that employed a lot of people. Before that employees were not a majority in society and working class was not the base of political power. Before 19th century people used to work differently, it was more entrepreneurial and independent time.

Throughout 20th century large organizations dominated the economy and with them working class, trade unions and Labor Party were powerful and electable without any special effort on their part.

However, with advance in automation that started to change. Factories close and organizations employ less and less people. Progressively shrinking the working class and with them trade unions and Labour Party.

That does not affect only working class, the vaunted middle class shrinks just as much if not more so. Parties that used to represent middle class have long gone to make way for left wing populism instead.

However, all these people who lost jobs or job prospects due to socio-economic change do not become right wing voters. Far from it. Instead, they become even more left-wing than working class, a new left if you like.

New left is not the same as old far left. That is why new parties such as Podemos and Syriza win governments and traditional far left communists stagnate as before.

The reason for that is that traditional far left is falling behind is because all forms of socialism, democratic or not, fundamentally requires its supporters to be some kind of employees. It has no relevance or benefit for people who are not employees, for example those who are unemployed.

New Class

All these unemployed, underemployed, seasonal workers, day workers, informal workers, hustling, gig-economy and so on people together form a new socio-economic class. You can call them underclass as they are economically worse off than working class. Marx used to call them lumpen proletariat in contrast to working class (simple) proletariat. More modern and less offensive term is precariat, that emphasizes precarity of their economic prospects and future.

Unlike working class that have strong connection with their place of employment and each other, precariat is isolated and disconnected from each other. Different members of precariat experience vastly different economic, social and living conditions. The only thing that unites them is that they are all poor and struggle to meet ends meet on day-to-day basis.

Because of the above they cannot readily benefit from any structural economic change. Therefore, the only policy that can appeal is to give them money and things directly. Simple and plain free stuff. Hence why majority of them tend to support various far left or left-wing populist parties. It's not traditional socialism or even democratic socialism but rather extreme social-democracy and welfarism.

Precariat is Possibly Unfortunate Future

Because of current socio-economic conditions and development trends precariat will keep getting bigger and bigger. Simultaneously Labor's working class will keep getting smaller and smaller. 

Parties that will manage to win this class over will end up shaping the politics of the 21st century.

That is not because its good or ethical, that is just economic reality.

The Greens, One Nation, Centre Alliance, Palmer's United and most of 3rd parties currently in Austria are trying to win precariat over with their populist policies. Even some parties connected with right wing tories are trying to get some of the precariat to vote for them. 

However fundamentally precariat and tories could not be any more different. There is huge animosity from right wing towards so called dole bludger, typical representative of the precariat.

That puts Labor in a good position to win precariat over, but currently Labor does nothing to appeal to this ever-growing demographic. 

How Labor Can Appeal to Precariat

While idea of winning educated well-off middle class might appeal to many in Labor much more than dealing with unwashed precariat, however for better or worse the future will be with precariat.

To win precariat Labor will have to branch out and embrace left wing populism or promising free stuff and money for nothing. 

For decades already tories kept accusing Labor of pondering to dole bludgers, it's time to actually start doing that. Work ethics and such might get in the way of such approach, economic prospects of precariat are too precarious to care over something like that.

If the core of Labor is against such measures, then Labor can simply sponsor a loosely affiliated sister party. Right wing was doing it almost since the inception of the federation. Their Coalition consists of real tory party, called Nationals and its centrist-populist appanage designed to leach vote from other classes, called Liberals. Liberals have long outgrown their partner party in size but continues to be connected to it. National Party politicians continue to control important portfolios whenever Coalition is in power.

Labor too can set up something like Welfare Party and begin competing for precariat vote with Greens and others. Alternative names can be Radical Party or even Tenants Party. Together these new parties and Labour can govern jointly just like Coalition does. The left-wing union can be called Alliance to avoid confusion with right wing Coalition, either in advance or only after they take power.

Conclusion

For good or for bad Precariat is here to stay. Parties could either win this new and growing social class or be left behind like the UK's original Liberals who keep languishing as LibDems since the end of WWI.

Fundamentally if Liberals is the party for those who are somewhat well off, then their opposite should be the party of the poor. The new major left-wing party would be party of the poor. It can be Labor, but it can also be someone else. Its not too late for Labor to try winning the precariat.

On Politics in Australia

There is one peculiar anomaly in politics in Australia. While majority of the people do not support right wing policies, the right-wing Coalition managed to cling to power for much longer periods of time compared to left wing Labor. Coalition often ended up implementing some of their right-wing policies despite opposition not only from Labor but also most of the crossbench as well. Meanwhile Labor keeps doubt itself and fails to achieve much even when in power.

While its convenient to blame this to right wing media, dominated by newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch News Corp, that is not entirely correct. Fundamentally newspapers are legacy medium that hardly consumed by people younger than 60 years old. Young people do not consume Murdoch press, but they do not vote Labor either, that means Murdoch have nothing to do with it. At the very least Murdoch is far not all there is to a problem.

Fundamental problem is that Liberals a lot more cunning and savvy that Labor. They better understand different demographics and have a big bag of tricks to mislead people into voting for them. In contrast Labor is over reliant on their innate appeal to working class and completely helpless when it comes to expanding its appeal to any other groups. The reasons these parties ended up so different in that regard lies in their history. I will write about each party separately, starting with Libs.

Liberal History

Modern Liberals have many differently named predecessors: United Australia Party, Australia Party, Nationalist Party, National Labour, (Commonwealth) Liberals, Protectionist, Free Trade. Some like to simplify that to simply the same party under different names, but that loses important details. These different iterations of modern center-right party represent periods of existential crises in the party history where they often had to take drastic measures to stay relevant and not be relegated to ash heap of history. They happened because changes to economics and demographics necessitated expansion of party base and inclusion of ever-increasing groups into the party. I will cover each of them separately.

The ancient most predecessors of modern Liberals were Protectionist Party and Free Trade Party. These parties actually competed with each other in elections. They were organic parts the original two-party system. It hard to tell which of them was more rightwing compared to the other as they both represented businessowners. 

Protectionists represented businesses that manufactured locally and favored high tariffs to make local produce more competitive than imported goods. Free Trade represented traders and importers who wanted tariffs low so that their shipping would be more profitable. These two parties competed in election and had a fair bit of rivalry that even made Protectionists to support Labour government against the Free Traders.

However eventually these former bitter rivals came to the conclusion that their mutual differences with Labor are higher than those with each other and merged into Commonwealth Liberals. That produced a more familiar form of two-party system, with one left and one right wing party. Political battlelines stop being about interests of different business groups, they became about interests of employees vs interests of managers and business owners. 

Hext merger came from within Labor itself. Billy Hughes, once a rather popular Labor leader, decided to split from Labour and with his supporters formed National Labour Party. After a minority government supported by original Liberals, they eventually merged with them into a Nationalist Party.

That was the point where right wing realized they can no longer survive without some support from working class and rallied Hughes and a few prominent former Labour members into their ranks under banner of Nationalism. That for the first time added some of the core Labor base to that of the tory. That however also diluted the policies the party stands for, as traditional business owners' interests had to co-exist with patriotic fervor of National Labor working class. 

Huges was eventually expelled from Nationalist party, but soon formed Australia Party that eventually went to merge with Nationalists to form United Australia Party.

The base of the Nationalists again dwindled too far to keep party electable, so they had to resort to populist tactics to lure yet more supporters away from Labour as well as from all other corners of society.

Notice how right wing all too willing to adopt the name that is much closer to the splinter party they are merging into. That represent conscious self-awareness that their tory policy is not popular with people, and they are much better off to be seen as some new catch all party. 

Names themselves cannot be more catch all and generic. Australian Party ostensively represents everyone in Australia, at least claims to. Make it United Australia Party to double on that catch all effect. 

By now it's no longer party of anything, but rather simply anti-Labour party that united people of vastly different worldviews and interests, that have nothing in common with each other.

How Liberals Invented Middle Class

The final exercise in broadening party support came in 1949, when Robert Menzies created modern Liberal Party. While that took the party name back to the original merger of Protectionists and Free Trade, the appeal of the party broadened yet again. This time with the help of the newly invented middle class.

Middle class is essentially an upper crust of well-off members of working class, the Labor' Party base. Labor themselves created them with their policies that benefited working people and allowed them to become somewhat well off. Afterwards these well-off workers were scooped by their rivals with campaign of fears that their wealth might disappear if Labour takes power again.

Ever since Labor engaged Liberals in tug of war over this vaunted middle class, whose socio-economic situations makes their allegiance muddy. This is a game Liberals created and Labor foolhardily walked into.

Modern Liberals

All that makes modern Liberal Party not a party that represents anyone or stands for anything. Rather it's a shrewd political machine that just scraps together votes from any corner they could possibly find and somehow divert to themselves. John Howard described it as broad church but is more of a rag tag group of people that have nothing in common with each other who are sometimes mislead into voting for the Liberals. Because of that they hardly have any policies aside from opposition to Labour, lowering the taxes and doing nothing.

If they would try something else, like rework industrial relationships for example, it would expose differences between different blocks of supporters. That is also why leaders such as Tony Abbot are liked by some in the party and despised by others: this exposes vast gaps between different interests' groups in the party.

The party is fully self-aware of that. The very same Tony Abbot knew full well that people would not vote for him if they knew what his policies were, so he simply avoided saying anything about his policies and focused instead on criticizing Labor ones.

When even that is not enough then, to further prop their ailing electoral prospects, Liberals create a number of spoiler parties such as Democratic Labour Party, Family First Party to further broaden their support and catch votes of those who would not vote for tories but willing to vote against Labour for one or another reason. 

More recently they done that again with yet more of these spoiler parties, such as Palmer United Party that later reclaimed tory old United Australia Party name, Australian Conservatives and a few others.

They also managed to rope-in some popular small party independents, such as David Leyonhjelm of Liberal Democrats, despite Liberal Democrats having little in common with the Liberals.

Finally, the vaunted middle class, that Liberals claim to represent, and Labor wants to win back, sometimes realizes that neither party truly stands for its interests and once their even tried to form their own party Australian Democrats, one and only true party of middle class. They only managed limited success before disappearing into oblivion. Teal Independents is possibly one other such attempt, or they could be simply another one of Liberal spoiler party tricks instead.

Some analysts claim that Democrats place was taken by The Greens, however that is misleading. The Greens are not centrist middle-class party, but rather far-left populist party that represents diverse array of mostly poor and disenfranchised voters to whom their appeal with their populist rhetoric and promises of free stuff.

Labor Party

Labor party situation is the opposite of that of the Liberals. If Liberals needed to constantly broaden their support at expense of, among other things, parts of Labor base, then Labor mostly struggles to keep their large base united and prevent people from leaving for other parties. Unlike Liberals they have never really tried to win any support outside of their target demographic, working people, employees who work for fixed (mostly hourly) wage.

Labor was left scarred by Billy Hughes, DLP and others splitting the party so instead of working on broadening the base, the work on keeping their base together and united. That is why unlike rag tag Cronenberg Liberals, Labor only has two neatly organized fractions: Socialist Left and Labor Unity.

Labor got caught into tug of war over middle class, created by Liberals, and lost many of their policies that actually benefited working class in a near futile attempt to win back middle class. Which did sometimes benefit the party in the past.

Party made so many mistakes that would have buried someone like Liberals long ago, but because Labour's base is very strong, the party could never sink completely. Unionized working class would always vote for their party. Despite partly hardly doing anything useful for them since Whitlam and Hawke, only few of them deserted it.

In general majority of people in our current society are employees and that make Labor a much more natural choice for them compared to Liberals. Liberals had to scratch their heads to invent cunning schemes to get votes, Labor can just sit on their hands doing nothing and government would just fall into their hands.

All that made Labor complacent and blind to reality of Australian life. If you can win without making a single smart move, them why bother thinking. So far this approach occasionally kept delivering government to Labor.

The party exists within dual bubble of their own internal politics as well as that of productivity political narrative, invented by Liberals. and unable to see changes in economy and society around them. It is foolish to trust the lingo and narrative of Liberals, but Labor Unity does so, nonetheless.

Labor claims to be democratic socialist, but by now their policies can hardly be even called social democracy. They too stuck in Canberra bubble and Liberal party invented, productivity, economy and competitiveness narrative, that they completely lost touch with reality.

The right-wing creep is because as people get wealthier, they favor conservative right-wing policies. That is why Liberals managed to snatch upper crust of former Labor's working class, that they dubbed middle class.

However, this problem affects politicians within Labor Party itself. Many of them have investment properties or stock market investments. That would make them fall for the Liberal economic drivel and favor policies that improve economic indicators over the policies that actually help working class or the poor.

By now party is too much focus one token leftwing polices such as feminism as well as public service pet projects rather than things that can indeed improve lives of working people.

Future of the Left Wing

So far Labor managed maintain electability, however, voters increasingly desert Labor to various left-wing alternatives. It is hard to say how long the party can last without changing its approach.

Analysts like to describe One Nation as far-right, but when it comes to economic policies, they are much closer to the left that to the right. Despite the smear campaign against them in media, the party endures and manages to keep significant percentage of vote. Cunning Liberal shadow puppeteers managed to pit One Nation against both Greens and Labor for the benefit of the Libs and detriment of all the other three.

The populist far-left Greens alone managed to consistently hold around the third of primary vote support. I will repeat it here again that unlike Democrats, The Greens are not centrist middle-class party, but rather far-left populist party that represents diverse array of mostly poor and disenfranchised voters to whom their appeal with their populist rhetoric and promises of increased social security payments, social housing and other free stuff.

So far that did not endanger Labor's electability, as Greens preferences flow to them anyway, but that alone is telling of how many people wish for a different left-wing party that represents them. Just think of these 11-12% vs Labor own 32% something. 

One Nation and NXT did manage to carve out some as well. It would not be an exaggeration to claim that Labour only represents half of all left-wing vote with the remaining half represented by other small parties or not represented by anyone and simply lost in cracks of electoral process.

Reasons for Changes to Left Wing

One can ask if Labour have endured before, then they can do so again, but there is a reason why that is not the case. The reason is socio-economic change.

Back in 20th century a number of people who work as employees kept constantly increasing. All these large organizations had to be manned by people. All these people were Labour's core base. Majority of them supported Labor even if Libs managed to chip away few here and there.

Nowadays however many large factories are closing, for example that Holden Factory in Elizabeth. That alone turned all these formally Labor voters, who used to work there, into potential future Greens voters. That is just one example.

A lot of people are unemployed or underemployed, some participate in gig economy or just get by with irregular work. All this ever-growing segment of society is economically left wing but is not represented by Labor at all. Because of that they chose to vote Greens, One Nation or any other 3rd party.

This trend will continue and because of that all these 3rd parties will continue to grow. If nothing is done, they will eventually replace Labor as new left-wing party. Just like UK's Labour replaced Liberals and main left-wing party. If Labor will not try to broaden its appeal, it might as well end up just like UK Liberals.