Ultimate How to Vote Guide

Nowadays people are increasingly disillusioned with major parties and look out for small parties that better represent their individual views. There are many single-issue parties that cater for that as well as few catch all discontent parties that attract votes from anyone who is fed up with something. 

Despite that however these small parties fail to get enough votes. Because of that, to avoid your vote being wasted, you have to decide who of the major parties you will prioritize ahead of the others. After all voting for purple to prevent beige from winning is valid and important consideration if all prime ministers and cabinet members ever came from either of these two parties.

If values and principles of either of the major parties do no ring anything in you, then you should vote based on one thing everyone agrees on: money. Each party has extensive plans for a budget money on how they intend to spend or not spend it. Depending on your own financial situation you will benefit from one or another approach to spending.

I will use Australian parties and incomes as an example. Here is the simple breakdown:

If you earn less than $40,000 annually you should vote Greens

If you earn between $40,000 and $130,000 annually, you should vote Labour

If you earn between $130,000 and $500,000 you should vote Liberals

If you earn more than $500,000 you should vote Nationals

 As simple as that.

It a rule of thumb thing and in certain cases individual circumstances might make it more beneficial to vote LIbs if you only make $119,000, or Labour if you make $139,000, but overall, these rules work.

Now I will explain why:

Below $40,000

If you make this much then you either unemployed or doing some casual pay next to nothing work. If you have rental, you struggle to pay rent. If not, you live in a basement, in a car coach surf or homeless. Money you make cannot pay for good things other people have such as cars, mortgage, vacation, private health or school. All you can afford is food, cloth, public transport and some basic stuff.

Because you cannot afford a car, a home or expensive things, a party that is willing to spend most on various free stuff is the best for you. A party that will spend most on free public housing, free public transport, free health care, schools. 

It does not matter if such party has reckless policies that can endanger the economy. Your poverty is a proof that economy does not work for you personally, so it does not matter if it also broken to those who are more well off than you. Neither it matters if they tax cars, fuel, homes, high income and so on. With this kind of money, you will not be able to afford a driving license, much less a car. All these only apply to people who are more well off than you. Some of these might even give you notices to leave and other such nasty things. You might as well want to screw them off.

Tax does not matter either. On amounts less than $40,000 its either nonexistent or just a token amount. Free stuff that taxes of those who are richer than you will help afford things you can benefit from.

Because of that you can bravely vote for a party that promises to spend billions on free housing, free buses, bikes and so on. If you cannot have a car, at least get a free bike from Greens rather than highbrow lecture about respecting private property on cars of those fancy car owners.

In Australia the Greens is the most pro poor populist party out there. I do not know their inner working, but their policies are the most generous of all major parties. Greens are the party for those at the bottom of income gap.

Between $40,000 and $130,00

Now we are in a frugal comfort territory. You are not as bad as the group above but not as good as those who prat about taxes. Unlike the actual poor, you likely have a real full-time job with super benefits and other important attributes of labor voting working class. With the better money you make, you can afford a car and a basic home in mortgage or a good rental that you can comfortably pay.

All that makes you not as desperate to vote for reckless and untried Greens. After all you have good job and do not want to lose it to some screw up.

However, you are not so well off to splurge on things like private health or school. If you do, you likely struggle to afford such things. Because of that, services provided by the government are still important for you and you want government to spend on hospitals, nurses and schools.

Taxable amount becomes more substantial, but still not that large. With income like that you will likely spend more on private school and health insurance than pay in tax to maintain public services.

All in all, a moderate and responsible pro-spend party is your best choice. In Australia its Labour.

Finally, if you work in the unionized industry or in general an employee rather than a manager, you best option could be voting Labour regardless of income. Better labor law is something your workplace can benefit from.

Between $130,000 and $500,000

No finally we are with the income bracket that can afford a good home in a posh suburb such as Vaucluse, private school, private super premium all included health insurance with indefinite dentist visits, Bora Bora vacation several times a year, expensive car, possibly a small recreational watercraft that some might call yacht or another such expensive hobby item.

It's a live those above could envy and wish to have. However, since you live in a posh suburb where everyone else is just as well off as you are, you do not see yourself as rich. Instead, you think that you struggle with high taxes and wasteful government spending. Of course, for you a new yacht is sure more important than some poor people not dying from starvation or being able to afford healthcare. If I had the same money you have, I would be the same.

Because of the above your best bet is to vote Liberals. Tax cuts will allow your watercraft to be 5meters longer and you will never even see people who will be homeless or die from these cuts as they live in suburbs like Inala or Redbank.

But there is more. You likely also own an investment property or a stock market portfolio. Because of that you need economy to prosper so that value of these things keeps increasing. So, voting for a party that prioritize Moodys rating to everything else if equally important. Libs get you covered here as well.

Finally, if you a manager or business owner, then a Liberal rather than Labour style labor law. Labour law that gives more power over employees to managers will benefit you as well. You can achieve your objectives without having to consider wellbeing of your subordinates. Not to mention you will feel like a boss and not an administrator constrained by rules.

So confidently read Murdoch press and vote Libs. It's a party for your income bracket. Just wander clear of Inala or Redbank as people there might want to stab your rich ass to death for doing this to them.

More than $500,000

I do not think there are salaries above $500,000 but 1% true upper class clearly makes more than this per year from large businesses they own, investments and so on. Some of them are public figures such as Gina Reinhard or Rupert Murdoch but there are many more people who own just as much and are as wealthy as these two.

With their numbers are so few yet their wealth is so high, it matters most whom they give money for campaign than who they vote for.

As for the manager of the medium size business who is not as rich and influential as Rupert Murdoch, yet far richer and more important than those in Vaucluse category above, then they might as well vote Nationals. A real true tories, unlike their watered-down version in Liberals.

Government Should Nationalize All Rental Properties

I wrote about this topic before, proposing some measures to make rental market work for tenants. I recommended tax on unoccupied properties as well as strict ethics code for real estate agents.

Now I think these would not be enough. I think government should cease full control of all rental properties and then rent them out to tenants. People should only be allowed to own their own home, one property and that is it.

Investment properties should only be allowed for properties still under construction and 20 years after the completion of the building investor must be mandated to sell his investment property to the state.

Home is a basic human right, yet out current reality turns real estate into a major speculative asset. A few robber barons, rich enough to own multiple properties put lives of millions of renters in precarious situation for their selfish gains. Renters right to have a home is more important than profits of the few real estate tycoons. 

It is clear current system cannot safeguard this right. Therefore, a sweeping reform is needed to fix rental market and prevent society from sliding into neo-feudalism. Exploitative landlords together with their loyal real estate agents abuse tenants worse than Medieval Barons abused their villeins. Tenants must deal with substandard and overpriced properties for the sake of eking more billions for landlords.

Theoretically competition between landlord for prospective tenants would force them to improve their properties and provide better services, but reality is that there is no competition between landlords. Instead, there is a competition between tenants for available properties. This competition forces tenants to accept ever worsening living conditions to avoid being homeless.

There is a clear dependency of tenants on rental properties and landlords exploit it. 

Similar situation happened before with utilities, schools, public transport and many other industries. In all these instances government chouse to nationalize these industries to guarantee provision of services to citizens. Time has come for rental market to be nationalized as well.

Government control of rental market can take two forms. One is nationalization. Government would simply buy our every single investment property and will be the only landlord in the country. 

Second option is to instead create a Rental Authority that will control rental properties on behalf of the owners This is already happening with traditional real estate agencies, however the difference here would be that Rental Authority will have full control over the property and beneficiary owners will have no say in property management. 

Mandatory Rental Authority will rent property from the owner for government approved affordable rental rate and then rent it out to tenant for equally affordable rate. That will make sure that owner do not suffer directly if their property is occupied by bad tenant. Meanwhile Rental Authority can absorb losses from few bad tenants with sheer scale of their operations. 

People who do not rent to Rental Authority will be penalized with high property tax on unoccupied or privately rented properties.

There can also be a combination of first and second method. Some properties will be nationalized and managed by Rental Authority and others would be managed by Rental Authority on behalf of the owners.

That way government can make sure that everyone can have access to rental properties and prevent landlords from evicting or otherwise exploiting tenants. 

Of course, Rental Authority would be instructed to prioritize housing as many people as possible and avoid any eviction with exception of extreme circumstances.

Housing crisis long went out of control with as many as 50 prospective tenants competing for the same rental property with each other. We need to put an end to it as soon as possible.

Improbable Truth vs Plausible Lie

We like to think we understand truth. That truth will always win in the end. However, reality is that often lies do prevail. Especially if these lies are more plausible than truth.

My recent article about historically accurate Jesus is one example of that. For uneducated followers of Jesus was much easier to believe that God resurrected him than to wrap their minds around rather cumbersome idea that he did not die on the cross but merely lost consciousness and then awoke.

There are many more examples of the same. People believe dictators who tell them they are poor because of the America because it's a simple and believable answer. Germans believed Hitler when he said they were robbed of victory by Jews and traitors. Russians believed Lenin who said that factory owners and landowners are to blame for their problems. Then they believed Stalin who blames various "enemies of the people" are to blame for their continued misery. Chinese believed Mao and Cambodians Pol Pot. 

Reality is more complicated than that, but it's too hard and too long to explain. Public craves a simple "common sense" answer. Religion gives them just that. So are dictators and other smaller fraudsters.

Many contemporary Russians believe in Nazis in Ukraine because its more plausible than waking up to reality that EU and NATO are a more appealing for Ukrainians than "great" and "brotherly" Russia. People love myth about Russia being good and protecting people from "American imperialism" and they refuse to wake up from that delusion. They do not wish to believe than Ukraine just do not like them and has better friends now.

However, even if you honestly want to get to the truth, sometimes you cannot. As I mentioned in my other article, your own perception is limited. What you can understand depends on your level of knowledge and intellectual aptitude. You might as well dismiss truth as some stupid fiction simply because it misleadingly appears so. Extend of your own logic is the limit to your perception.

In the West wars nearly always unpopular with the public that is why no one wants to believe that Putin started his war to get more popular. That just makes no sense, even if evidence points towards veracity of this version. You can check opinion polls of Russian public and see for yourself.

Because of that all too often truth dies, unable to penetrate thick shell of perception. Lie wins because its more plausible, makes more sense, or simply more pleasant to believe that often uncomfortable truth. 

And that when there is no any vested interest in perpetrating lie. Because if there is a vested interest, then people with such vested interest would deliberately try to silence anyone who utters truth. Just how many smart people have perished to that.

To conclude that one can only hope that truth will prevail one day, and we will live in much more enlightened age compared to now.

On Historically Accurate Jesus

 

Religious people believe that Jesus was son of God, messiah, prophet or other such things. Christianity and Islam disagree on who he was and why. Certain Christian denominations too have different opinions from the rest. 

Atheists in contrast do not believe in anything special or supernatural about Jesus. Some might even say he did not exist. However, that is not true. While there is not any prove of any miracles Bible attributes him, his divinity or resurrection, there is enough proof that Jesus did exist and lived 2000 years ago in what is now modern Israel and Palestine. Because of that I decided to write about it from a secular point of view.

The biggest scientific and historical proof of Jesus existence were Roman execution records. Among numerous criminals they administered capital punishment there was certain Jesus from Nazareth, the same Jesus as from Bible. Records also show that two other criminals were executed with him on the same day, that much is also repeated in Bible.

As to what Jesus did to end up on Roman death row, then this is also a story from Bible. Of course, Bible frames it as Jesus was doing the good thing and people who were after him were bad guys, however if you think critically, it becomes clear why he ended up sentenced to death.

In Bible there was a scene where Jesus and his apostles go to the temple and start 'fixing' it. Jesus overturns table of the guy who lends money and says that usury will not be allowed in the temple of my father. Bible frames is as Jesus being moral vigilante thing here. Sure, landing money in a temple is a bad thing and Jesus set it straight.

However, if you think about it that can amount to several crimes such as assault, property damage, civil disorder. The temple Jesus was doing it all was the famous Second Temple that holds special significance for Judaism. Money landing was likely authorized by Judaist priests. 

Thus, while you may agree or disagree with Jesus on moral grounds, on legal one he clearly harasses a guy who is just doing his job in the temple. Because of that Judaist priests did complain about it to Roman authorities, asking to punish him. 

In addition to above they likely added further charges of blasphemy. Sure, nowadays Christianity is a big religion and in certain penal codes there are still statutes against saying anything that "offends religion". However back in the days it was Judaism that was big and established religion in Judea Province at the very least. Blasphemy laws protected it against any offences from anyone, including guy who claimed to be son of God and his twelve followers. 

Jews like Christians do believe in One God, so claiming there are other gods is offence enough for them. Claiming to be son of said God is the same. Polytheist Romans were much more OK with many gods, so they likely were included to show some leniency there. However, Romans governed provinces in accordance with local laws and traditions so, in the interest of public peace they likely did still condemned Jesus to death. Records of Jesus trial and execution by Roman Procurator of Judea is what gives us a secular and unbiased proof of his existence. 

Because of that Jesus was executed on Friday together with two other guys, who were sentenced to death for much more common offences, murder and robbery. Execution was by crucifying, as that was the common method of execution for Romans. Nowadays it holds special religious significance, but back then it was as common as guillotine in revolutionary France.

How Jesus "Resurrected"

Now for the most interesting part. How did Jesus resurrect. If Romans did execute him, they would sure notice something if he suddenly came back to live after that.

Truth is much more trivial. Crucifixion per se does not inflict any mortal wounds. That is partly because Romans thought that seeing pain and agony of crucified people would deter crime. People would see just how painful the punishment is and would not kill or steal. Thus, crucified were simply nailed to the cross and then left do die from natural causes such as starvation and dehydration. 

That of course would allow a person to survive and recover in certain circumstances if removed from the cross soon enough.

To guarantee eventual death, Romans would often also pierce liver. That was the case with Jesus as well. Damage to liver will not cause immediate death and a person would be able to stay alive for several days before succumbing to wounds. 

That is why in Prometheus myth eagle pecks at Prometheus liver. It's a synonymous with a painful and punishing death, that does not kill until it inflicts enough pain and suffering.

In Jesus's case, soldiers allowed his followers (12 apostles) to take his body off the cross once he looked dead enough. It was unlikely that a person with enough medical knowledge was there to ascertain death. For soldiers pierced liver was a guarantee enough, so they let apostles have him. Apostles then duly buried it in accordance with then Judaist practice, by placing body in the cave rather than burying or cremating them. 

However, it was likely that Jesus was not dead, but simply lost consciousness due to pain, heat and dehydration. Removed from the cross, he was able to recover somewhat and regained consciousness one last time. He exited the cave and greeted his followers who still mourned him near his grave. 

Person with medical knowledge would be able to tell that Jesus first lost and then regained consciousness, but for his uneducated followers Jesus rising from the grave was nothing less of a miracle. A proof that God himself have interfered and used his supernatural powers to resurrect Jesus. Jesus probably said so as well as he talked to his apostles one last time.

After seeing that, apostles spread across the Roman world, telling other such uneducated people how they saw Jesus's resurrection with their own eyes. That eventually convinced enough people to believe and convert to Christianity. The longer it went, the more and more believers they amassed.

At first Roman officials were dismissive of this new faith. After all they understood there was nothing extraordinary in what happened to Jesus. However eventually they too converted for pragmatic reasons.

That is how a misunderstanding by uneducated people can sometimes spring faith that would eventually become a global phenomenon.

Why War in Ukraine Will not End in Negotiations or Surrender

 

As war in Ukraine stagnates but continues people keep speculating on how it will end and what kind of conditions Ukraine should accept or not accept in exchange for peace.

As someone who understands situation better than average observer, I can tell that negotiated peace will not happen. The reason is not Putin's or Zelenski's stubbornness, Western support or lack of or anything else like that.

The reasons for that are Putin narrative of the war. After what he told people about this war and peace negotiations are simply not possible. To explain why I need to first outline the narrative that Putin and his loyal media keeps pushing about the war.

Putin's Narrative of War

People occasionally heard Putin and Russian media claim there are Nazis in Ukraine. Most just laugh as that sounds as the most boring cliché possible. 

Most of course imagine this statement means that Putin's and Russian propagandists think that Zelenski is modern Hitler and Ukrainian Army are Nazis. However, that is not how Putin media actually presents it.

Russian media does not make Zelenski modern Hitler. Instead, it equates Ukraine with Somalia, a dysfunctional failed state where Islamist rebels' control most of the country and government in Mogadishu is helpless to stop them. Putin and his media claim the same about Ukraine. They say that Banderites Nazi rebels are everywhere in the country and government in Kyiv is completely helpless to stop them. 

From there on they go to step two. Just like UN interfered in Somalia to prop up the government against the rebels, Russia interfered in Ukraine to prop up the government against these Banderite Nazi rebels. Hence why Putin called this war a special military operation.

How Putin's Narrative Mislead Russian Soldiers

Russian soldiers were also told they would be hunting rebels and armed gangs. That is why when they arrived there, they experienced shock from having to instead fight well-armed and organized Ukrainian Army. Difference was so stark, and shock was so deep, they could even put together what exactly is going on.

All this of course serves Putin better. The least people can connect the real situation with his narrative, the harder it is to figure out his real intentions and plans.

Why Narrative Prevents Signing Peace

However back to why narrative would prevent Putin from making any peace. Very simple: sitting down with Zelenski and signing any kind of peace deal would indirectly acknowledge that Putin's narrative is false. It would confirm that it is an actual war between two countries instead of friendly UN Somalia mission like intervention.

For Putin preserving his narrative is the most important objective in this war. Whatever he does it has to conform with the illusion that it is Somalia like intervention. Because of that he would resist doing anything that will make it look like it's not. Including signing any peace.

How it will End

From all that however it's easy to guess the eventual end of this war. At one point Putin would simply declare that Russian army hunted down all Nazis and would then withdraw. After that they will of course celebrate, give medals and so on. All to make it look like they propped the Ukrainian government from total collapse and salvaged it just like UN salvaged Somalia. 

One thing Putin is missing is Zelenski's double who can join the festivities and thank Putin personally on behalf of his country for saving them from Nazis. However, I think they will figure out something.

Why Liberals Leaving Russia

 

I mentioned it before that emigrants from any certain country often do not represent majority opinion of the said countries. Liberalism in a classical sense often struggle in Russia in face of authoritarian Putinism, but among emigrants from Russia it's the most dominant ideology by a wide margin. The reason for that is Putin's regime deliberate effort to drive as many liberals from Russia as possible.

Putin is self-conscious enough to understand that liberals are the biggest and likely only threat to his power. All other social groups can be placated. Patriots who care about Russia's superpower status could be placated with military parades and occasional jabs against the West. Conservatives who do not mind being a second-class citizen under Putinist elite are very much needed by these elites to serve them in various capacities. Women can be won with occasional shirtless photo or a shot with bikers. Finally old and disconnected from the internet people can be brainwashed with tightly controlled TV propaganda.

That leaves out the liberals. The kind that supports and espouse western values. The go and criticize authoritarianism, lack of democracy and secretly plot a revolution, similar to Euromaidan. To make matters worse they all concentrated in the capital, where Putin and his elite themselves live. Putin may be winning national elections by huge margins, but in Moscow government he struggles to keep majority, using dubious pseudo-independents of My Moscow to prop numbers of his United Russia. 

Putin cannot win liberals because he and his elite does not want to relinquish their de-facto above-law privileged status. However, he is too cautious and cunning to simply do nothing in carefree believe that liberals would not be able to do anything about it. 

Instead, he wants as many as possible liberals out of the country. It's safer that way. To that end he pushes liberals to emigrate to the western liberal countries they so like. Many, me included, did just that. Putin war in Ukraine gives liberals all the more reasons to flee.

Unlike liberals all other demographics are very unlikely to emigrate for various reasons. Putinist elite hires conservatives to serve them in various capacities, so they have no reasons to go anywhere. Patriots who are often violently abuse everyone they perceive non-patriotic enough are afraid to be harassed by foreign patriots if they go overseas, they do assume such people exist in the West. Finally, still disconnected from the net are often unable to speak English, making their functioning in non-Russophone country problematic.

In addition to liberals there only two other types of Russian migrants. One is women, who travel West irrespectively of political views to either find husband, make money or both. Because of the above they wander around in search for a man. The other are sons of Russian elites. The elites are self-conscious enough to understand dangers of Russian society and want to keep their children somewhere safe. Kids of the elites are often given a lot of money by their parents and tend to splurge cash on entertainment left and right. 

The elite children and women are typically more visible than liberals, who often avoid displaying any outward Russianness due to not liking the country they left at all. However, if you find a migrant Russian who has no large sums of money to spend, not is a woman, looking for a husband, most likely they are Putin hating liberal who do not want to remember about Russia at all.

How to Make Construction Faster and Cheaper

 

Recently I looked at another high-rise tower and wondered how long it takes to build its upper floors. A handful of floors on 30 store level take about as much time and probably effort as the lower 20 or so floors. Instead of building as high as 30 or 40 stores why not just build a couple of more towers nearby. 

Considering we have housing crisis and shortage of available homes its only sane thing to do. We should build in the way that will deliver a lot of new homes as fast as possible.

To save time and effort we should build homes as high as land-based crane can reach. That should be around 20 floors, a very respectable number. Floors higher than that require more elaborate setup and it's not worth to do it with few exceptions.

There are many more ways to save money and time. For example, building wide multi entrance apartment blocks, similar to what socialist countries used to do. Socialist architecture does not look appealing, but we do not have to copy its aesthetics, just its structural methods. To compare it with something nicer, we can say it's like a Dutch townhouse. Except its Dutch tower instead where apartment block towers share its side walls with its neighbors. We can have many towers build together wall to wall to save more money and time. Of course they could not be built one by one independently, one company has to build the whole block together at the same time.

To make it even better we can also save on foundation. A tall but narrow tower require a lot of underground structure to keep it stable. That is a lot of work that is both invisible and unlivable. Instead, we can use wall to wall towers to support each other's structure and make do with much less underground work. To make structure even more stable we can arrange Dutch towers in L, T or X shape so that the whole block is supported on every side. That way we can even do with tiny one store basement.

It's certainly cheaper to decorate each tower or section in a block in exact the same way, but it's also possible to make each section slightly different from each other.

Sure, such a huge mega block could be a challenge to navigate, but it does not have to. Even it all towers look the same, you can still mark each entrance with a clear letter from A up to Z. Then first number of the apartment would be the floor and second is the apartment on the floor. like A135 or C073.

Doing all that we can build a lot of homes faster and cheaper. That will allow us to solve housing crisis and get ahead.

Why Certain Parts of the US are Religious and Others Are Not

A while ago I watched a video that pondered that very question. They talked a lot but failed to get to the core of the issue. The core is that different denomination of Christianity is very different from one another. Some are very nice and others not at all. There are many different denominations in contemporary US, but most originated from either puritan or anabaptists.

Puritans and Irreligious Parts of the US

Puritans originated during English Civil war and were official state religion during Oliver Cromwell times. Back then they banned celebration of Christmas and other religious holidays because they thought holidays were distraction from proper faith and are too immodest to be Christians.

They were broadly unpopular with general population. So unpopular that public supported restoration of monarchy in order to get rid of puritans. Afterwards puritans and their practices were banned from England. 

Instead of learning that their denomination is unpopular mess and public hates it, they decided to instead migrate to the modern US and set up Plymouth Bay colony in New England area. 

Puritans thought that their faith will survive in the area controlled by puritans and inhabitant solely by puritans. That was only true for a first few generations. While original settlers were all supportive of radical puritan views, their descendants were not. Eventually puritanism died out.

Nowadays former puritan areas became almost completely irreligious. Memory of puritanism makes people in all areas affected by them completely irreligious. Puritanism is as oppressive and totalitarian as Orwellian Ingsoc. Absolute majority does not want to believe in anything like that.

Despite that puritanism was not completely extinguished. A certain fraction of puritan descendants does tries to resurrect some or all of puritan practices under new guise. Sects such as Jehovah Witnesses are likely inspired by puritanism.

Baptists and Bible Belt

Situation in southern US is completely different, however. Most popular denomination there are Baptists. Baptists are likely originated from European Anabaptists of the Reformation times. Anabapists were called this way because they opposed infant baptism of Catholic Church, insisting that only adults that are capable to understand faith and consent to it should be baptized. This practice is continued by modern Baptists.

European public was not keen on adult baptism because during these times a child could die in infancy, and they wish for them to enter heaven, nonetheless. European rulers too wanted a more controllable religion, such as Lutheranism so Anabaptists too migrated to relative freedom of the colonies. There they eventually became Baptists. 

Unlike strict, ascetic and totalitarian puritans anabaptists were all about unconditional love of God. They even went as far as helping out their enemies who wanted to kill them. Instead of strict rules Baptism has help, charity and love of God. It is them who say that Jesus loves you.

Conclusion

Unlike puritanism, baptism is much nicer and more agreeable religion. It is a religion that can attract and retain people with its kindness, care and support. This is the real reason why there is a bible belt in the south and irreligiousness everywhere else in the US. People who escaped puritanism now want to avoid anything that resembles it even remotely. In contrast people who experienced baptism want to stay with this nice and helpful faith.

Extra

There was another video that claimed that people who see other practice religion are likely to be religious themselves. In response to that I would like to point out to Asch experiment where a person was shown two lines of clearly different length. Before they asked them if the lines are the same length or different, they asked three assistants to all look at the same picture with lines and then state that lines are the same length.

People who claim to be religious after seeing people practice religion are not retaining faith, they merely feel social pressure to conform and claim to believe.

Democracy and Ochlocracy in 20th Century Leviathan States

I wrote it originally as part of my historical era's series, but after some thought decided to divest it into separate article.

Both democratic and totalitarian nations of 20th century are the leviathan nations of this era. However, why different nations end up so different. Why some become democratic and others totalitarian. Why some nations create great quality of life and more livable system than was in times before. Yet others instead create a truly intolerable conditions and never before seen horrors. Both were sides of the same coin and the same trend that sometimes went well and other times not so.

In both cases there was extreme collectivism and association from the collective or a group, a nation. Based on instinctual herd mentality, it was one thing that was behind best and worst examples of era of Nation states.

In best examples it was people who voted for responsible government by people for the people and deliver a prosperity for citizens. In worst examples it was also people who voted to oppress minorities, invade foreign countries and commit atrocities. Both are outcomes of popular decision making, of democracy!? 

After all wars of 20th century was fought by massive armies of citizens, not by bands of mercenaries or regular retunes, payrolled by rich absolutist monarchs of 17 and 18 centuries and their bureaucratic machine states. One individual cannot rally or payroll a 20th century army. These armies were a collective effort on a massive never before seen scene. Such effort was not possible without popular approval and consent.

The so-called dictators, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin or Mao were cunning populists who could rally their people to commit atrocities history now give them near sole credit for. They were not self-made man who could organize such things with their own resources. In 20th century no one could do something like that. All the dictators I listed were mediocre people, lacking in resources, talents or abilities. They could hardly start and run a gym on their own. If they had any talent, then that was charismatic public speaking and being a figure, people could relate to. Yet it was this charisma and relatability that propelled people to heights of power in 20th century. Yet people of Germany Russia and China rallied behind these figures and chose them to lead them and their countries.

Why such a difference? Why some people vote for sensible reasonable things and others start world wars.

Best examples are simple, they are the traditional liberal democracies of Anglosphere, that world around them strives to imitate, but often fails.

Yet its worst examples that require further study to understand what went wrong there and why?

The Analisys

To begin the analysis let's set some terms. We will not call Nazi and communist regimes democracies. While they were outcomes of popular vote and not people falling hostage to a single man or an armed force. Because of that they are not one-man rule dictatorship or tyranny. However, due to malicious and unenlightened nature of their rule, we should not call them democracies. Instead, they were ochlocracies, a rule by a violent mob. Violent mob are people, they are not dictator, they could be majority in any given state. I used this term in my other article about Political Compass. 

Ancient Greeks also used these terms: benevolent rule of majority was democracy; malevolent rule of the violent mob was ochlocracy. Greeks had similar terms for other forms or authority. Benevolent rule of the small group of worthy individuals was aristocracy, different meaning to how we use this word today to denote people of inherited peerage instead. Self-serving rule by small clique of close associate was in contrast oligarchy. In the same way a benevolent rule by one person was monarchy and a malevolent abuse of power by one individual was tyranny. 

Thus, democracy is when it turns out right and ochlocracy is when it goes wrong. So why do some democracies devolve into ochlocracies?

The simplest, but incomplete answer is different people are different, a democracy by malevolent evil people will always become ochlocracy. When two wolves and one sheep vote on what to have for dinner, then outcome would not be pretty. WWII begin when two wolfs, Nazi Germany and USSR voted to dine on Poland and in less than a month the sheep was eaten.

I can bring examples from Russia and eastern Europe. These areas are known for their envy heavy societies. When someone doing good, most people envy their success and hold grunge against them. They think it is unfair how he got so lucky in life, and they are stuck in their shit instead. 

There is even a local joke about it. A guy found a lamp and a genie appeared before him. Genie told the guy that he can wish for anything, and he would get it. However, he will give the guy's neighbor twice as much as he will give him. The guy then says, cut one of my legs and then cut both legs from my neighbor. So much he is bothered by envy so that he cannot live with a million bucks if he knows that his neighbor has two million and therefore twice as rich. He would rather be miserable if he knows that his neighbor twice as miserable.

Such place is a horrible place to live if you are good at anything at all. Envious people around you will tear you to shreds even without Stalin. That is why Putin and elites hide their wealth from common people in the areas around Moscow, not mapped on any map. That is why he vehemently denied owning the palace and aquatic disco. That is why they killed Navalny for releasing this video.

Politicians can of course capitalize on such sentiment and keep throwing baseless conjectures on why the better off guy did not make his money honestly and therefore deserves punishment for his illicit wealth. Lack of definitive proof or any proof for that matter would have stopped that in real court, but in ochlocracy that is good enough. Stalin ruled many decades, by constantly throwing his angry wolfs more and more scapegoats, whom he of course blamed for all the problems in the country. When punishing the alleged wrongdoers did not solve these problems he would prepare yet more scapegoats.

Even nowadays, when we have access to KGB archives and know for certain that repressed 'scapegoats' did nothing wrong and KGB was given quotas on how many innocents they have to prepare as sacrifice, some still believe false allegations against these 'enemies of the people' as Stalin labelled these innocent repressed people.

This scapegoating is in many ways like burning of heretics during Middle Ages of Gladiator Fights during High Roman Empire. History is cyclic.

Hitler too blamed German loss in WWI and subsequent economic crisis on Jews, communists and several other groups. He then rallied the rest of the country against them.

However German example is more complex than that. During Weimar Republic times, they kept voting in favor of moderate politicians and against Hitler and NSDAP. During 20s NSDAP vote kept decreasing. If that would have continued, no one would have remembered them as anything other than Beer Hall Riot. 

Yet things changed in 30s, and NSDAP vote suddenly started to mushroom. What did caused people to change their mind? Great Recession, struck by poverty and lack of jobs and income, public wanted a solution to this problem. In the US there was FRD with his New Deal, despite all opposition from conservative right, who saw New Deal as undue government interference with economy, American people kept re-electing FDR. 

In Germany only Hitler was willing to play role of FDR and all other parties were like American conservative right and preferred to look the other way and not talk about unemployment and starvation.

With that you can see how worsening of economic conditions radicalizes people and those who thought Hitler was madman when economy was doing well, suddenly changed their mind and decided that he was right for the job.

Russian Revolution was another such example of right time for challenging times. Lenin and Bolsheviks were willing to go furthest and approve even the most radial proposals, that everyone else thought that it was going too far and cannot be approved. To some extend not even Lenin probably anticipated how far it all will go. Seeing no results, public of Petrograd shifted more and more to towards the most radical guy on offer.

This last section does apply to our current times, when cost of living crisis and other challenges do push people towards radicalism. Even someone as unthinkable as Donald Trump could win the US election simply because he was more vocal about issues that Democrats were. Yet he is a reaction to the reality on the ground. Things are not alright, and something has to be done about it. This is no time for an ostrich politician who see no issues and talk no issues.

Solutions

So how we can protect democracy and prevent it from turning into ochlocracy. There are multiple and many. Each for its own problem.

First is structural. Democracy needs not just popular vote but also rule of law and human rights. These three pillars can support a stable and prosperous society. Wolfs cannot vote to each sheep if ship has protected rights, such as right to live. That is why European Union created court for human rights, to protect people from wolf's vote.

Law too has to respect human rights, without its legislators could simply create inhuman repressive laws. 

All the totalitarian ochlocracy examples had no due respect for human rights. Communism explicitly rejects this concept and Nazism ignores it.

Second is more complex. Falling quality of life and standards of living is a very serious challenge to democracy and can turn it into ochlocracy if it remains unresolved. Modern democracies currently struggle with just this problem. 

Here however solution lies not in structures of preaching, but in improving quality of life. Starving masses cannot be told to respect rights of those who own food. Democracies has to make sure people have enough means to survive and live a decent life, without it democracies would further and further erode into ochlocracies. 

People will vote for a genocidal maniac who can promise them food over a saint who insist that stealing is wrong even if you die of starvation otherwise.

Age of Leviathan Nation States and Beginning of its End (Revised)

 

Note: I divested the comparison between dictatorships and democracies into separate article and expanded this one with more information about Leviathan era.

As 19th century progressed, Revolutions kept flipping countries from Absolutist Monarchy to its new Nation State mode of organization. Because of how gradual this process was, some countries lived like that for more than 200 years and other only around 100. Yet by 20th century most countries on earth became like that.

This era is almost our contemporary one. We only begun moving away from it and most of its ways are still in place. However, being inside, it sometimes hard to look at it from a bird's eye view and compare it with others.

I wrote extensively about this era in my many other articles. Era of Earth, of factories of ever-growing population that eventually caused overpopulation crisis. All of these are about this era. However, if I am to name it something compared to eras before and after, I would like to call it Leviathan Nation States.

Leviathan is the giant figure pictured below, if you click on the picture and look carefully, you will notice that this big man is made up from multitude of smaller men. This is a perfect metaphor of this era. While on one hand people did cease control of the state from governing elites and absolutist kings, what they created was a unique monster in its own right. 

Leviathan is maybe an obscure example, but we have many more common examples of personifying nation with a person, for example ubiquitous Uncle Sam for the United States. He is instantly recognizable all over the world, not just in the US. Idea of depicting a nation as a person evolved from a curious concept in Thomas Hobbes' book into an everyday reality that so many instantly recognize.

Nations, that consist of biological people have personalities and distinct look, they interact with other nations. These are all common themes in our contemporary cartoons.

However, if nations are such personalities, then what of people themselves. Are they nothing more than parts of these leviathans or are they something more? 

In totalitarian regimes they are nothing more than parts of leviathans. The whole theme of anti-Soviet dissidents is about maintaining individuality in face of the omnipresent system. It was a struggle to be yourself in the face of a system that wants to homogenize everyone and everything. 

In liberal democratic societies people like to talk about individuality and self-expression. However economic and social reality is such that in school and in workplace there is a lot of uniformity and compliance. You can be yourself in your free time, maybe even choose a job more to your liking. However, people still complain about work life balance.

How Collectivism is Omnipresent in Everyday Life.

If you think about it, life in 19th and 20th century is full of standardization and homogenization. It's in military, in workplace, in school, in sport, in recitation. One might think that was always like that, but it actually was not. Standardization and homogenization of everyone and everything reached never before seen in history levels in 19th and 20th centuries.

People begin by starting and ending their school class at certain exact time. Then progress to starting and ending their work at certain exact time. Finally, even in retirement they might still stick to regimental routine of one or another type.

Even sports and other recreational activities of this era has homogenizing character about them. There are many team sports where players wear the same uniform and work together to achieve common goal. 

One might think that a game as simple as soccer was with us since times immemorable, but it actually it was invented only in 19th century. So are most of the other sports that are so ubiquitous in our lives nowadays. Olympic Games like to trace their origin from Ancient Greece, but games are we know it were created on the cusp of 20th century. Whatever games ancient Greeks had or not had; they were nothing like what we have now.

Sport and physical fitness became an obsession in 20th century. Before people could not care more for such things.

Performing Art is also all about working together: movies or theater require a lot of people to work together to make it work. Even music is performed in bands of several men playing together. Gone are days of medieval troubadours, performing all alone.

Dictatorial regimes often go even further, by making people synchronically act together to form various shapes on giant stadiums.

The pinnacle of this homogenization is of course military. Look at military parades where soldiers march synchronically while maintaining exact the same facial expression and even turn their head towards the same direction.

Sure, one might argue that some of these activities would be impossible to do differently, but for every such activity there are two or three that can be done differently but they are not. Some even go as far as doing their morning jog together with others by running at the same pace wearing the same clothes.

To further exacerbate uniformity, there are uniforms. They are in almost every business and form of occupation. Those that do not have uniforms have dress codes instead. Many countries have them at school as well. Military and police of course have uniforms too. They are visible reminder that people are part of certain organization that does certain things. Sure, it is comfortable for customers and observers, but what about people in these roles? Are they not reduced to just the function they perform?

Reasons for Extreme Uniformity

Reasons for this omnipresent uniformity is of course factory. A traditional non-automated manufacturing factory of 18th-20th century does require a lot of people to work together in a synchronized pace. Everyone has to complete their part of the work in certain time and pass it on to the next worker. 

Conveyer, introduced by Henry Ford in early 20th century moves product from one worker to another at a fixed pace. Each worker has a finite amount of time to complete their task before the conveyer will move the item to the next worker. If one of many employees fails to complete their task on time, the whole product would be jeopardized. 

Because of reality of factory manufacturing conformity, uniformity and synchronization became essential part of 19-20th century Leviathan society. It was so essential, that they drill it into kids since earliest ages of their lives in pre-school kindergartens. 

By extension every other aspect of society was molded into factory image. Education, stores, entertainment, sport, dating, family, everything. It became the most totalitarian of all eras known to men.

That does have parallels with Middle Ages, where collective effort in farming was needed to produce food. Because of that Modern times and Middle Ages do have many similarities. For example, persecution of nonconformists. Medieval Church and dictatorial regimes or 20th century were equally relentless in exterminating nonconformists. Church called them heretics and burned them on stake. Dictators held show trial for those they labelled "enemies of the people"/Reich or another equally disparaging epithet. 

Next Era

No King rules forever and no era lasts forever as well. My series of articles clearly prove that. Advancement in computing lead towards creation of industrial robots. Such robots took over human jobs in factories, unlike humans robots could work 24/7 with no food and no pay. They do not make mistakes or human errors either.

With that humans are no longer needed in manufacturing and therefore all this uniformity training is no longer needed either.

Collapse of USSR, eastern bloc, closing of mines in UK in 80s by Thacher government all happened because of this change in factory manufacturing. Workers are no longer needed, so they were laid off. Thacher could just fire them. USSR, that build its entire identity on championing such workers' rights and interests, had to be abolished and split into several nations.

However old ways are slow to go away. Generation that was raised and reached adulthood before automation was possible is still alive with us. They cannot adopt to change or even understand it. Miners still blame Thatcher. People nostalgic for factory worker friendly USSR blame Yeltsin and Gaidar for destroying their life hood.

Economy have changed but society has not adopted to it yet. School still routinely produces future factory workers for factories that no longer need them. Some young people such as I understand that, but society is controlled by older generation who pushes its ways on the youth.

This unfortunate state of events produces all the chaos and mess we have now. Older generations fail to understand there are no more jobs and still push their children to find one. Most will fail to find one at all. Those who would find one would not be better as they would be "managed" by sadistic managers who knows that their labor is not needed and the whole organization only exists to waste time and energy of participants. To make it worse the worthless jobs do not pay sufficiently enough to afford decent living. Inflation runs away and salaries stay flat, making the pay ever so worthless. 

This mess requires fresh radical, revolutionary thinking to solve it. Basic income is part of the solution, but more needs to be done to adjust to the new reality. In doing so we need to ignore outdated people and outdated ways of thinking, without such radically new approach society will continue to rot from within.

Epilogue

We currently live in a very beginning of the transitional period that would eventually lead towards new system. Changes in technology and resulting changes to economy and production of goods necessitate such change.

It is somewhat too soon to say what the final outcome will look like, but some trends are already visible.

It will not necessary be worse than what we had in 20th century. There is a change it will be better. 

It is not the same problem as ochlocracy of the 20th century but something new entirely. It would be a mistake to treat our current events as the same thing, even if some of it looks like it. 

What can be certain however that change is inevitable. If reality changes then structures has to change to adequately correspond to new reality. 

I wrote about particulars about this new and coming era in my many other articles, it would be too long to repeat this here. Go and check them out.

Let's hope that brights FDR like reformers, for example Andrew Yang, would be able to implement necessary changes in face of conservative opposition.

Age of Discovery and Age of Revolutions

 

Now we finally reached the end of Middle Ages and entered next age. This period has many names. Some like to call it Renaissance to emphasize rediscovery of Ancient Roman culture and knowledge. Other emphasize discovery of the New World and colonialism. Yet others would mention Protestant Reformation, or Enlightenment. There was a lot going on, the world was changing in many ways. 

Stagnation of unchanging and inflexible Middle Ages was over. Just like at the end of Roman Empire during Dark Ages world started to evolve and change. The only difference is that this time humanity welcomed rather than detested such change.

Yet there are many similarities with Dark Ages. In my article I mentioned how reach of Roman culture has increased during Dark ages, when it reached places as distant as Ireland or Baltic Areas. Even for a soldier of High Roman Empire, the Empire reach was limited by Rhine and Danube. Romans have established their way of life West and South of these two rivers, North and East of it there was terra incognita, inhabitant by barbarians. It was Dark Ages that first took these barbarians to Rome and later they spread Roman ways of life to their areas. Nowadays such a puny barrier such as river sounds laughable, but back in the days that was the reality of life.

During age of discovery Western Civilization managed to cross yet another such once impassible barrier, Atlantic Ocean. Older ships could not sail in ocean waters with such high waves, they would just capsize. Yet by 1450s Portughese and Spanish could finally build a ship sturdy enough to weather such conditions. This new type of ship unlocked for Europeans the whole new world of beyond the ocean. Finally, Europeans could sail west and colonize. They could also travel Around Africa to far east (modern India and Indonesia) and see for themselves the places, where Muslim merchants procured the spices, they sold to the west. Not to mention they were able to get them there directly, bypassing the greedy middleman.

European world has grown once again to the limits we know today. In the East Europeans came in contact with every other civilization that inhabits this earth, even as far and hard to reach as Japan. In addition to ever popular India and Indonesia, Marko Polo visited China.

In the West Pizzaro fought Aztecs and claimed modern Mexico for Spain. Spanish found gold and silver and then exported it using their famous Galleons. These in turn attracted Pirates who routinely hunt for these treasure fleets. Yet another parallel with Dark Age barbarians who pillaged Rome as well as Vikings. On land it was Cossacks and Tatars who pillaged, travelers of the vast steppes. Occasionally they would even organize raids to places are far as Constantinople.

Culture did change as well. Not only because of contact with all these different people who lived across the globe, but internally as well. Protestants challenged the domination of Catholic Church. The once dogmatic and inflexible institution that used threats of burning on a state as heretic to enforce uniformity and compliance from Medieval Population was shaken by Protestant Reformation. Catholic Church did survive it, but its power has diminished. They could no longer claim that everyone who disagrees with Pope is heretic and deserve to burn. 

We entered a new era, era of free thinking and innovative ideas. People started to invent new things; technology advanced. World was growing, not just outwards but also upwards. 

More efficient methods of agriculture ensured surplus of food and allowed more people to focus on other things in life. People invented harvester to replace archaic manual harvest with sickle or scythe. 

New World helped too. Many things we now think ubiquitous actually were imported to Europe from New World, tomatoes, potatoes, turkey, cotton, corn, chocolate, tobacco. Even Middle Eastern coffee was not available in Europe until this era.

Science too advanced forward. We got definitive proof that earth is spherical and that it revolves around sun rather than the other way around.

Historians sometimes call this period simply Modern Era. For an average contemporary person that might sound strange. They would think what could possibly be modern in times of Columbus and pilgrims. Yet there are certain things that our modern days and times of Columbus have in common. 

For example, bureaucratic government with a clear division between military and bureaucracy. Medieval baron was ultimate jack of all trades, he ran and supervised food production, selected and trained knights, fought in wars himself, served as judge, lawmaker and ultimate authority in his Manor. All power was concentrated in one person. A concentration that proven itself to be dangerous and inefficient. 

It was this post Middle Age Era that did away from that and created departments, each in charge of its own sphere of competence. It eliminated self-serving barons in favor and unified state that could control both military and civilians. Unlike Medieval Barons who made their own food and money to support themselves and their soldiers, Modern Era soldiers were dependent on state for food and other supplies. That eliminated issue of disloyal barons, who could rebel on a whim or simply ignore king. 

However, there was another danger in this arrangement. A state that is so powerful, that it can oppress everyone. XX century will show us some examples of that, but that is in the next article.

Some called this system absolutist rule by a monarch, history will soon show that not even king was safe from such state.

End of Age of Discovery

Age of Discovery would eventually end with Age of Revolutions. The Revolutions did not happen in all places simultaneously. Some were earlier and others later. In previous ages that probably also happen but because we have less information about these times, we can name one big date as milestone of change. Here the milestone would be French Revolution, in England, Netherlands and the US saw revolutions earlier than this date, Germany, Italy and Russia later.

However, despite difference in timing, the reasons for revolution were the same. Alleged tyranny of the monarch. The bureaucracy centered on the absolutist king replaced medieval system that was prone to infighting, fragmentation and ineffectiveness. Absolutist system had its own problem, people in power using this power for personal benefit. However instead of every baron de facto king in his manor like late Holy Roman Empire of the German nation, here its king exploits his power for himself and few of his close cronies. Sooner or later tyranny prone absolutism produced such an intolerable monarch. After a series of abuses and number of intolerable acts it led towards his eventual dethronement and often also beheading. I wrote a separate article about it a while back.

Arguable only Spanish King mistreated Dutch out of whim and for no good reason. Both Charles I of England and Louis XVI of France has pressing financial situation. Yet both handled it in a ham-fisted way, forcing powerless commoners to foot the bill for themselves and their loyal servants in lofty corridors of power. In both cases it backfired and led to their death.

However, there was another underlying problem that caused this in the first place. Draining down of state revenue. Remember how Spanish found plenty of silver in New World and were transporting it to old one in Galleons. The Age of Discovery did produce higher level of income, not just through silver but through other things as well. The countries and their people got hooked up on better life these newly found sources of wealth could afford them and begun enjoying themselves. Everyone prospered, population grew, rich threw millions on vanity projects, average became well off, poor became average. Improvement across the board. 

However, such new standard of living could only continue so long as the sources of wealth continue. Should silver mines dry out of we run out of undiscovered places to find, exploit and colonize, then what. Everyone expects a new big bounty, but such bounty is nor forthcoming. If it not forthcoming, then money has to be found elsewhere to cover the shortage, or someone has to go without.

However, no one wants to cut on their own levels of prosperity. King Charles I of England introduced many new taxes to pay his army, people did not want to pay these. Resulting Civil War ended King's rule and life. 

During early 18th century French liked to jokes that things like English Civil War could never happen in France as Frech people love their King and will never behead him. After both costly and unsuccessful 7 Years War, France had the same problem as Charles I of England, King and the court too did not want to cut on their standards of living and introduced new taxes for the poor. Poor have revolted and King and Monarchy were no more. Frech Revolution surely eclipsed English Civil War in its brutality.

Now loyal to government people in Russia say that this can never happen in Russia because Russian people are not like those in liberal Europe and like autocrats like Putin. However, I will tell you that when oil money run out it will end up worse than French Revolution.

Fundamentally however no King rules alone and absolutism does not change this fact. During heigts of French prosperity Louis XIV said that he is the state. Built on corsairs, colonies, conquests and clever diplomatic moves like succeeding Charles II of Spain, this prosperity indeed allowed him and his first descendant to indulge themselves. However, it unexpectedly came to an end, and it turned out that he was not the state. The state could easily replace him just like anyone else.

Age of Revolutions

Age of Revolutions is a transitional phase that put curtain on Age of Discovery and eventually ushered a next era, Era of Nations that we begin to exist at the very end of XX century.

Like other such transitional eras, there is a conflict between new and old ways. Here conflict was very literal and obvious. Napoleon and his armies represented this new order. Anti-Napoleon coalitions that united Europe against him represented desire of old powers to keep their power and preserve system as it was before French Revolution. People do not want to lose anything, and power is not exceptions. 

Absolutist Monarch of Europe saw French Revolution as an attempt to steal a state from them by an angry mob who is not entitled to it. Remember famous Louis XIV phrase, other Kings thought of themselves the same way and saw Revolution as attempt to steal this state from them.

On the opposite end of the corner were notions of public sovereignty and democracy. We the people, create the state and can change it, remove officials, elect new ones and so on. It's not King who owns the state, but rather serves it. 

The argument between Charles I of England and Parliament was essentially the same clash of fundamental principles. Charles, I did say essentially the same thing as Louis XIV, but in a different wording. Parliament did rebuke him, by judging that he betrayed the state he owed loyalty to. 

During French Revolution at early stages Assembly did change King's title from King of France to King of the French, to represent this idea. Not a King who owns France as property but a King who represents French people. King did not like this change. Eventually Robespierre deemed him disloyal to the new system and executed him.

This conflict between these two conflicting fundamental principles of state foundation was at the heart of every revolution. When it happened in England, they thought it was just local English peculiarity but when it happened in France and Napoleon was all too willing to export it to the rest of Europe, the Europe has united against him. 

Napoleon lost, eventually. Those who defeated him even formed a Holy Alliance - Wikipedia to prevent democratic rule in Europe. UK refused to participate straightaway, but Austria Prussia and Russia were all for autocracy. They promise to help each other to suppress all popular insurgencies and did act on it. Russia prevented liberal revolutions in Austria, Italy and Germany in 1848 by sending their soldiers to kill civilians to keep monarchs in power.

However, what Revolution has created could not be undone anymore. It spread countries that defeated Napoleon and soon their own citizens were trying to overthrow the government and establish more democratic system. 

After all ideas of people sovereignty and freedom are just too good for people to reject in favor of tyranny of unelected dude who just inherited power from his parents. As much as kings and emperors wanted to protect their right to rule their countries, the world decided to not entertain this way of thinking any longer.

Eventually even Holy Alliance fell apart over various differences over fate of Balkans and such. Russia was eager to suppress revolution abroad and in Europe, yet used is to pry Serbs, Bulgars and Greeks from under Ottoman rule.  By 1871 liberals won and United Italy. Germany too was united, even if with consent and leadership of Prussia and under theoretically less liberal constitution. By the end of WWI Austria and what was left of Ottomans fell apart into small ethnic nation states. Russian revolution ended monarchy and created USSR. 

Nation states have won and ideas of state by people for people became norm. Time for celebrations or is it. During the course of XX century, we saw some of the best and worst of this model. Ultimately however it too has its own unique challenges to deal with. The final article will address this era of Nation States and its eventual as we now at the very beginning of transition towards a brand-new system that is yet to take shape. 

On Federal and Unitary States

For some countries that are not that diverse federalism is superficial and unnecessary.

For others federalism is necessary simply because they are too diverse to function effectively under unitary government.

Most successful federal countries first were collection of independent of semi-independent nations that came together as alliance and then formed a closer union by delegating some authority to a federal government. USA, UAE, Canada, Australia, Switzerland are all like that. With asterisk attached Germany as well.

Most successful unitary countries are monoethnic and mono religious. There is little to no difference between people on the west and east side of the same country. Japan, Scandinavians, Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary are like that.

Structurally unstable countries are dominant ethnic plurality or evenly distributed ethnic groups. No matter what system such countries use, dynamics always devolve into a tug-of-war between dominant group and everyone else. Each group always ends up thinking they are not getting their fair share and blame the other groups for that. Examples are Austrian Empire, Ottoman Empire, Yugoslavia, USSR, Russia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Belgium, Bosnia. Sooner or later, they fall apart.