Tier List of American State Flags

 

So, this is a tier list. Alabama Texas Colorado and Indiana get special recognition. No flaws here.

Second tier is very decent as well, not Nation level but good for a state. That is something you can fly proudly. 

Third tier has issues and can be improved, but in many cases has good ideas. Two exceptions are: Utah is there because I do not like beehives and New Hampshire because I like sail ships and it's best of seal on blue.

Forth tier is average, they look poorly but distinctive enough for you to not mistake them for another state. Both Florida and North Carolina toon good designs from Top tier and made them worse.

Fifth tier is SoB with some redeeming qualities, such as clearly readable image on seal or CoA or wide CoA with supporters that make it somewhat distinguishable from the rest.

Six tier is complete failure. Most of it is just colored dish that is indistinguishable from colored dish next to it. It's a bad design if you have to spell name on it in huge fort to help people tell it apart from others, might as well forgo the seal and just keep the name. Some managed to get even worse than that by making the design smaller and putting it in the corner so it's even harder to tell it apart from a plain blue sheet.

How Americans Created and Practiced INGSOC

This is the final article of the series on How humans extrapolate their fears on others. In the previous parts I covered why Russia believes in Nazis in Ukraine as well as how Russia created Communism. Now I will write about how Americans created INGSOC.

INGSOC from George Orwell's 1984 book seems more like fictional villain ideology than something than can exist in real world, much less based on something that existed in real world. However, it is based on real world, and it's based on Puritan sect of Christianity.

In modern US Puritans no longer exist as a dedicated branch of Christianity. They are partially remembered as Pilgrims, that sailed to the new world on Mayflower and founded Plymouth Bay Colony as well as through the Thanksgiving Day. This however omits important parts of their story that explains how they are connected to the INGSOC.

What Puritans Are

Pilgrims, or to be precise Puritans, begun as a branch of Christianity in England. After Henry VIII broke with the Pope and decided to create Church of England, question of doctrines for the new Church aroused. All that happened during times of Reformation and resulting religions strife in Europe. Different preachers such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Besancon Hughes and John Knox emerged preaching their own interpretation of Christianity. Some of them disagreed not only with Catholic Church but also with each other, for example Martin Luther denounced both Catholics and all the others so called Reformed preachers.

England too had different ideas over what its new separate Church should be. Several different groups have emerged, advocating different interpretation, policies and approach to faith. One of such groups were Puritans. Puritans were the most radial of them all, they embraced a very radical interpretation of the Bible, that mandated enforced poverty, extreme modesty, prohibition of fun and other such measures. They banned poplar holidays such as Christmas and Easter because they believed celebrations and holidays are too immodest to be Christian. 

During times of English Civil War Puritans briefly held power in England itself, during the so-called Parliament of Saints. However eventually they lost power and restored monarchy of King Charles II banned Puritanism from England and Church of England embraced much more moderate doctrine that mostly combines elements of Lutheran and Catholic ones.

Puritans in America

Being banned from England, Puritans decided to leave and practice their faith elsewhere. America provided them with such an opportunity. Not only this but could even create their own separate colony and run it according to their Puritan views. Puritans did just that. Plymouth Bay Colony later evolved into Massachusetts Bay Colony and then into State of Massachusetts together with neighboring states, known together as New England.

As you can imagine a colony run by Puritans, inhabitant by Puritans and espousing Puritan principles would end up a rather strange, dark and drab place. Puritan doctrine created a proto INGSOC colony filled with numerous enthusiastic supporters. Instead of Big Brother they had all seeing God who was always watching them, that they depicted as Eye of Providence in their Churches. They held witch trials to weed out dissidents and burned witches on a stake. Various very normal things were banned, and people led a very drab and ascetic life. It was pretty much a totalitarian dystopia in real life.

According to some claims around half of modern inhabitants of the US are descendants of people that arrived on Mayflower ship to found Plymouth Bay Colony. That number could be exaggerated as Virgina colony, run by Chevaliers (second sons of nobility) was founded before Plymouth Bay colony and was much more prosperous than latter. Plymouth Bay however could have higher population numbers as Chevaliers run cotton plantations, worked by slaves and Puritans have not practiced slavery.

After the American Revolution

After American revolution, colonies have united under single federal government. Puritans had to share country with Chevaliers, Quakers, Dutch of former New Amsterdam (New York) and number of other groups. In the newly formed US State of New York found itself in position of balancing Puritan views of New England with non-Puritan views of those of the South.

As time went on, the United States grew in every direction and many new migrants from other parts of Europe, especially Germans came to settle new states. These people obviously did not hold any Puritan views. 

Puritans became increasingly diluted with other groups and their views became increasingly marginalized. They stopped being visible and identifiable group but did not disappear completely. Instead, they diffused themselves in this new US and tried to steer it according to their views.

Most of the time that did not work. After all America is Land of the Free and Puritan values are closer to totalitarianism than to freedom. However, Puritans still managed to sneak in more and more of their views into the contemporary US. For example, they managed to force south to abolish slavery. There are probably many more subtle examples of American practices that were spearheaded by Puritans.

Transformation of Puritans

However, reality of the United States forced Puritans to evolve and transform in order to keep propagating their view and values on the rest of society. Current Progressive US Agenda is likely influenced by Puritan views for example. However pretty much every radical American political ideology, either left or right is likely influenced by Puritanism: Paleo-Conservatism, Constitutionalism, (Paleo-)Libertarianism, Socialism, Progressivism, non-interventionalism. 

Socialism in Europe is about employees getting more pay and better working conditions, Socialism in America is almost always INGSOC and Puritanism by a new name. That is why left parties in UK or Australia call themselves Labor rather that Socialist, to avoid associating themselves with INGSOC.

Far not every progressive consciously remembers or associates themselves with Puritanism. Yet Puritan values likely keep resurfacing subconsciously out of force of habit, simply because they were part of New England's life for so long. Many likely think that one or other element of Puritan doctrine are good and keep propagating them. 

Puritanism with its all-seeing Big Brother God is a ghost that haunts the US as much as Avaritionism, Social Darwinism and Kraterocracy haunts Russia.

Emigration of Puritans

One other approach, some neo-Puritans might take is to emigrate somewhere and start anew, like they did with Plymouth Bay Colony. I pity the countries such emigrants would pick as their targets. Australia possibly became a target by crypto neo-Puritan invasion.

USSR, China and the rest of Eastern Bloc possibly were targets by previous Puritan emigrations. That would explain how USSR devolved from very innovative and avant-garde 20s into very backward and repressive 30s.

In fact, the whole 20th century was possibly a conflict between anti and pro Puritan forces. 

Why Russia Created Communism and Opposes Liberalism and Capitalism

This is the second part of the series on How humans extrapolate their fears on others. In the previous part I covered why Russia believes in Nazis in Ukraine. This time I will cover how Russia created communism and how Russian perception of capitalism and liberalism fundamentally based on Russia's own past rather than understanding what capitalism even is.

To begin with Russia never had actual capitalism, much less liberalism. Even at its worst capitalists could never fathom things that were reality in pre-October Revolution Russian Empire or Post-communist Russia of 90s. Communists like to claim that real communism was never tried, real liberalism and capitalism was not tried in Russia as well. 

Nowhere in capitalist theory is says that you can seize business at gunpoint, threaten to kill owners if they refuse to sell for a token nominal price, then bribe police and bureaucrats to acknowledge transfer of own ship as legal, arrest former owners for trespassing on your property. There is something called hostile takeover, but it means buying company's stock that is traded on stock market in order to achieve 51% ownership, that does not involve violence. However, in Russia in 90s the former type of hostile takeover at gunpoint was practiced, it is still practiced nowadays. That Avaritionism, not capitalism.

In general, pre-revolutionary Russia was an Aristocracy and Absolute Monarchy. It was not like in the US where new entrepreneurs raised from nowhere to build new businesses and prosper. 19th century Russia was effectively ruled by a privileged class, that obtained their privileges back in early 18th century during Peter the Great times and consolidated them during Catherine II times in later 18th century. That is what Aristocracy or Oligarchy is. Yes, they owned factories and could theoretically be called capitalists, but they could only get there because they were oligarchs first. System where only privileged class can be business owners is not capitalism but aristocracy/oligarchy.

Post-communist Russia was a combination of above mentioned Avaritionism with Social Darwinism and Kraterocracy. Off compas "fictional" demons of political compas are not really fictional, they are real. Just no one advocates them deliberately, they creep in from cracks in system to take over the society. Later they once again devolved into Authoritarian Oligarchy mixed with police state with some elements of the dark trio still around. 

Why that keeps happening to Russia

However, why does that happen to Russia all the time. Why Russia keeps becoming an oligarchy where a privileged class exploits everyone else. Pre-Soviet Russia was like that, USSR eventually became an oligarchy where top party nomenklatura eventually became new oligarchy, then when USSR collapsed a new KGB oligarchy eventually took over and purged everyone else.

There are two answers, one is that resource-based economy, that works on dying slaves does not need any better government. I wrote about it in a separate article about transitions from democracy to kraterocracy and back. See also CGPGrey's video about rules for rulers.

The second is again deep history. Russian historiography begins with Varangians (vikings) taking control over the country. Official history says they were invited by locals, but I call that BS. Much more likely scenario is that they overthrew previous rulers and took over. Regardless of whether they were invited or took control violently, one fact remains the same: they were foreign born small elite group that ended up at the top of the social hierarchy. 

Kniaz and his druzhina were the very original oligarchs that created (Kievan) Rus, they expanded it, extorted tribute from local tribes much like bandits of 90s demanded money from market vendors. Took people captive and sold them as slaves in Byzantine Empire. Patterns that were true back then continue to resurface even thousands of years after death of Rurik.

Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Bolsheviks and even post-Soviet bandits all ended up falling back to the same basic druzhina concept. Ivan called them oprichnina and they terrorised and partly exterminated previous elites only to be abolished after Ivan's death, Peter called them dvoryane and they partly supplanted, partly integrated with old elite, eventually dwarfing old elites into irrelevance. Lenin called them vanguard party and they exterminated or drove into exile previous elites. Putin era bandits are called Ozero Cooparative or simply Piterskie, they buy Chelsea and super Yachts. 

In all cases leader is supported by a cohesive, connected and united group of likeminded individuals who work together for the common goal like a team.

Double Standards of Russian Society

Small elite group, disconnected from the vast foreign population they ended up ruling over. That characteristic gave birth to a peculiar trait where people inside the group would be treated one way and everyone outside differently. Surrounded by foreign and unknown land and potentially hostile natives, Kniaz and druzhina held to each other and protected inner circle. 

On the other hand, everyone else was treated much worse. Kniaz and druzhina did not think of them as of fellow countrymen but rather of prey, cattle or resource to exploit. They extorted tribute from them or capture and sold them to slavery. They used the profits from these activities to build for themselves and their children fancy mansions, called kremlins and other good things. Even some obscure towns that at one time were residences of kniazes, still have kremlins and cathedrals, preserved since ancient times.

Modern Russian elites rob country dry, just like their 1000 years old predecessors, and buy mansions in California and French Riviera. This 1% small elite live in special segregated area, called Rublevka, where they have all the luxuries and stellar quality of life. The area is not depicted on maps available for commoners so common Russians remain oblivious to its existence. Even Google maps street view of that area suddenly and abruptly ends. Try it yourself, street view is selectively available only on some streets in that area.

Ordinary Russians live in old and dilapidated soviet era buildings that are not renovated since forever. They eat cheap food that could be poisonous, pretty women could be trafficked to the West to work as prostitutes and men drafted into military to build mansions for the elite for free or even slaughtered for donor organs. To keep people content, the elite keeps their wealth secret and feed people tall stories about Nazis in Ukraine so that they hate the West and not the elites that rob them.

As someone who was once close to that elite inner circle and then fell into being a commoner due to some actions by my parents or their enemies, kind of like Doflamingo in One Piece, I uniquely can tell you something like that.

What Russian Elties are Like

To understand Russian elites, you need to understand what Vikings are. After all, pretty much the same people raided northern coasts of France and later became Dukes of that area, pillaged monasteries in Ireland, established Danelaw in England, Norman Kingdom in Sicily and Norman (pre-Plantagenet) rule in England, spearheaded by Willam the Conqueror invasion as well.

Vikings got to what later became Russia because they looked for a river route to Constantinople (Tzargrad, Milkegard) for trading purposes. They founded their first cities along that route Old Ladoga, Great Novgorod (Holmgardr), Smolensk and Kyiv were their main resting outposts along that long and rather onerous path. That path included dragging Viking dragon boats (ladya in Russian historiography) over Valdai hills from River Volkhov to Dnipro as well as dragging them up and down the Dnipro rapids.

Vikings were both traders and warriors. They would trade if they can, steal if they can, even work as bodyguards. To top it up they were excellent sailors. Boats they used required cohesive work as a team to operate. As traders they would explore all possible routes to get somewhere. As raiders they would come by fast boats, steal as much as they can fast and then run for it before regular military could respond. If they could defeat regular military, they would do so and then establish their rule by force, Danelaw is good example how Vikings fight and rule. Vikings did use helmets that among other things disguised their facial features which was handy when you wanted to use the gold you had stolen from someone to later buy something that cannot be readily stolen.

All that require flexibility, pragmatism, cynicism, brutality, military ability, high intelligence and knowledge of various things, good judgement of situation and ability to take advantage of it. However, that also require teamwork and trust in fellow comrades. 

That is a lot. Individuals with such high and diverse aptitude for so many things can go far. Both in good and in bad things. What did they used it for?

The most important factor that unites all the diverse activities of the Vikings is greed. You can trade to enrich yourself; you can steal to enrich yourself; you can conquer the country and later tax it to enrich yourself, you can sail twisty rivers across the vast wilderness to enrich yourself, you can explore that said vast wilderness in search for valuables to enrich yourself. Greed connects it all. 

Unrestrained greed or Avaritionism (pictured above) is the uniting and enduring characteristic of Russian elites.

How It Works

If Dark Age Vikings could overcome best defenses France could offer and steal their wealth until French King was forced to compromise with them, then their descendants could easily overcome various legal barriers on procurement tenders and syphon all money into private pockets. 

Complicated anti-corruption laws, aimed at preventing syphoning money for private use, ended up outwitted by even more cunning bureaucrats. Conflict of interest laws can be beaten by having buddy run a private company from whom his bureaucratic friend procures goods on marked up prices. Anti-Monopoly laws can be beaten by having buddies own all the major companies. No matter what they throw at them, the greedy descendants of Vikings somehow always manage to steal enough to own superyachts while the remaining 99% starves and dies.

Communists even tried to solve that problem radically by abolishing money altogether, thinking that there could be no millionaires or greed if there is no money. That of course did not work. Cunning people still managed to become fabulously wealthy as the rest of the country went poor. After all money only represent wealth, wealth itself comes from things that are valuable. People will not stop desiring things even if money no longer exists.

Avaritionism is a ghost or a demon that haunts Russia ever since Rurik the Viking landed in Novgorod.

How Russian Government Works

Ruling elites are busy with two things, keep feeding their insatiable avarice and protecting their position in power that allows them to feed avarice in the first place. 

The successive elites and their governments try to shore up their positions to prevent hostile takeover. They rig elections, eliminate any potential opponents, suppress press from disclosing any information. Putin killing Navalny is one such case.

They hide their wealth away from prying eyes to prevent it from being stolen. They use offshore tax heavens and even suppress Google maps.

Eventually however someone figures out how to beat them. When elites fall, it's because someone even more cunning managed to overcome all the obstacles to power and took over anyway. 

That is why fighting corruption or oligarchs is near impossible task. Someone who get to their position against all odds due to their cunning in best/worst tradition of Kraterocracy, will not be dragged down from there easily. Fixing oligarchs or corruption in post-Soviet space is much harder than breaking down Standard Oil or finally dissolving Murdoch's media monopoly.

How Far it Permeates Russia

Greed is what build Russia, greed is what plagues Russia, greed is what destroys Russia. Is everywhere. It makes people achieve greatest and lowest feats.

The elites in power and simply shrewd people keep squeezing more and more from everyone around them. Putin diverts billions to build himself private palace, common street thugs surround careless pedestrians to take their wallets and mobile phones. It is never enough for them. They want more and more.

It drives people to emigrate too: unable to overcome the elites that hogged up everything valuable and fed up with bribe extorting bureaucracy and rampart crime, people try to escape cattle class and either try their luck elsewhere or live in peace in safer country.

Those who cannot emigrate either become alcoholics or even kill themselves.

Recently European Union decided to try and beat greed with greed by offering people European lifestyle in exchange for reforms and tackling corruption. Its making inroads in Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine and Armenia.

Next, I will write about Americans inventing and practicing Orwellian INGSOC. Stay tuned.

My Criticism of Christianity

Picture says endure capitalist sitting on your neck because God wills it.

A response to indented text:

So families, fair treatment of all, mercy, forgiveness, sobriety, humility, compassion, peacemaking, welcoming the downtrodden, curing the sick, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, giving to the poor, visiting those in prison, protecting the poor from tyrants and tax collectors (Proverbs 25:5 Mark 12:40-43), and not forcing others to follow your way of life as love from fear is not love at all? I could go on, but I trust you understand my point.

I do not say all of this to rag on you, sibling. Rather, I say this to help open your eyes. You have been fed lies about faith and Christians. I pray that you also have your eyes opened by the spirit and that I may greet you in paradise. No sin is unforgivable, and we will take you in with open arms. Go in peace.

Caring for poor is too ambiguous, what are the concrete solutions Church has? Social Libertarianism has UBI, can Christianity offer more than that, more money than what UBI offers that is?

Also, most of Christian help are prayers and stuff like secondhand cloth? What Christianity does is not sufficient to fix the problem, it more about keeping people struggle forever rather than make sure they do not struggle. Christianity wants to be seen as caring for poor rather than do something that can actually change things?

I prefer when its individuals over families rather than the other way around, my family was bad, and I do not like when people prioritize families over individuals. They sideline me in social housing because of families so families be damned.

I do not want to forgive my dad for stealing a lot of my money and both of my parents for being abusive parents. There are plenty of other people who did bad things to me, and I do not want to forgive them. They should pay for offences they committed.

Peace is overrated, earth suffer from overpopulation, war and COVID can fix that, prayers do not.

Also, this, probably not your denomination, but here Patriarchs of Moscow and Constantinople excommunicating each other over question of whether Ukraine should have its own Church or not. Moscow Church thinks they own Ukraine and excommunicate those who disagree. How fair is that?

My take on what is left on political compass.

 

Part of this this reddit game.

Red is either lifestyle cultural leftism that wants to create feminist society or equally lifestyle Christianity that want pious society. I oppose both left cultural values and Christian cultural values, both of these clashes with Libertarian Egoist values that I espouse.

Synd is economic but far too radical, society where only trade unions have political power will not work for non-unionized employees.

Orange has stronger economic focus and more moderate than red so it's better. Both Christian Distributism and left Market Soc has interesting ideas. However, they are overly limited and outdated due to automation.

Yellow is baseline stuff that just works. However, it can and should be improved.

Green is Georgism, heavy tax on land is great idea that can finally break power of landlords without endangering individualistic and free nature of society. However, it lacks more comprehensive solutions to other issues.

Blue is the most based. UBI is future proof solution to social issue. Fully Automated factories is the best form of production. This is our future. For obvious reasons, fully automated factory cannot be owned by those who work there. So, for this future to work people should be given money for free. Then with this money they will be able to get anywhere in life. People who disagree either fail to see reality or really evil and want everyone to live in misery like Cambodia under Pol Pot.

Because of the above, Social Libertarianism is the only ideology that can guarantee to make life better, more fun, secure, affluent and enjoyable. Those who do not support it hate good things.

Overton Window

Overton window according to me, Ideologies I consider acceptable. Middle is Social Libertarianism. 

Top row is Market Socialism, Social Democracy and Liberaltarianism

Middle row is Libertarian Market Socialism, Social Libertarianism and Libertarianism

Bottom row is Mutualism, Individualism and Egoism

You can read details about each of these ideologies in the links provided.

5 Main Political Cultures

 

Nowadays there is multitude of different ideologies. Some of these combine two three different terms together. Some try to either broaden the appeal by reaching out to other groups. Others try to add different ingredients to their formula in order to mitigate their shortcomings and achieve the most workable outcome. Others, yet experiment and try to create a hybrid ideology.

However, all ideologies can be subdivided into 5 broad categories or political cultures. These 5 cultures are fundamental aspirations behind all other ideologies.

There are fundamentally 5 types of people and 5 types of thinking. Fundamental differences between these types of thinking create political divisions as each of them pushes policy towards their direction.

Liberalism is middle of the way here; it can work with all other types.

All other four cultures can work jointly with its neighbors but not with its polar opposite. There cannot be Utilitarian Libertarianism or Social Conservatism.

Liberalism

Liberalism is center because of several reasons. The most important is because this ideology is somewhat of a compromise between the other 4. The second is Liberalism is more or less modern political consensus, thus making it current center most ideology.

Liberalism aspires to create liberty, equality of opportunity, give everyone a fair goes and ultimately produce free society. This is the most prevailing ideology so one hears about liberal values and principles very often and from highest political figures.

Historically liberalism dismantled old feudal structures. Currently it often opposes other ideologies in an attempt to safeguard current socio-political system.

Additionally, liberalism offers middle ground compromise between opposing tendencies. It's a middle ground between socialism and conservatism as well as between utilitarianism and libertarianism.

Conservatism

Conservatism is associated with tradition and such, but that is not its main aspiration. Nowadays conservatism is poorly understood and shrouded with fog of confusion and misunderstanding.

Key to understanding this ideology is word "serve", that one can hear rather often in various different often unconnected circumstances. Conservatism is about serving someone.

Often conservatism creates extensive hierarchical networks of servitude where subordinates serve their superiors. Often such hierarchies are based on seniority, social status and other such criteria beyond individual control. Supreme authority is often concentrated in a single person whom everyone ultimately serves either directly or through the intermediaries. Often even such figure serves God or something as intangible as God.

People rarely advocate this ideology openly, but it often creeps into everything either through inaction or through unspoken expectations, force of habit and such.

Traditional enemy of liberalism, conservatism still covertly opposes it on many corners. 

No matter how much Liberalism insist on rule of law and individual liberty, person enforcing rules might ignore rule book and act based on personal judgement. Fair go and opportunity can also be in short supply when person in charge plays favorites and make biased decisions.

Conservatism is popular with old or privileged people as conservatism tend to place both of these groups in privileged position relative to younger people. Seniority is the most typical form of distribution of power and privileges in conservatism.

Conservatism ideal is Jesus, who sacrificed himself for humanity. They aim to make other to sacrifice for their own self-interest. Conservatism is the reason for Christianity continued popularity. 

Conservatism is like cockroach, that somehow manages to dodge all pest control and infiltrate liberal society.

Socialism

This one is very loud ideology. Even actual elected politicians sometimes claim to support it. It has plenty of civilian activists who relentlessly push for it to be implemented. This is the most visible ideology that often makes it hard to even notice anything beside them and what they oppose. 

That does produce distorted view of political landscape as well as nature of many ideologies. Socialists understand many ideologies they oppose incorrectly and often push these incorrect views on the rest of society.

Socialism aims to create economic equality. Not in the sense of equal opportunity but in the sense that everyone should have the same living conditions no matter who they are. They believe everyone deserves the same level of economic wellbeing. 

Socialism semi-consciously opposes meritocracy, believing that no matter how deserving person is, they should not be better off than the rest. That puts it at odds even with Liberalism that believed in rewarding merit. This dichotomy often dominates political discourse.

Socialists tend to believe that people deserve more help if they are disenfranchised to compensate for their impairments. That sometimes lead towards situation where people who are better at communicating their needs in language socialists understand get disproportional amount of help and get ahead in life on that alone.

Socialism likes to champion feminism, multiculturalism, racial minorities, sexual minorities and other such causes of people they deem disenfranchised. That sometimes gets them support from some, but not all of those groups. Core of socialists comes not from these groups but from those who wish to enfranchise them.

Socialism is popular with women, most likely because they hope to get in contact with black guys through that.

Socialist ideal is something akin to Navi from Avatar movie, that explains popularity of this franchise.

Modern Socialism rallies behind its red banners diverse group of mostly emotional people, including those who do not really understand what it stands for but want to be part of some cool movement.

Historically Socialism was about wage employee rights and interests, similar to what unions do, but that original cause gets more and more eclipsed by social activism.

Libertarianism

Libertarianism is often misunderstood. Some connect it with conservatism, radicalism, anarchism or even Nazism. The fact that many liberaltarians support legalizations of guns, drugs and other such measures does not help here.

In reality libertarianism is a lot less radical than many other ideologies. Its closest to liberalism than pretty much any other ideology. Libertarianism takes idea of individual liberty from liberalism and takes it to the extreme. In a way libertarianism is fundamentalist liberalism. 

Libertarianism aims to make people as free as possible by maximizing individual liberty. To that end libertarians want to legalize everything that can possibly be legalized. That does include guns, drugs, prostitution and many other things.

Libertarianism is staunchly individualistic. Unlike conservatism and socialism that want to unite and connect people, albeit in different ways, libertarianism insists on private space and only accepts voluntary associations. Libertarians do not want to be fettered by structures or connections with people they do not like.

Libertarianism is fundamentally hedonistic and libertine. Libertarians want to achieve personal satisfaction, happiness and fulfillment. They do not want anything to stand in the way of their happiness. That is why some libertarians oppose state and taxes that take away money they could spend on pleasure and such. Religion and moral are also not libertarian, but paleo libertarians seem to glue it to this ideology.

Libertarians do not believe in helping any especially disenfranchised people or such. Much like liberals, libertarians believe in equality of opportunities rather that equity.

Social Libertarians support welfare, but they prefer welfare systems such as UBI where everyone gets flat sum of money every so often to do anything they wish with. Libertarians think that this is fairer than give more or less money to some based on what government thinks is best. After all who is to judge who is more or less deserving.

Some of libertarian symbols are rattle snake and porcupine animals that are dangerous in defense but harmless if you leave them alone. Libertarians want the rest of the society to live them alone and let them do what they want to do. This is one value that unites all libertarians.

Max Sturner who does what he wants and opposes any attempts to control him by outside forces or ideologies, represents libertarian mindset well.

Libertarianism is popular with young, smart and capable men who wish to realize their potential and achieve personal happiness. To that end they wish to eliminate all impediments to their aspirations.

Libertarian ideal is own a private tropical island, mansion, super yacht and be surrounded by cute maid servants. 

Libertarianism is ideology without ideology or anti-ideology. People who do not want to be cannot fodder for someone else are gravitating towards this ideology. This is ideology of personal freedom and fulfilment.

Utilitarianism

This is the most obscure and invisible of all political cultures, yet there are many of them and they are very influential. 

They themselves do not call themselves utilitarian. Often, they do not call themselves anything at all. If they use any term for themselves its often something as generic as Union, Democrat or centrist.

Fundamentally utilitarians concern themselves with preservation and greater good of society and state. Some might call it communitarian, but I think utilitarian is somewhat better term as it implies pragmatism in sense of opting for approach that works rather than what right in theory.

Utilitarians are neither conservative, nor socialist, nor libertarian nor even liberal. They aim at preserving and protecting society, state and government. Many of them are statists and do what they think will make state stronger.

Utilitarianists do not see themselves as ideology but rather consider themselves adherents of common sense and good governance.

Common good as they see it may lead them towards sacrificing anything, including prosperity, individual freedom or ancient traditions. Covid response with lockdowns and such was a typical utilitarianist measure.

Due to it rather unprincipled stance, not anchored to any one value or principle, it can be both ally or enemy of both conservatives, liberals and socialists.

Utilitarianism can be both caring and indifferent at the same time. It can disperse subsidies to corporations but ignore homeless and the like. Often, he is shadow behind every government decision.

Many ideologies that seem to have little in common with each other are representatives of utilitarianism. Peronism, Third Way, Distributism, Christian Democracy, State Socialism, State Capitalism and even Fascism and Nazism are all Utilitarianist ideologies.

Utilitarianism is popular with bureaucrats (public servants), people who work in government financed organizations and those who are well off in the current system and because of that do not want to change anything.

Utilitarians do not have ideal per se. Instead, they have fears. They fear chaos, change and collapse of the system. They do what they think will prevent any of that. 

Also, utilitarians have undue dislike for libertarians due to their principal individualist stance. Utilitarians are communitarian and libertarians are individualist. Libertarians care for their freedom and utilitarians only care for their lives.

Utilitarianism is invisible and diffused ideology that nonetheless secretly unites a lot of people behind of idea of protecting society and state.

Conclusion

These 5 political tendencies, each have different aspirations and basic premises, each push politics in different directions. All other ideologies can be either boil down to one of these or consider a hybrid of several of these tendencies in different proportions. These 5 tendencies will help you better understand politics or how different ideologies relate to each other. This is a political compas that actually works.

Why Russians Believe in Nazis in Ukraine

This is part of the series about how nations extrapolate their fears on others. The introduction can be found here. I will write other articles later as each takes a lot of time.

In the West idea of Nazis in Ukraine is not taken any more seriously than half-baked excuse on the level of "dog ate my homework". People think it's just face-saving exercise by Russian government invented on the go. Nobody takes this statement with any degree of seriousness. 

That is why no one in the West could believe that a lot of people in Russian Federation actually think about it seriously and with great concern. Yet, as unbelievable as it sounds, in Russia people are indeed concerned and worried over this. That raises question: why so?

What Russians Understand by Nazi

To begin with I need to explain what they even understand by Nazi. By nazis they understand organized groups of people who commit sectarian hate crime and cleansing against people of other ethnicities. The closest example of such mindset in the West can be found in Northern Ireland where antagonism between Catholics and Protestants led towards civil strife, called The Troubles. Animosity escalated into violence, and it took many years of fighting and followed by length negotiations to reach ceasefire.

Ukrainian situation has a lot in common with Norther Ireland. Even such superficial things such as special symbolism of color orange. Both countries had insurgent armies, that fought against their occupier, Irish Republican Army and Ukrainian Insurgent Army have a lot in common.

However Northern Irish mindset, that led them towards such civil strife, is hardly understood elsewhere in the Western world. Even other parts of the UK seem do not care or even understand why Northern Irish Catholics and Protestants cannot get along. Despite Irish unionist desire to keep ties to UK, most modern Brits think that Northern Ireland has nothing to do with them and wish they all would just move on. Even politicians who tried to resolve Northern Ireland problems seem to think Northern Irish are illogical and solving their problems are impossible. Northern Ireland problem even beame a figure of speech for unsovable issue. Yet despite being isolated in this sectarian way of thinking, both sides of Northern Ireland conflict persist in pushing for their cause.

Ukraine has similar strife between pro-Russian Russophone unionists and pro-Ukrainian Ukrainophone Nationalists. The difference here is that unlike public of the rest of the UK who would prefer Northern Ireland to just disappear, many Russians are very concerned and involved in similar conflicts in former USSR. It's like if in average Brit would say and think something like let's help our fellow Unionist British to beat these Catholic IRA Nazis and protect our Ireland. Irish Unionists could only dream of such support from the rest of the UK, but Russians somehow different about it. Such sentiment allows Putin to win popular support by getting himself involved in this issue, rather than lose it. 

Why they Think There are Nazis in Ukraine

However, why Russia thinks like people of Northern Ireland. You can partly blame it on Soviet propaganda that demonized Stepan Bandera and Ukrainian Insurgent Army and linked them to Nazis, equating Bandera with Quisling. 

Even when Soviet Government defeated the UIA, the propaganda kept telling Soviets about Banderites, hiding somewhere in the woods of Western Ukraine.

Modern Russian propaganda claims that Ukrainian Insurgent Army saw a resurgence after the collapse of USSR and now commit hate crimes against pro-Russian Russophones. These actions lead towards increasing antagonism between Russophones and Ukrainophones in Ukraine. 

What Makes One Russian in Russian Eyes

However, why idea of ethnic based insurgency is relatable in Russia in the first place? That is because public in Russia base their identity on ethnicity and language rather than on place of birth or residence. That makes them view themselves not as people who live in what is geographically defined as Russia, but as a linguistic, cultural and ethnic group that is defined by common ancestry, language and culture. By this definition there could be Russians anywhere in the world. 

To better understand difference between these two distinct ways of thinking, I will bring example of from citizenship law. In citizenship law there are two main approaches to how citizenship is conferred on individual: jus soli and jus sanguine. Jus soli mean based on place of birth. The best and most extreme example is the American citizenship law that convers the US citizenship on every person, who is born on the US territory. Alternative is jus sanguine that confers citizenship based on descent from another citizen. Thus, a child born in the US from a German mother would be citizen of both these countries, but a child born in Germany to an American mother would be neither American nor German. Some transitional arrangements aimed at preventing statelessness would likely eventually confer such child one or the other citizenship, but here is a difference in principle. The Americans think if a person is born in the US that makes him American, if a person is born in the other country, that makes him national of that country. Germans or Russians do not think this way, instead they think if a person is born to a parent who is our national, then child is also out national. If a person born to some other country's national, then they are national of country of their parent.

That principle applies to a common people rule of thumb judgement by common people. For an American people in Crimea or Donbas are Ukrainians because they live in Ukraine. For a Russian they are Russians because they speak Russian language, have Russian culture and likely descendent from people of mainland Russia. Because of that Russians support war to protect other Russians.

How This Affect How Russians Behave

Jus sanguine way of thinking produce division of people based on their ethnicity. In America color of skin is a determiner of race. In mostly white countries it is instead language, culture or religion that divide people into us and them. Russia itself is no stranger to ethnic prejudice, in occupied Crimea Russia discriminates and oppresses Muslim Tatar minority. Russia uses this and other minorities to mobilize and unite Russophones against people of different ethnicity or culture.

However, if Russophone leadership of occupied Crimea treats Tatars and Ukrainophones as second-class citizens outsiders then they can simultaneously assume that if a Tatar or Ukrainophone would take power, they would treat Russophones as second-class citizens and favor their ethnicity and culture instead. That is why Russophones got concerned when Ukrainophone Yushchenko prevailed against Russophone Yanukovych during Orange Revolution. 

That started the fire. Russian media further splashed petrol into this fire but running fake reports about ethnic strife and violence in Ukraine. That is how linguistic, cultural and ethnic identity pushes Russophone to unite against outsiders. After years of escalating propaganda, Russophones were radicalized against Ukrainophones and by now welcome Russian troops as "liberators" much to a delight of Putin who sees his ratings go up.

Historical Origins of This Way of Thinking

However, why most Russians are so attached to this common ethno-cultural identity. In the end of the day just because someone of the same ethnicity as you do not guarantee they will treat you well. From my experience, Russophones are the least welcoming of ethnicities. That could be because they perceived me as outsider of some sorts. That eventually led me to think I am likely not Russian after all.

The answer to that possibly lies in history. What is now Russia used to be fringe of border area of many civilizations. Unlike the US, where most migrants arrived at the time when society was already organized and orderly, in Russia there was no any law culture or society. The area was open field Social Darwinist place where one could carve himself a way with either cunning of violence. Vikings from Scandinavia ended up competing and eventually dislodging Judaistic Hazars and Iranic Scythians for power and control over Slavic and Finno-Ugric locals. Later Mongols and Turkic Tatars also entered the fry and tried to dislodge Vikings, creating an empire with former Viking elites as middlemen. People from all these different areas ended up competing for power and influence in these conditions. 

Environment like that would lead towards people seeing fellow ethno-cultural group as potential allies and all newcomers or generally any different people as potential danger. This sentiment evolved into modern day instinctual near fascist obsession with Russian world and preservation of Russian people against any outsiders.

Conclusion

Being themselves discriminative against other ethno-cultural groups, Russians fear similar discrimination from other ethnicities. That leads towards support for military actions against any such groups. Particularly those who theoretically can be defeated easily. 

How Humans Extrapolate Their Own Fears on Others

In my previous blog post about propaganda in the US and USSR I wrote about how misleading propaganda is and why it is dangerous to start believing your own propaganda. However, there is more to propaganda then a simple desire to demonize the enemy and unite people behind your flag and ideology. 

However, after some thinking I concluded that demons of propaganda do not even come from abroad. Instead, they originate from within the country itself and represent the native society at its worst. Then these qualities are simply extrapolated on the foreign country that sometimes barely fits the demons, propaganda associate with it. 

After all people can only understand others based on ideas and concepts, they themselves have. When one sees someone doing something they do not get in everyday life, they often dismiss that person as stupid. However, when the entire countries do something so stupid it cannot be dismissed as stupidity and so brainstorming begins in attempt to understand reasons for certain puzzling actions. However often even the best analysts could not discern the actual reasons. After all their perception just as limited as that of the ordinary person. Thus a explanation based on demons of internal origin is the most likely outcome of such brainstorming. 

That works not even on far away countries that locals have little chance to get in contact with but even towards its neighbors. The US have many unrealistic believes about Canada, that are perpetrated in its pop culture. Russia similarly has many unrealistic believes about Ukraine that is far from truth. Yet both societies insist on believing them. Even some Russophones who live in Ukraine believe in Russian myth about Nazis in Ukraine.

All these myths exist because countries that created them have these qualities in themselves. Origin of some of these demons can be traced all the way back to the events under which the country has originated.

Sometimes these myths are so strange and unique to the country that begotten them, that no one else in the world can possibly understand them. EU and the US cannot believe in Nazis in Ukraine, EU and the world cannot understand right wing of the US politics, Russia cannot understand capitalism or liberalism and the West cannot understand Russian oligarchs.

Despite no one else getting it, the origin country tends to stick with its vision, insisting on its own interpretation. It's like a collective trauma of sorts: those who did not experience it themselves cannot get it and think its senseless. However, the country that experienced it stubbornly sticks to its guns. Acute memories of the past, that exist in subconsciousness, prevent them from thinking otherwise.

I will cover Nazis in Ukraine first as this is simpler than the other two. 

Then I will write about capitalism and communism in Russia and finally about totalitarianism and freedom in the US.

Short and Simple Explanation of What Different Ideologies Mean

There is something called Social Liberalism or simple paternalism.

Social Liberalism adds welfare to otherwise liberal society that makes people free.

Paternalistic conservatism adds welfare to otherwise conservative society that preserves property rights and traditional values.

Distributism adds redistribution of means of production between as many people as possible, creating small businesses. 

Social Democracy adds welfare but governs based on common good rather than liberty.

Social Libertarianism is like Social Liberalism but more radical in getting as much freedom as possible.

I oppose Conservatism, because it tends to create a two-class society where property owners are treated as first class citizens (landlords) and non-property owners as second-class citizens (villeins, cotters, peasants, tenants). Also, its ageist and treats older people better than younger ones. 

Liberalism (proper non-conservative liberalism) wants to give everyone freedom and equal opportunities for success.

Libertarianism (proper libertarianism of non-paleo type) wants maximization of individual freedom. 

Market Socialism wants companies to be organized as co-op so that workers rather than shareholders vote on who gets to be directors and managers as well as how company is run.

Non-Market Socialism wants to eliminate competition between companies as well and often also make everyone's level of wealth the same, so that there are no rich or poor. Statist version will do it by nationalization and non-statist by something like syndicatist industry wide arrangements (unions). 

Communism wants everything to be as common and free to use by anyone as benches in a park.

Ideologies of My Parents

Some people think that my ideologies are radical, however I think they are realistic and fairly balanced. They are much saner than ideologies of my parents.

Dad

Dad believed in combination of Social-Darwinism, Primitivism and Natural Law Theory. 

For Social Darwinism, he would say things that if something is stolen from you it's your fault for not protecting it. He would defend thieves and blame victims for being weak, helpless and provoking ire of powerful to begin with.

For primitivism he liked various 19th century things, rusty 19th century irons, log houses, traditional clay pech (closes thing), pit outhouses that stink mile away and villages with no sewage and running water, where you need to use manual well to draw water.

Finally, he liked to claim some ambiguous natural law as ordained by nature or something like that. He used it to justify some of his crazier views and believes. He was simultaneously Christian but did not adhere to any existing doctrines and often used Christianity to justify his natural law.

Mom

Mom was not that much into politics. The only thing she liked to say is: "Mom is always right, even if she is wrong. Because she is mom." Exact quote, srs.

Me

Considering all of the above, it's not too strange that I ended up becoming Individualist Social-Alt-Libertarian. I want to undo all the stupidity, my parents believed in and practiced. I want a society that does not repeat the mistakes of my parents that lead towards misery and privation.

Against Bookchin's Libertarian Municipalism

 

Left has plenty of downright delusional ideologies that contradict themselves on many levels. This one call itself libertarian, but at the same time opposes individualism and egoism.

Under the hood this is nothing more than a cultural communism than ponders to radically moralist leftists that want to create a pseudo-utopia where everyone lives like in kibbutz or something. The kind of people that think that living like Navi from Avatar would be cool. This ideology gives them a false hope it's possible.

Needless to say, that this is retarded on many levels. Just like most communists, it overlooks people who care for themselves more than for the "community". Such an oversight would eventually lead towards it becoming no less totalitarian than Stalinism was.

Fundamentally this wandered too far away from the initial issues that led communists to power in the first place. Workers desire to own and control their workplaces directly and not be hostage to decisions of the managers and owners. Instead, it talks about ecology, making it ecological communism.

Moreover, ecologism is incompatible with communism simply because the industrial plants where these workers work are the biggest polluters out there. Destroying these plants is akin to destroying the foundation on which communism was build. 

Saying something that workers struggle is about pollution shows lack of any understanding of what workers life is like or reality of industrial plant is like. That shows than Bookchin has no idea what he even talks about.

Workers do not want to work harder so that their boss can buy himself another yacht, they want this prosperity in their pockets, and they want to make rules on their plant. The very thought that they want plant to be shut because its polluting is ludicrous to begin with.

In Support of Techno-Liberalism

 

Not so long ago I wrote case against technocracy, harshly criticizing that ideology. Here I will write about is liberal alternative, techno-liberalism. 

Unlike technocracy that seeks to replace democracy and liberty with (authoritarian) rule by scientists, techno-liberalism instead seeks to safeguard liberty and democracy using technology. Unlike technocracy, techno-liberalism wants to use technology to enhance life and make people freer than even before. That is a very based goal.

Many politicians I like can be considered techno-liberals, for example Andrew Yang. People like Yang actually propose sensible and well thought solutions to problems we face. For example, universal basic income.

Depend on definition, there are several different policies that are grouped together as techno-liberalism. Some of them are more based than others. Only those that increase personal freedom are good though. Some glue ecology to tech-lib but that should be avoided.

Technology can transform society in many great ways, but only if people who decide how to use it aspire to create more liberty and prosperity. If such people are opposed to freedom or liberty, they will create the next INGSOC instead. That is why techno-liberalism with special emphasis on individual liberty is based and technocracy is dangerous.

Let we have Social Libertarian Techno Liberalism. SLTL.

Is Rock Left or Right?

 

I often find that rock songs better speak to my values and world view than many other things. For example, Writing on the Wall by Iron Maiden. It does combines elements associated with both left and right, especially by American standards. It's in favor of common men and against rich, bureaucrats, dictators and all other privileged exploiters of poor people. 

I once wrote a longer description for this song:

Writing on the Wall is about revolution that is coming. There are more fine details. Like how starving people pull a rocket and a dictator on top of it. That looks like North Korea and China (PRC). Ruch guy rides in a limo pulled by a horse, while an astronaut had to walk on clutches. There is a closed area that is guarded by armed guards where ordinary people are not allowed. However, where it is dark and gloomy and some clown dj plays some pop music probably.

The most telling however is the old dude getting younger by draining lifeforce from a guy and a girl in two tubes. I it is a great metaphor of how rich old people like Rupert Murdoch, Warren Buffet and Geroge Soros keep themselves alive even at their 90+ age as expense of the young.

It is good that Samurai Eddie finally put a end to it all and saved the people who are exploited by the old rich. Undead Samurai Eddie saves the world. 

He gave them an apple, which is a biblical metaphor for knowledge.

I think this song and several other can actually represent Social Libertarianism well enough.

Me, Rock and Social Libertarianism do not subscribe to 3rd way progressive agenda, we are not pro peace and pro inclusion, we do not shy away from killing. In that regard we are like right.

However, we stand for the common man, not for government or rich or property. We do not support old, rich, property owners or fiscal conservatism. We are pro people.

That is Social Libertarianism manifesto of sorts. In a way this song is a Social Liberatarianism manifesto. 

On Anarchism

Since I support certain anarchist ideologies, I decided to write about how I understand anarchism. After all there are many conflicting definitions as to what anarchism actually entails.

First of all, I do not support chaos that is often associated with anarchy. Bunch of drunk idiots wreaking havoc is not what it is about.

Also, I do not believe in abolition of state. Complete abolition of state will create a vacuum of power that would be filled with violence by the strongest gang that will enforce its rule over the society. Abolition of state will lead to Kraterocacy rather than Anarchy.

Finally, both Anarcho-Communism and Anarcho-Capitalism is impossible. 

AnCap does not work because without a state with police and army, there is no one to enforce any property rights. Thus, people could simply kill the owner and take possession of the property. Anarcho-Egoism would rule supreme, until it becomes Kraterocracy.

AnCom similarly does not work, as without state people would simply take all someone produces leaving everything in short supply to non-existent. Knowing it could just be taken immediately after its finished, people will stop producing anything. Eventually society will devolve into foraging for food like in AnPrim before becoming Kraterocracy ruled by violence.

Now that I outlined what anarchism is not, I will outline what it is. The most important part here is no authority. By that I mean no authority over individual. Rule of law that is associated with liberal democracy is a step in that direction. 

However, we should not stop at just that. We should go further and maximize individual freedom by minimizing any authority an individual can have over other individual. Various hierarchical structures, religion, ideology, family and abusive relationships all take away that individual freedom. We should oppose them and strive towards Individualistic, even Autarchic society, where every individual can do whatever, they want. That is what Anarchy, particularly Anarcho-Individualism is about. No Gods or Masters over individuals. Freedom

One Inconvenient Truth that will Anger Supporters of Both Socialism and Capitalism

According to Marx's own definition (but not according to Marxist definition) we already live in Socialism. It was implemented somewhere between 1910s and 1930s depend on country and it only entrenched itself since then. 

Capitalism was before FDR's New Deal and Lyndon B Johson's Great Society. What came after is socialism.

Cold war was fought not between capitalism and socialism, but between western socialism, that calls itself liberal democracy and eastern technocracy that called itself socialism. Socialism, called liberal democracy, won.

Now we are on course of transitioning towards communism (once again as defined by Marx and not Marxists). Once again, it's not called communism, but rather Universal Basic Income.

There sure is a lot of irony in that.

Real Problem with Governance in Ukraine

 

Many like to say and think that problem in governance in Ukraine and other post-Soviet states lies in centralization. That by extension means that giving more power to local authorities would solve the problems country facing. In certain aspects power in Ukraine in indeed more centralized that that in western countries. 

However, that is incorrect to think that this is the root of problems in Ukraine. The biggest problem is not centralization but rather concentration of power in certain positions. Including those of some local authorities.

In Ukraine governors and mayors have power over everything that happens in their province or city. Such concentration of power essentially creates local dictators with absolute local power. 

There is a danger in such concentration of power in one local office. Some of local rulers can grow nearly as independent as medieval barons, with equally detrimental results to Ukraine as whole.

In contrast in the west power is carefully dispersed between variety of entities of different levels of authority. Different organizations and institutions within the same city are controlled by different levels of government and even departments within the same government. Some controlled by local authorities and others by state or federal ones. 

That means that even if mayors and local consuls are independently elected, collect their own revenue through rates and can spend these money and act independently without any intake from the higher tiers of government. 

That however does not make them too powerful as important originations in the city are controlled by central authorities directly and local authorities have no say over what happens there.

Take for example Port of Odesa that is controlled by elected mayor of Odesa. This makes positions of mayor of Odesa very powerful and financially lucrative as it controls both profits and functioning of the port. 

That however makes positions of mayor of Odesa beholden to the interests of the port and people who control it. That leads to situation where port mafia spends money and influence to keep control over the Odesa consul and mayor. Mayor, installed by port mafia, keeps port mafia interests above interests of city residents and even Ukraine as a whole. 

That lead to port and mafia becoming fabulously rich and everyone else staying poor. National interests of Ukraine are sidelined by those of the port mafia. communal interest of Odesa residents is also ignored by mayor who knows that keeping port mafia happy is what keeps him in power and not citizens of the city. That is bad for people of Odesa and bad for Ukraine as a whole.

In the west port as major as Odesa would be controlled by port authority directly and not by mayor and consul. That port authority could be rather independent but ultimately would answer to central government and not to an elected mayor.

Doing the same in Ukraine would solve many problems. Mayor of Odesa would be untangled from port and its interests and could focus more on the communal interests of people of the city. The Port of Odesa, essential for national interests of Ukraine, would not be beholden to unaccountable mafia, who misuses democracy to cover their robber baron practices.

As a general rule Ukraine should study what exact powers and responsibilities are delegated to each layer of government in the west. Then implement the same division of power in Ukraine. SBU might have to take control of port of Odesa directly and then keep providing security there. 

Slimmed down and divided authority would lead to a situation where each organization could focus and its functional responsibility and will be free from power struggles between big players such as mafia, central government or even Russian meddling. 

Case Against Technocracy

 

Here by technocracy, I mean not technological advancement, transhumanism or civilization. I mean an illiberal illiberal rule of the scientists and "educated" people as defined here.

At first this looks innocent. Scientists are people with knowledge about rules by which out universe operates, why should not such people have a greater say over how society is governed.

However, this is not as innocent as its seems. If you think critically, you will notice issues with this system. 

Many Sciences Are Far from Benevolent based on Practices

Being a scientist is by no mean assures benevolence or good will towards those they rule. Biological Scientists for example make rather cruel experiments on lab rats, other animals or even humans as part of their research. If you give them the privilege to rule over society, they will extrapolate their attitudes towards their test subjects to the entire society. 

Medical science is no better than biological in that regard. Even if they take Hippocratic oath, that is just words. Reality of their work treats living bodies as subjects to fiddle with. It could produce arrogance and even God complex.

Psychology and psychiatry are even more dangerous. When one knows how psyche works, it's all too tempting to reshape humanity into something different. One starts by eliminating bad traits and ends up trying to create a utopia of saints.

Some disciplines people call science are rather dodgy. For example, climate science a lot closer to faith than to real science. It produces zealots, no less fanatical than crusaders or inquisition that burned heretics on the stake.

Of course, experiments of lab rats are useful for advancement of science and can produce remedies that are useful to people and make society a better place.

However, letting people who do these experiments rule society is unwise and dangerous. They are better off staying in their labs.

Power Corrupts

First of all, power corrupts and also attracts wicked people. Technocracy is fundamentally an oligarchy or a caste system. It assumes there is an educated elite who deserves to rule and everyone else who should follow the instructions of the elites they have no say over. 

That in itself produces disconnections between those who rule and those who are ruled. Technocrats in power would end up thinking in double standards, one much higher and privileges for themselves and the other one for the rest of the society. Eventually they will look at people they rule as nothing more than cattle to work for the masters or lab rats to experiment on. It would become a de-facto caste system.

Even if they are very moral and see themselves as benevolent, they will eventually start seeing themselves as wise messiah, who leads herd out of darkness. Blinded by such self-image, they can make even greater mistakes and act with greater cruelty, mislead by their limited perception of reality. 

Power can not only corrupt those who wields it, but it can also attract wicked people. A lot more dodge and abusive people would try to become scientists if they knew that it comes with the power over society. Some would inevitably succeed, leading towards ever decreasing quality of the scientific elite in power. Eventually it will create a caste of corrupt unchecked and unaccountable oligarchs, protected from scrutiny like priests of the Church.

That will not only compromise quality of governance but also quality of science. People who joined to rule rather than research will neglect the latter, causing technological progress to stall. They can also misuse their power to ruin prospective scientifically talented researchers from advancing in the system to protect their own grip on power.

Real Life Examples

Also, while technocracy seems like a new thing, it was actually tried several times in history. All these attempts paradoxically produced very technologically backward and oppressive totalitarian societies.

Most recent attempt was USSR and other Marxist-Leninist states. Yes, they were technocracies, not Franko or Pinochet like dictatorships. The cruelties and evils they unleashed on their people are well known. That also explains why people in academia kept justifying these regimes even in modern times.

Officials of USSR were so blinded of their self-perceived wisdom, they ignored plight of their people, believing they are doing something benevolent. They kept dissidents in psychiatric confinement, because they actually believed that psychiatry could actually turn them into a supporter of socialism. 

This arrogance blinded them and led towards heinous crimes against humanity. In that they were even worse that self-aware Nazis. At least Nazi were self-aware enough to know what they were doing was evil. Communist, blinded by their own zeal and uncritical believe in the doctrine, lacked such self-awareness. They were just like Garnier de Naplouse from Assassin Creed. 

One can commit crimes against humanity much more readily, if one believes it for some sort of good.

However, the biggest and longest lasting experiment in technocracy were European Middle Ages. One might argue that Middle Age Kingdoms were feudal rather than technocratic. That is of course true, but that overlooks one layer of power above that of Kings and their Kingdoms, the Pope and Catholic Church.

There were no Protestantism in Middle Ages, the only Christians were Catholics in the West and Orthodox in the East.

In Middle Ages Catholic Church and the Pope held a lot of power. They could authorize war, this essentially installing their favorite ruler as King of the Kingdom of their Choice. In that manner they installed Willaim the Conqueror right to rule England and gave Bohemia to Habsburgs. If they did not like king or any other ruler, they could excommunicate him. Excommunication meant not only ban on attending mass, but also gave all other Kings or even King's own subordinates blessing to take power from him by force. Many of the excommunicated swiftly lost not only their power, but also live. Pope even controlled who Kings could marry or divorce. 

For all effective purposes Popes were as much Kings superiors as Kings themselves were superiors to Dukes. Sure, some kings were managed to defy popes, but many more dukes similarly managed to defy their kings. For all effective purposes, power of Pope over Kings was much greater than Kings own power over their subjects.

Catholic Church of the Middle Ages were a totalitarian organization. It did not allow any freedom of speech. People who criticized or questioned doctrine were labelled heretics and sentenced to death by burning on the stake. Sometimes near entire ethnicities were subjected to that treatment, like for example Czechs of Bohemia during Jan Hus times.

Catholic Church was also infamously corrupt, they syphoned money from the rest of the society leaving them in poverty and misery. Simultaneously they themselves lived in luxury. During the Middle Ages Churches and their managers were the only well-endowed and decorated places in society.

Priests secretly defied the very principles and values they preached. Rodrigo Borgia (Pope Alexander IV) regularly organized orgies with multiple prostitutes, despite clericals vows of chastity. Church was epitome of hypocrisy and doble standards.

One final piece of the puzzle is how all that has anything to do with science and technocracy. Modern people tend to not associate Church and Science. Protestant denominations keep distance from science and often seen directly opposing science.

That is not the case with Catholic Church. Back in Middle Ages monks and priests were most educated and often the only literate members of society. Many universities were organized by the Church. Many early universities still have religious references in their logos. Some of Academic traditions still link universities with monasteries, for example hoods of the academic gown. Vatican still has ten academies in its small territory.

However, how well Church managed to advance science or technology. Not so well. For example, the burned Copernicus as heretic. Copernicus discovered that it is Earth that revolves around Sun and the other way around. Church's technocracy failed to recognize veracity of his research. 

Overall Middle Ages are seen as times of backwardness and darkness, despite the fact that semi-scientific entity held immense power during these times. That further proves that technocracy does not work.

Progress only happened when Church power diminished after reformation.

Fictional Examples

There is also a fictional example of technocracy in Shinsekai Yori novel and anime. Society depicted there is heavily censored and controlled. People live under constant surveillance and in constat fear of being removed by Ethics Commitee. Public narrative is deliberately falsified and most of the information is classified and inaccessible by ordinary people.

Quality of life is poor. Despite having control over the powers beyond human imagination, they lead more primitive life than modern humans.

Technocracy produced an INGSOC like society.

Conclusion

Both real and fictional examples of technocracy produce backward and dystopian societies that are horrible places to live in.

Because of that we need to protect our liberty and freedom. Do not let enemies of freedom erode liberalism and democracy.

Enemies of freedom disguise themselves under various guises, so one must stay vigilant against any restrictions of freedom, no matter under what "benevolent" pretext they are brought forward.

On the other hand, we can have Software Engineer-o-cracy. I am a Software Engineer myself; you can trust me. We created all these awesome technologies such as computers and internet. We are the only good science.

Real Lessons of Nazi Concentration Camps

Various historians like to talk about Nazi concentration camp. Some like to even present it as a unique crime against humanity never seen elsewhere. 

In reality Nazis copied the idea of their camps from Soviet Gulag. Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin did much worse than Nazis. North Korea, China and probably Russia still have concentration camps. However, communism and Russia biased commenters and historians always liked to single out German Nazis.

However, one other fundamental issue that communists like to claim that camps were created for extermination. That cannot hold against any critical thinking. Why does one need to waste money and build a camp when one can instead simply lead people into the forests and shoot them, like USSR did to Polish officers. You can even do that in basements of secret police buildings, like USSR did in basements of infamous KGB headquarters, called Lubyanka. 

If one can simply do that, then why build camps? The reason for that that camps originally were not intended to exterminate people inside. They did evolve or devolved into that over the course of WWII and evolution of Nazi regime.

Camps begun as simply way to intern political opponents and Jews. At this stage Nazis thought that Jews can be later resettled in Madagascar or somewhere else. So, they were kept there temporary.

Conditions were poor and oppressive from the start. Before taking power, Nazi were often pariahs and used the camps to settle scores with their opponents. Jews were targeted because Nazis believed that they are the only demographic that benefited from Germany's defeat in WWI. Nazis thought that that is because they were in cahoots with enemies of Germany already during the WWI. When in power Nazis thought to reverse this injustice by confiscating Jewish property and subjecting them to poor living conditions. Another reason was to isolate them from broader German society.

Communists had it worse since Nazis believed communist values and ideology is worst thing in the world and believed adherents of this ideology deserve only the worst. 

Many did connect Jews with Communism as many early leaders of October Revolution in Russia were Jewish, including Trotsky. So, some Jews suffered from alleged communist views even if they were not communists.

Finally, job of a camp guard would naturally attract abusive people who want to take advantage of the fact that camp inmates have no real way to fight back against abuse. Nazis never properly vetted applicants to camp guard positions. The abusive camp guards made camp conditions much worse than intended by architects.

During the peacetime camps did grew quite significantly as Nazis eventually realized that there were more opponents of their rule as they initially anticipated. Too many civilians sabotaged Nazis polices, so Nazis had to intern them too. Number of camps and number of inmates kept constantly growing. Anti-Nazis, Jenova Witnesses, Roma, draft evaders, anti-social and many others soon became new categories of inmates.

With number of camps this large it became hard to properly supervise any of that even if Nazis tried to. They had other things to worry about, so SS Totenkopf department of the SS in charge of guarding camps got nearly unrestricted and almost completely unsupervised rule over the camps and inmates. Camp guards acted with impunity, knowing that people will blame Hitler and Nazis rather than some humble guard with forgettable name.

Beginning of WWII did not made life in camps any easier. Many actual Germans were conscripted into military and government needed someone to replace them. Camp prisoners was not the best options but for the lack of better options government opted to use them.

Camp inmates had no reason to work properly for the oppressive regime that held them in contempt. Sabotage or even honest mistakes made quality of weapons and other goods they produce poor. 

That produced negative feedback loop. Every time tank just breaks down mid battle due to poor manufacturing, Nazis would blame useless camp inmates for not working property and ruining the Reich with sabotage. Every time Nazis crack down on inmates, that give inmates more and more reasons to sabotage tanks and other weapons they are forced to make. The longer that continues, the more each side of this divide blames and hates the other one.

Later stages of war brought shortages of various goods and even food. Government had to prioritize who gets what. Camp inmates were clearly in the bottom of priority list. That is how already abusive and oppressive camps became starvation camps as well.

Yet even at this stage Nazis still wished to keep inmates alive for work. That is why they would evacuate inmates from French and Polish camps into Germany. 

They however did not hesitate to shoot or otherwise kill those who could not work. Nazis saw inmates valuable only as work force. They also suspected that some faint inability to work or walk to dodge work or escape so they would kill them as an example for others irrespectively if they cannot or would not work.

Finally at the closing stages of war, when even camp guards and common solders have realized that was is lost, many dedicated Nazis blamed their loss on camp inmates failing to provide them with good quality ammunition and weapons. For that reason, many guards and SS men decided to exterminate all camp inmates as a final act of revenge before their inevitable surrender and defeat.

Even more cautious among the SS men would fear that after the war many inmates would like to take revenge for their treatment at the hands of Nazis. So, they thought it's better to kill all the inmates before they will be freed by allies. 

SS leaders were likely in favor of that as well. Many of them would know that Allies would likely treat actions of camp guards as crime against humanity and there would be repercussions for those involved. Because of that they thought that best course of action would be to kill all inmates and destroy all evidence of what have happened in the camps.

It is similar how East German Stasi during Eastern Bloc collapse in 1989 would try to destroy all their archives to hide their crimes and prevent justice against Stasi agents and the regime that created them.

It is during this final stage of concentration camp history, that Allies soldiers have found most of the camps. In some SS managed to kill everyone and destroy all evidence they could. In others, for example Dachau, Allied soldiers advanced into camp right while the guards were in process of the exterminating inmates.

Seeing SS Totenkopf actually gassing people in locked buildings right as GIs break thought the gates of the camp left an impression on common American soldiers. That eventually led towards this simplified and misleading understanding of the Nazi camps and the Nazi regime as a whole.

Unfortunately, Americans did not get to break into Vorkutlag or Solovki in the same manner as they did with Dachau. That allowed communist apologists to pretend that their regime was not like that at all.

However, people who were "liberated" from such camps by Red Army often talk about it in different terms. 

One woman in Auschwitz described period between when the SS left, and Soviet Army have not arrived yet as interregnum. Implying that after than NKVD would simply replace SS Totenkopf and the same will continue.

Most of the camp inmates, "liberated" by Red Army, including even Red Army own PIW, would end up being sent to even worse Gulag camps in Siberia, where most of them will die.

Mistaken understanding of history of Nazi camps and Gulag led towards its low-key repetition in contemporary Australia. 

Work for the Dole, in theory it was created to help people learn working skills. However, in reality it became a de-facto slave labor program where people are forced to do unpaid work for years on and on. 

Australian radical conservatives together with Rupert Murdoch press revile unemployed as dole bludgers and at the same time exploit them via byzantine system of unpaid slave labor, managed by private subcontractors such as Max Employment and Sarinna Russo.

Work for the Dole and other mutual obligations should be abolished and people like Sarina Russo should be prosecuted for their abuses.