Why Putin Supported Trump in 2016

People often claim that Trump and Putin are big buddies. Some also think that Putin controls Trump from the shadows. 

In reality that is a far-fetched idea. Putin had a plan for Trump's original 2016 election, but it was not to make him win. Instead, Putin wanted to make something like Orange Revolution in Ukraine. Under this scenario, Hillary would have declared winner, but Trump refused to concede just like Yushenko did in Ukraine and called his supporters that it is he who really won and called them to protest official results.

To achieve that, Putin was willing to give backing to Trump in view that he will do what Yushenko did in 2004.

Putin wanted to do that in order to make democracy in US look no better than in post-Soviet states. That would have weakened opposition against Putin and Yanukovych's authoritarian tendencies in Russia and Ukraine.

As to why Putin needed this far-fetched plan, that is because he fears "orange style" revolution in Russia that will overthrow him just like it did to Yanukovych and Shevardnadze in Ukraine and Georgia. So, he wants to shore up his position by discrediting democracy in the west.

Putin authoritarian system has significant opponents, and he needs something to disillusion them in the whole democracy idea so they would at least give up on opposing Putinism. Screwing up elections in home of democracy in the US seems like the plan.

Americans however managed to foil his plan by actually electing Trump president. When Trump lost in 2020, there still were Capitol Hill riots, but that did not have the same effect as if it were to happen in 2016.

Putin and Dmitriy Kiselev so wanted to say that when they prevent Navalnyi from running for president is no different from the US establishment preventing Trump from winning. Instead, they got just the opposite outcome.

Differences between Red and White Armies in Russian Civil War

 

Russian Civil War had many interesting peculiarities, in certain ways it was even more complex than current Syrian war. Each of these require a separate article to fully explain.

This time around I will write about differences between two main opponents of this war, Red and White Armies. In many ways these armies were much unlike each other, despite originating from the same country. 

Conflict between them showed that an army with high moral, but with next to no military training will best the army with high military training but with next to no morale. Now I will explain how so.

Red Army

Red army was created by Bolsheviks almost from scratch. In many ways it was a very revolutionary not just because of its ideology but also because of its organization, origins and practices. 

It begun as armed group of ideological supporters of communism and later grew to include various discontent people from all walks of life. Even former soldiers, who deserted Imperial Russian Army were often willing to join the Reds. On more negative side, many of their soldiers were likely violent criminals before they joined. 

Core personnel however were workers of the many manufacturing plants, years of working together as a productive team allowed them to transfer these skills into fighting together as a team.

Red Army heavily relied on various propaganda methods to encourage people to either join or to defect from their many opponents. Communist ideology appealed to poor and downtrodden people. Red Army leaders used that to rally the poor to their cause.

Unlike other armies, Red Army did not have a dedicated officer corp. Instead, soldiers elected their commanders via direct vote. Ranks and uniforms were different as well, they were more utilitarian and meant to display functional role rather than position of status, that traditional officer ranks became associated with.

In many ways Red Army deliberately did things differently from its Imperial predecessor. 

This was one of the reasons why soldiers from Imperial and later White Army were willing to defect to Reds: Imperial Army officers were unpopular with common soldiers and Bolsheviks heavily capitalized on that.

Later in 1930s, many of these innovations would be abolished and Red Army would become much closer to former Imperial and especially current Russian one.

In practice it made Red Army very inconsistent with its performance. Inexperienced commanders, who were propelled to command thanks to their charisma could sometimes make tactical mistakes that would cost Reds dearly. On the other hand, it had no shortage of original ideas and could sometimes win with ingenuity. Most importantly however it had good ability to attract rank and fire recruits into its ranks. 

White Army

White Army was the original military of Russian Empire. It continuously existed at least since Peter the Great times. It had military academies to train officers, tradition, established command structure, international connections. All that gave them wealth of tactical and strategic knowledge.

All the Imperial officers from Generals to Lieutenants seamlessly transitioned into White Army, complete with all the command structures completely intact. Because of the above, Whites had a head start against the Reds, who had to build their army from ground up.

All of these White Officers detested Bolsheviks and the Red Army, whom they viewed as nothing more than a rag tag group of traitors, deserters and common criminals. They were very motivated to put an end to Bolshevism.

Ideologically they were very traditionalist and conservative. They believed in privileges of the rank and wanted to restore hierarchical order. Many of them wished to restore monarchy as well.

Whites called their Army Volunteer, but unlike Bolsheviks, Whites continued to draft people into Army against their will, just like they used during the Imperial times. Many of these people were not willing to fight for anything at all and made poor soldiers.

This hierarchical ideology made ranking officers very loyal to the cause, the higher the rank the more loyal they were to the White cause. However, at the same time, it made low rank soldiers' discontent and prone to desertion. Because of that White Army constantly suffered from low morale and high desertion among its rank and fire, it was very officer heavy. They hope that having exclusive access to military academy educated officers would be enough to win.

How they Fought

Eventually these armies did clash on the battlefield. Because of differences in their organization, doctrine and approach to war it produced a series of fluctuating outcomes.

White Army offensives would typically begin with a series of quick and easy victories. White officers would outmaneuver peripheral Red Army units and take a lot of provincial towns, advancing as easy as knife through butter. For a time being it would feel that they could not be stopped.

However, the closer White Army would get to the industrial heartland with its large cities, the harder it would get to score victories and continue their advance.

Eventually the Reds would manage to break the White tide, take initiative and push from there on.

Both, initial Denikin's offensive and later Kolchak's offensive, that begun after Reds already crushed Denikin, had this same basic pattern. While one can dismiss Denikin's success to unpreparedness of the Reds, that would not explain why Kolchak would score a number of victories against the Reds who already crushed Denikin.

The reasons for that are that large industrial centers are core bases of Red Army strength. They could recruit most of their soldiers from these places. Peripheral rural towns had little support for Reds and Bolsheviks so they could muster only small Red Army units if any. 

However large industrial areas had more Bolshevik supporters. The bigger the city was, the bigger numbers Red Army could muster.

In addition to high support for Bolsheviks, these areas also had weapon manufacturing factories. These two factors combined would let Reds Both man and arm their army.

Final reason is low morale among low rank White Army soldiers. Red could readily capitalize on that. Reds encouraged low rank White Army soldiers to defect to them and were more than willing to let them join Reds right away. 

Reds would mount a propaganda campaign, aimed specifically to encourage defection among White ranks. Soldiers who were taken into White army against their will, would be more than willing to defect. With each new town, the Whites took, more and more would desert them, until there would be none left.

In contrast Whites disliked idea of treason in general to even attempt something like this themselves. Also, they had no compelling ideology to attract desertion.

In the end, after several close calls where Whites almost won, Red Army managed to win the civil war.

Why Real Objective of Russian War in Ukraine is to Take Sloviansk

Russian war in Ukraine already in its 3rd year. After some big push early on, followed by a pushback, the war settled into WWI style Sietz Krieg. Russia keeps throwing more and more infantry into the meat grinder for miniscule gains. After Russia left the west bank of Dnipro and Ukraine recaptured Kharkiv oblast in late 2022, the only two small towns in Donetsk oblasts have changed hands. 

Despite that Russia persists. That raises question why. To answer that I first give you another question: why Russia only attacks in Donetsk oblast and not in other areas. The answer to that is that Russia wants to take small town of Sloviansk in that oblast.

At first glance it sounds like an absurd idea. Sloviansk is small town of no particular strategic or economic value. Wasting so much manpower over it seems pointless. However Russian objectives in this war are not economic or even strategic. The town has propaganda value for Putin, that is why they want to take it.

Remember how Russians keep talking about Nazis in Ukraine. Putin wants this "special military operation" as he calls it to look this way in the eyes of Russian public. To that end he needs to capture a pro-Russian show town full of pro-Russian residents, that fits the propaganda narrative and can play the role of happy "liberated" residents on Russian TV. That will help validate Putin's claims that they are liberating people from oppressive Nazi regime or something. Residents of Mariupol and other places Russia already took are not happy because Russia has destroyed Azovstal where many of Mariupol residents used to work as well as other stuff. 

Sloviansk is peculiarly pro-Russian town in that area. During the first Donbas war in 2014 Igor Girkin held town for several month and used it as his headquarters. Later in 2014 actions of Ukrainian military forced Girkin to retreat. Because of that Russia has good idea of what the town is like. To top that fact, they can easily spin the fact that Ukraine had to re-take it in 2014 as Ukrainian occupation.

To make sure Sloviansk will work as show town Russia promised Sloviansk residents to splurge a lot of money on their town in order for them to look forward towards Russian "liberation". After Russia takes their town, they would play role of happy liberated citizens on Russian TV for Putin's propaganda. For 8 years prior to war Dmitri Kiselev kept telling people in Russia how residents of Sloviansk are unduly oppressed by Ukrainian Nazi and how they wish for Russia to "liberate" them. Now they want to conclude their military operations by liberating this town and then celebrating it with all the usual attributes like happy residents greeting soldiers, Putin and other officials pushing speeches. Just like they did with Crimea.

However, Zelenski and Ukrainians could watch Drimtri Kiselev's channel, so they knew, or could figure out, about this plan. So, to spite Russia and Putin and deny him his triumph, they mined everything around Sloviansk in hundred miles radius and put other obstacles there. Two years on and Putin still grinds on this. it's kind of like Lliere tries to get to that Panda-ride in episode 5 only to always find Jashin-chan there.

Because of that Russia keeps grinding on Sloviansk. Without it, "liberation" of oppressed people will not be complete and Putin's propaganda narrative will suffer.

On the other hand, you cannot blame Zelenski and Ukraine either. They try to make lemonade out of lemons Putin throws at them instead of just play the villain for Putin's propaganda. 

Why Fiscal Egosim is much Better than Fiscal Conservatism

Fiscal conservatism is just an excuse to take away support from the poor. They simply exaggerate how bad economy is and then use it as excuse to cut support and other things, leaving people impoverished and shit dilapidated and unrepaired for decades.

Back after Financial Crisis of 2008 Merkel used to say that the cuts are temporarily, but almost two decades have passed and they are still not reversed. So, it's pretty clear that all that crisis and temporary was just a bullshit to make life harder for people.

Fiscal conservatism favored by mad idiots who hate good things. People who do it have nothing but malicious intentions. The kind of people who say, "hard times make strong men". The morons actually want to make life deliberately worse for everyone. However, people would not just voluntarily accept reduction of quality of life, so they instead made an excuse that country is poor, and we need cut back on expenses.

You should not listen to FiscCon clown.

Fiscal conservatism is just a sham that lies about how bad economy is in order to make life worse for everyone. Oppose them with all you got on every corner.

You can simply print more money or default on debt. Prices on imported goods would jump but that is much better than austerity. Sure, some places like Zimbabwe have crippling hyperinflation because they overdo money printing and they do it all the time and not as one-off thing to staff off crisis. However, many European countries did it occasionally in second half of 20th century and were better off with that.

In small amounts extra cash injections and stable inflation rate of 2-4% are good for economy, it forces rich to invest their money in economy to avoid losing them to inflation. If they know their cash would be worth less and less, they will have no choice, but buy shares in something in hope it will grow or give them to bank to invest for them. This extra money can pay for new business creation as well as expansion of existing ones. That in turn would mean many extra jobs for people. And prosperity for all.

If there is no inflation then people would just hog money, new business will not be created, unemployment will be higher and higher, salaries will not grow and everyone life will be miserable, just like after Financial Crisis of 2008 and austerity that followed.

Russia devalued Rouble 5 times and defaulted on debts in 1998, some people's savings shrank 5 times (unless they kept them in USD or EUR as most did anyway), but overall, it was a small shock that everyone has forgotten after a year or so. That was much better than decade of crippling austerity. A western country can do it with much less impact and damage.

Debt can be re-negotiated and reduced. The US made creditors to shrink Ukraine's debt in half and reduce the interest after Euromaidan Revolution and plans to have another write-off again. You can threaten them with default if they will not take it and they would take it. Because default means they will lose it all and it's in their interest to keep the debt system, even with reduced returns.

In the end they need country to function and starving it of cash will get nowhere. Because of that you can squeeze the creditors more and more instead of cutting essential services for the poor. Here is the sound fiscal policy of Fiscal Egoism.

Differences between Soviet (Left) and Nazi (Right) Socialism

Both Nazis and Soviets called themselves socialists. Despite that they hated each other with great passion. What is the difference between these two types of socialism. The difference is well summarized in the picture above.

Unlike modern leftists that are often anti-globalist. Soviet Socialism was international in its character. Communists believed in a global communist revolution as well as communist world government. Terms and symbols of early USSR clearly highlight that. Communist International, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, song International as an anthem, "workers of all countries, unite" as motto and the Soviet emblem places sickle and hammer over the globe all suggest that creators of the USSR saw their state and a future global federation of the communist countries to which other countries will ascend at a later date. 

Communists believed that all working people have a lot in common and should all live together as one people. They also believed that borders, nations and countries are things to be outlived. Communist International trained communist revolutionaries from all over the world to organize communist revolution in their countries and join the Socialist world.

Even after communist revolution was contained to former Russian empire and Stalin formally dissolved the Communist International, communists have not ceased their international efforts. Clandestine Comintern continued just as before. USSR sponsored communist revolutions all over the globe, even in places like Cuba. Eventually these efforts ended up dividing the world into the communist sphere of influence vs everyone else, whom Americans later dubbed Free World.

Even at the very end of USSR existence, when nationalists wanted to secede from USSR, those who oppose separatism typically called them Interfront, implying perception of the USSR as an international federation of people rather than nation state. Soviet nationalism always called itself internationalism. 

Because of all that in modern Russian world nationalism is associated with either nazis or separatism. Because of that Russian nationalists do not call themselves such and instead use term patriot that in Russian context often mean something much more radical than nationalist in the West, much less a patriot. 

In contrast to that National Socialism was clearly limited in scope to Germany and German people with exclusion of all others. They did not wish to treat everyone equally and clearly divided the world into us vs them. To NatSoc loyalty to one's nation, people and flag was paramount. Us first principle.

Nazis saw communist and other leftists as traitors to their people, who take orders from Moscow and do not believe in loyalty to their country or people.

In that assessment they were correct. Communists indeed had no loyalty to any one country, state or nation. Communist ethos believed that all working people are same irrespectively or nation or race. Because of that communists believed that one should not prioritize one nation over others and nations and borders are artificial social constructs.

This strictly one nation vs universal globalism was the key difference between otherwise broadly similar ideologies. Both sides viewed the other as abominable and opposed them vigorously.

Both sides were heavily militarized too. However, Nazis preferred to give each ethnicity or nation its own military units and commanders, while communists instead mixed all ethnicities together as their ideology saw no difference between them. 

As an extension to that logic Nazis would end up preserving identities of various people they took into their associates. In contrast communists would aim to erase all the difference between ethnicities and create one common soviet man, an identity and culture they wished to impose on everyone.

These differences are what produced mutual hatred between Commies and Nazis. It was a cultural and identity war between economically socialist ideologies.

Misconceptions about National Socialists (Nazis)

I several of my previous articles I have outlined how propaganda misleads people about the actual nature of different ideologies. How capitalism, depicted by USSR, was nothing like market economy practiced by Western Europe and the US. In the same league socialism, as depicted by Americans, was nothing like actual socialism. That was about ideologies that managed to exist for a long time and influenced many countries.

I am not writing it to advocate in favor of Nazism, but simply in the interest of truth. Many of the misconceptions about Nazis are much worse than the actual Nazis were. If people keep believing that actually happened, they might try to imitate certain aspects of pseudo-Nazism in real life, thinking that if Hitler could do it, so can we. That way of thinking is dangerous in itself and doubly so if they will try it with something Nazis never actually did.

Misconceptions

The biggest number of misconceptions about any ideology out there is of course about National Socialism (Nazism). Popular idea depicts it as some sort of Star Wars Evil Empire level movie villain ideology. Some so called "modern nazis" claim it's a social Darwinist ideology that practiced Social Darwinism in real life. Finally, a lot see them as white supremacists who discriminate based on skin color.

In reality of course none of this is true. 

Nazi Germany was not just mindless Evil Empire ideology where countless stormtroopers would sacrifice their lives for a villainous leader, as much as modern history likes to depict it as such. Idea that something like this can exist in reality is unrealistic to begin with.

Neither it was a Social Darwinist ideology. Army could not work if soldiers would have to compete with each other and even kill each other for access to rations and promotions. So, people who came out of army would not advocate or practice Social Darwinism. If anything, USSR was much more Socially Darwinist compared to Nazis. Stalin spend considerable amount of time in prison with regular nonpolitical criminals (murderers and thieves) before he became leader of the USSR.

As an offshoot of Social Darwinist theory, there was another misconception that Nazis would kill off weak and only let strong live, like fictional and possibly real Sparta. That is incorrect as well. Nazis did had criteria of racial purity, but it did not concern itself with physical strength as all, just with blood proximity towards the majority of Germans.

Finally, it was not white supremacist, many of the German allies were non-white, for example Japanese. Nazi racial theories did place some ethnicities over others and considered certain ethnicities undesirable. However, color of the skin was not the criteria they used. Once again proximity of blood to that of Germany and well as number of similarities between any given culture and German culture was a determiner on where an ethnicity would be ranked. Unlike the stereotypes, German culture is not overly militaristic and cultures they ranked high, such as Japanese, Iranian or Muslim are not that militaristic or brutal either. I wrote a separate article about just this question alone. If I were to summaries the criteria in one word, it would be level of civility and absence of raw animalistic instincts that would place any given culture high.

Military Origin of Values of National Socialism

National Socialism was created by former soldiers and carries with itself ethos and values of a common soldier who spend 4 years in trenches of WWI, serving his country only to return back towards indifferent nations who wishes they all would just disappear. Anger and resentment of veterans over their post war treatment and perceived betrayal of the military by civilians shaped National Socialism into what it actually was.

As such National Socialism had two main pillars. One is loyalty to one's country (Nationalism) and the other common good and common wellbeing of people of said nation (Socialism). I will cover each aspect separately.

First is Nationalism. Soldiers are expected to fight for one country and kill nationals of the foreign nations. There is a tendency to strictly and clearly divide the world into us vs them and have different attitudes towards your side and the enemy side. One cannot fraternize with the enemy, help them in any way and so on. Helping enemy over one's own side would be considered a capital crime of high treason. After all enemy is out there to kill you and your comrades, you cannot let them do it. If you help them or even simply let them, get away without good reason, they can come back to kill someone on your side.

Second is Socialism. Army works together as a team. Everyone has to make concerted effort for the good of the whole. Military is inherently collectivist and hierarchical. For that reason, National Socialism was both willing to look after the wellbeing of each individual citizen, but also expect them to contribute to the joint effort. So long as citizen remained loyal and did not commit any offences against martial law style NatSoc regime, they could expect to be supported and cared for. National Socialists, who believed that civilians betrayed them at the end of WWI would not want to betray hopes and expectations of Germans who are loyal to their country.

How that Affected their Policies

National Socialist took this military worldview into the mainstream politics. Their policies clearly distinguished between loyal and disloyal people. Nazis did believe that people who are not sufficiently invested into success of the German Reich are committing high treason and was willing to severely punish them for that. They applied to civilians' high treason principle from the material law. The list of internal traitors initially included Communists and Jews, but later expanded towards many other social and ethnic groups. Persecution against these groups is often cited as example of abusiveness of Nazi regime. However, it was limited only to those whom they could suspect of disloyalty.

The same logic applied towards external enemies. Nazis were fully determined to win for German race (German nationals) and then exploit the conquered nations as spoils of war. Conquered civilians were treated much like enemy soldiers, POW at best. However, it was German national interests that led to them starting the wars and nor the racial hatred or believe that weak nations have to die. Nazis wanted Polish lands for themselves and not extermination of Polish people per se. Of-course in order to resettle the lands with Germans, Poles has to be either expelled or exterminated, but that was an effect rather than cause of the action. If anything, USSR did the same in reversed order when annexed lands east of Oder-Neisse line, they expelled ethnic Germans from these lands and resettled them with Poles.

On the other hand, Nazis did have many allies of many different ethnicities, even Russians were willing to join them to fight against abuses of Stalinist Soviet system in the USSR. That alone should show someone with some critical thinking that Nazis were not complete villains, the propaganda makes them out to be. People will not fight to be exterminated in gas chambers. They would only fight if they thought they will be better off with this side winning.

When it comes to Socialist side of National Socialist policies then their domestic policies had much in common with FDR in the US. Hiter interfered in economy in order to create many new jobs and make everyone gainfully employed and well paid. Much like FDR he started many mega-projects very soon eliminated poverty and unemployment, a problem more moderate parties were unable to solve for 4 years prior. A lot of this effort was aimed at military production though.

Hitler also wanted every German to be able to afford a private car and first insisted that Ferdinand Porche created an affordable car and then run a scheme where workers could pay for their car in installments off their regular salary. The car was aptly named Volkswagen (people's car). Later it became known as Volkswagen Beetle. It's still popular nowadays among various leftists who hate Nazis despite driving car designed by them. Such an irony.

Conclusion

I hope this article would help one understand that reality of National Socialism was much more prosaic, and it was not some esoteric lunatical ideology some make out it to be. It is time we stopped believing in propaganda cliches and stated to assess the actual reality.

Why Hard Times Do Not Make Strong Men

As I already mentioned in my post about Fiscal Conservatism, there are people who deliberately want to make life worse for everyone because they believe that "hard times make strong men" I heard a number of people online repeating this nonsense over and over.

This statement is ludicrous and could not be further from truth. The only thing hard times make are misery, death and suicides. Thousands of people have taken their lives after austerity measures were in place. Thousands more simply died of hardships. Finally for millions life got worse and left them exhausted and tired. It drained their powers until there was nothing left.

This crime against humanity is responsibility of those "Hardmongers (strongmongers)", who believed this "hard times make strong men". They killed thousands of people with their idiocy and for that they should pay with their lives.

I personally want to send everyone who believes "hard times make strong men" to the gas chamber and gas them to death. Only once all of them are dead, life will get better.

Save society and exterminate hardmongers like vermin they are. No mercy for the fiscal conservative hardmongering scum.

Blood of our fellow Millennial brothers, who lost their lives to austerity, demand nothing less.

Why each ideology is blind about is opponents.

 

For Socialism both Liberalism and Conservatism are the same and they call it capitalism

For Conservatism both Liberalism and Socialism are the same and they call it radicalism.

For Liberals both Socialism and Conservatism is the same and they call it dictatorship.

In actuality it is somewhat like that.

On Fiscal Conservatism

Fiscal conservatism is just an excuse to take away support from the poor. They simply exaggerate how bad economy is and then use it as excuse to cut support and other things, leaving people impoverished and shit dilapidated and unrepaired for decades.

Back after Financial Crisis of 2008 Merkel used to say that the cuts are temporarily, but almost two decades have passed and they are still not reversed. So, it's pretty clear that all that crisis and temporary was just a bullshit to make life harder for people.

Fiscal conservatism favored by mad idiots who hate good things. People who do it have nothing but malicious intentions. The kind of people who say, "hard times make strong men". The morons actually want to make life deliberately worse for everyone. However, people would not just voluntarily accept reduction of quality of life, so they instead made an excuse that country is poor, and we need cut back on expenses.

I personally want to send everyone who believes "hard times make strong men" to the gas chamber and gas them to death. Only once all of them are gone life will get better.

Fiscal conservatism is just a sham that lies about how bad economy is in order to make life worse for everyone. Oppose them with all you got on every corner.

A Chart About My Political Social and Economic Views

 

Here are my views on 6 different categories of policy. Many of these are very new and reflect current socio-economic reality of life as it is in year 2024 or 21 century. This set of policies are what we need to tackle challenges of our times. The sooner politicians realize it the better.

Most Based Ideology Based on PollCompBallAnarchy Elimination Game

Now, if Kakistocracy rules this sub, then the most sane and based ideology is the one it removed in the very beginning. Surprisingly enough it's a Socialism. National Socialism to be precise. I congratulate NatSoc with this honor.

Reviled by both left and right, he nonetheless managed to achieve a lot in his lifetime, including many technological breakthroughs that advanced our civilization. Right would again prat about taxes, interventionalism, socio-economic change and its anti-Christian neo-pagan mysticism. Left would call it not real "socialism" because its ok to identify as trans but not ok for NatSoc to identify socialist.

Do not blame me for saying that, its objective reality.

If anything, I sympathize with NatSoc simply because how hated it is, much of which is undeserved.

Now honorary mentions of most based and worst ideologies of each row and column

Authoritarian Topmost Row: NatSoc was eliminated first, so it's the most based authoritarian ideology. In contrast Marxism-Leninism was eliminated last on the top row on day 12, making it the most retarded authoritarianism out there.

Authoritarian Second Row: State Liberalism was eliminated first on this row on day 5 making it the most based. Titoism was last to be eliminated on this row very late on turn 30.

Authoritarian Third Row: Neoconservatism was first to be eliminated on this row on day 17. Distributism was the last to be eliminated on day 56.

Center Authoritarian Row: Reactionary Liberalism was first to be eliminated on this row on day 21. Last to go was Left Wing Populism on day 47.

Libertarian Bottom Most Row: Anarcho-Capitalism was the first to be eliminated on day 10. Mutualism was the last to be eliminated on day 50.

Libertarian Bottom Second Row: Hoppeanism was the first to be eliminated on day 13, However I believe that Ayn Rand's Objectivism that was eliminated on day 18, creating a hole on the compass is more deserving than Hoppeanism. Civil Libertarianism was the last to be eliminated on day 58.

Libertarian Bottom Third Row: Paleo Libertarianism was eliminated on day 23. However, that was more of a donkey vote to clean up right edge rather than principal opposition to this particular ideology. 

Center Libertarian Row: Neo Libertarianism was first to be eliminated on this row on day 25

Compass Explained

 

Here I made a version of political compass with annotations for each quadrant. There are nine quadrants in total as we need to accommodate various centrist tendencies, such as lib center as well as dead centrism.

There are three columns and three rows, combination of column and row produces the entrain feature of said ideology. 

Collums are Arbitrary Rule, Rule or Law and Ochlocracy

Arbitrary Rule simply means that person one or another way in charge can make whatever decisions they please.

Rule of Law means there is law that either guarantees certain rights and freedoms or in contrast limits said rights. Some form of rule book does exist that all must abide by.

Ochlocracy is unrestricted rule of the majority where majority may vote to exterminate minority is they so wish.

Rows are Illiberal (Authoritarian), Liberal and Libertarian

Statist (Illiberal or Authoritarian) means that authority does not recognizes any limitations on their power.

Liberal means they recognize basic human rights and freedom.

Libertarian (Autonomous) here simply means unrestricted. That word means different thing based on quadrant.

Now on how each combination of these principles turns out to be.

Authoritarian Arbitrary Rule (top right) is basically one man rules the state as he sees fit. It could be either absolute monarchy or a dictatorship. It could be a group of people on top, such as Military Junta. Ideologically its best represented in ideas of Charles I or Luis XIV where King is the state and can do no wrong as state is his private property. I do not think anyone expresses such ideas about governance openly nowadays.

However, this system can sometimes exist as a military dictatorship where support of the military ensures the rule of the strongman. It can stay stable while leader has loyalty of the military and opponents are too weak.

This is tyrannical and unfree and does not even try to hide it.

Authoritarian Ochlocracy (top left) Ochlocracy is rule of the mob. Its difference with democracy is not in principle but in outcome. Unrestricted tyranny of majority (dictatorship of the proletariat in Lenin's terms) will always lead towards tyrannical outcomes. It's a system where two wolfs and a sheep vote on what to have for dinner. 

Eventually it always devolves into a illiberal charismatic dictatorship where a leader, propelled to power by public support would use this power and public support to silence all opponents to shore up his position at the top. Due to lack of security in his tenure and fear of losing power the leader will silence any and all potential opponents to his rule to avoid them gaining enough popularity to take his down and take his place. 

It's a system where only those who can believable accuse everyone else of being a Nazi and then send them to the firing squad before they could do the same to them. That makes it even more oppressive than Autocratic Arbitrary Rule where leader, more confident in security of his tenure, can afford to take it easy.

Stalinist USSR is example of this system.

Illiberal Bureaucratic Despotism (top center) Rule of Law tend to be associated with Liberal Democracy, but it can be authoritarian if laws are illiberal. Stable bureaucracies tend to drift towards this system. The bigger and more layered the bureaucracy becomes and the longer it exists unchanged, the more bureaucrats can find out all the ropes and figure out how to rig them. With that they can erode checks and balances of democracy and essentially become an unchecked autocratic system. Talk about politicians being out of touch with people are signs that system has drifted into bureaucratic despotism.

This system often looks like a paternalism where state treats its citizens as clueless children and sees themselves as benign parents. It maintains plethora of laws, rules and regulations that bureaucrats think is for the best of society. The laws however serve bureaucrats a lot more than the rest of the society. Many of these laws are aimed on preserving status quo of the bureaucracy that enacted them.

Overall, this regime is characterized by the oblivious out of touch government that has little idea how actual people live but nonetheless believe they know better what is best for them. It's as sclerotic as long past retirement old person. More often than not it stuck in the past and unable to effectively respond to contemporary challenges and issues. If left unchallenged it will devolve into caste system, where different classes of people lead vastly different lives. Leadership caste will prosper, often oblivious to life outside of their bubble while lower castes would literarily starve to death.

Late Brezhnev era USSR is an example of bureaucratic despotism.

Conservatism (middle right) is alternative form of stratified society. However, unlike bureaucratic despotism, its closer to feudalism than to caste system. It's very hierarchical with someone above or below someone. Sometimes it lops with an actual unelected monarch on top.

Defenders of this system like to cite various ancient traditions that existed since time immemorial to justify it. They claim that this system existed since forever and therefore proven and tested. They often oppose any change, claiming that it can destabilize society and do harm.

Reality is that most supporters of conservatism are people who already have a warm and affluent status and simply want to shore it up from the rest of the society. The better one is doing in life the more conservative they become. However, using that as argument for a good political system is like when last year champion saying we should not start next season, claiming it can be hectic and chaotic but in reality, he is simply afraid to lose his title to another player and wants to keep it in perpetually.

Revisionist Left (middle left) this is not so much a cohesive system in its own right so much a reaction to failure and devolution of Marxist-Leninist systems into totalitarianism. Many leftists, including even people who worked on creation of USSR, such as Trotskiy, later grew disillusioned and became thinking on safeguards to prevent socialism from devolving into totalitarianism. 

Variety of new communist and socialist theories have emerged from that process. All of them combine some elements of socialism with liberal democracy in different proportions. Despised by the far left as traitors and mistrusted by most other ideologies as totalitarian, some of these ideologies are not that bad. Aside from elements of Democratic Socialism and Market Socialism, none were really tried.

Since none were tried, it's hard to estimate how they will playout in practice. However, due to increased automation these ideologies are getting increasingly obsolete and irrelevant to a current technological environment.

Liberal Democracy (middle center) This is a system we currently have. A sort of compromise between all the other sectors. Different parties, movements and such do try to pull law and economy closer towards their sector, but it more or less stays in the middle.

Liberal Democracy has private, public, joint stock, co-op and many other forms of property. Industrial Law regulates balance of power between employees and employers, combining socialism with capitalism into yellow socialism or social capitalism. Various other laws regulate balance of power between individual and state, property owner and tenant, children and parents and so on. A compromise that more or less OK with most even if many would wish to take it further their way.

What is middle in Liberal Democracy is said to be constantly drifting left. The reasons for that are the fact that population grows but numbers of businesses rather shrink than grows, because of that more people are falling into left socio-economic demographic. That however does not mean they will establish even Liberal Socialism but popularity of welfare of Social Democracy will keep growing.

Bottom Row (Libertarianism) Libertarianism is a broad ideology that has many very diverse branches that often very different from each other. However, there is three main ones. Right, left and center. The only thing that unites them is opposition to restrictions, but each of these branches oppose different restrictions.

Propertarianism (bottom right) is right Libertarianism that boils down to property right advocacy. They want to achieve is to let property owners do whatever they want with their property. This is also a branch that complains about taxes most, "taxation" is theft is them. Many of Libertarian right are also nostalgic of the past and religious. They are also the group that advocates various religious freedoms. 

All that basically a radical, reactionary or paleo conservatism that is amounts to tyranny of the property owners and powerful. All that creates an illiberal society with arbitrary personal rule and no safeguards for human rights and freedoms.

Overall, I would call far right libertarianism the most misleading of the ideologies. If authoritarian left were simply helpless against the reality of their system, then these people want to create a two-class system of robber baron property owners and peasants who serve them. 

Utopian Left (bottom left) This is the most diverse mess of fantasy ideologies, some of which are very different from each other. All sort of utopian well-wishing gathers in this left "libertarian" quadrant. That mixes with anti-revisionist communism, feminism, lifestyle communism, localism, autonomism, kibbutzism and other such ideologies.

Reality that some of this is impossible simply because people will not cooperate with the system. The only real-life example is Rojava's run North-East Syria, that defenders of this quadrant would hail as achievement despite obvious shortcomings. Similar to how they used to hail USSR itself.

That said while Rojava do not seem totalitarian we cannot know for sure, they used to claim the same about USSR itself but now we know the truth. Lib Left still has to reconcile individualism with their rule of the mob, they gave no clear answer to that.

Regardless of any of the above, adherents of this quadrant prefer their utopian objectives to reality. Even if these objectives are backward and irrelevant in current technological reality.

Centre Libertarian (bottom center) Now finally my own quadrant. The only true libertarianism that actually wants to make people free. This is ideology of people who want to pursue happiness and autonomy to achieve that. Free of moral, ideology, religion, excessive regulations and so on.

Geo Libertarianism can actually bridge the gap between rich and poor. Social Libertarianism can give people enough money to live with dignity. Real solutions for real world problems. 

Its future prof too, automation already made value of labor worthless in many industries. As time goes, more and more industries would abandon employees in favor of robots. In a system like that people would not be able to earn a living. Social Libertarianism has solutions and that is UBI. Cooperatives would not be able to solve that.

Overall center Libertarian Social Libertarianism is the only true heir to Classical Liberalism that can make people truly free. 

That is why Yang says: "not left not right but forward".

Actual Relationship Between Types of Social Democracy

 

The rows are self-explanatory, but columns require further clarification. 

Center is middle of the road universal welfare. Welfare Chauvinism is here because its criteria are not based on economic considerations.

Right is limited welfare, where welfare is restricted based on right wing economic considerations. It's a more fiscal conservative stain of SocDem.

Left is equity welfare where those who "need it most" get more.

Gender War, SJW vs Alt-X

I noticed that one particular issue that is not represented on political compass in any meaningful way. That is issue of gender war between Feminism together with Social (in)Justice Warriors (SJW) on one side and Men's Rights together with Alt-Right on another.

Name Alt-Right gives impression that it is right wing ideology, but that is incorrect. We equally oppose feminists and cuckservatives. That makes us neither left not right in traditional meaning of the word. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to call us Alt-Unity or Alt-X. We are alternative and opposition to SJW and feminism. The only way we are right it that we are opposite of wrong, that SJW are.

So, pick your side and vote on your case. 

We have three options on either side, that vary in degree of radicalism and opposition to the opponent. 

On Alt Side we have:

Men's Rights (Manosphere) empathize issues that Male gender faces and want to fix society so that men could live in it more effectively. Manosphere consists of men who see how things really are as well as women who are sympathetic to male problems and do not hate men.

Alt-Lite is watered down version of Alt-Right, after feminists and SJW started falsely accusing Alt-Right of being racist and Nazi, some decided to distance themselves from the original movement and started to call themselves Alt-Lite.

Finally, right most is Alt-Unity(Right). This is the original movement that resists SJW and feminists' insanity and tries to make society work for men. We are as straightforward as out black and white flag is. We want a society where men rule and women are naturally subservient to them. We are willing to learn from societies that got it gender relationship right, such as Japanese, Indians and Muslims. We try to fix what SJW and feminists have broken.

On the opposite side we have:

Feminism claims they want equality but in reality, they just push for narrow female interests and ignore men and their needs. They do not respect freedom of speech and call people they disagree with nazi, racists, sexist and incel.

Radical Feminism is the more radical version of the above.  They hate men and want to make society revolve around women and their whimsical self-serving misandrist agenda. They consist of angry ugly women and brainwashed self-hating men.

Finally left most is Social inJustice Warriors (SJW). They are crazy Woke radicals and gender traitors, who support every crazy social cause out there, such as BLM. They are cucks who would support so-called "social justice" and women freedom even if she cheats on him with African American person and give birth to black baby.

So here is your breakdown.

Post-Soviet States Explained

 

Recently I stumbled upon this video that explains how post-Soviet states became mafia run kleptocracies. His solutions are not necessarily right, but there is a problem with unaccounted bureaucracy that just plunders the national budget while people go without.

Watch it and understand the problems.