For quite a while now, immigration have been a major topic of political discourse. People blame migrants for all sorts of problems, from crime to employment to housing availability. At the same time there is a lot of myth about migrants, claiming they get various things for free while locals go without. Some of these myths are perpetrated by defenders of migration as well, as they are equally uninformed about the topic and just accuse the critics of racism instead of informing them about realities of migration.
Tuesday, October 21, 2025
Truth About Migration
Monday, October 20, 2025
God is Dead, God Remains Dead and We Killed Him
Nietzsche is famous for his "God is Dead" quote. Some people misunderstood it as simply rephrasing of atheist idea that there is no god. However, that is misleading.
If you read the whole passage where this quote has originated, you will get a different idea. It's not like there is no god and by extension it never existed. Instead, the passage asserts that God did exist at certain point of time, but then he died and so there is no god as of the moment of writing of the abovementioned passage.
If you read further, then you can further grasp that in these passages God is something of a driving idea of society. Something that directs society forward towards some goal. A god like this existed in Middle Ages and during Renaissance, but by 19th century he ceased to exist and now there is a void in his place. Void that at various times was attempted to be filled by communists (in USSR during and after Stalin) and many others. None of them have succeeded.
Some believe that the void left by God has to be replaced with something else, some new god. I personally inclined to think that humanity simply outgrown god. For a Medieval human god and Catholic Church was something that brought civilization, education, knowledge and better quality of life. It was a broadly positive influence over the savage humans, that humanity was back them.
Modern humanity is rather different, however. Now civilization is part of everyday life, we have education, knowledge and quality of life without God or the Church. However, while we as humanity grew and improved, Church went the other way around.
Church became backward, superstitious. While once championing education and creating universities, it now clings to dogma and resist modernity. Religious people fervently oppose science, from the most learned people in Middle Ages, the religious people today are the most backward ones instead.
During Middle Ages monks and priest were the only people who could write or read and even Kings had to rely on them for these now ubiquitous skills. Back then Church and its members were actually useful to society. They administer the state on behalf of the kings, made all the books, funded universities, even brew vine and beer for people. Without them society will not have these many other things that make civilization. Back them Church was also innovative. Monks invented many new things that improved lives of people around them.
Finally, Church was politically left. Priest would oppose tyrannical Kings the same way modern democracy activists oppose dictators today and sometimes will be killed for that by the said Kings. That will be followed by an excommunication by the Pope, much like modern Western nations sanction dictators who repress their people. History repeats itself in curious ways.
Modern Church does nothing of the above, it just sits on the laurels, oppose modernity and preaches "moral" that increasingly makes no sense. As an institution it became an equivalent of an old person who is stuck in the past, no longer capable of doing anything, but thinks of themselves as a "moral guide" for younger generations. From house of innovation Church became the abode of reactionaries who keep talking about brining past back. Christianity now is an inversion of its former self.
You can see parallels of this development in communists, who used to be innovative, and progress driven, but by now became senile reactionaries who oppose all change, whitewash the time they were in power and hope to bring them back.
In light of all that is no wonder that people increasingly abandon their "faith" and become atheists, agnostics, irreligious or spiritual. Modern Church no longer does anything useful to anyone. Its "moral" role is as overrated as that of an average 90 years old.
Nonetheless Church was moribund and senile for several centuries already, why people turning away from it only now. The answer is that life has changed, and people no longer think that core Christian characters like Jesus or God are lovable or inspiring.
Back in the days story of Jesus inspired people. They actually loved him; they thought he was awesome. To them Jesus was like a superman who can solve any problem, cure ill, create food, stand up for the common people against Romans or Jewish clergy and more. They certainly wished that someone like him was real and will go and solve all their problems. Jesus could even defeat death by curing Lazarus and then rising from the dead after being crucified.
All that was very impressive in the eyes of Medieval man and so they believed because they truly wished he was real. Medieval people would want to meet Jesus and ask him to fix their lives too. That is why they would pray in hope he will listen and fix their problems.
Not only it was impressive, but it also addressed many of the problems, people of the past had. Not enough food, Jesus could conjure some. Death and disease, Jesus can cure. Jesus could deal with profiteering too.
Thanks to technological development all that is hardly impressive in the eyes of modern man. Instead, modern people will find it repulsive to display crucifixions as they depict an agonising man tortured to near death. Crosses extensively used in cemeteries and by now firmly associated with the cemetery. Love for Jesus sound too homosexual for modern men as majority are not gay.
All in all, modern people would vary of talking to Jesus and most will likely try to avoid him if he suddenly appeared on the streets today. Even those who will talk to him will likely do it out of curiosity rather than awe.
Miracles he performed sound either too trivial or too fake. Modern people know science and so they could not be easily impressed with a few tricks. Modern doctors will likely be able to cure Lazarus. They will also not pronounce Jesus dead on the cross as they will be able to feel his pulse and confirm it with electrocardiogram.
God himself was not spared either. Back in the days people probably found certain paternalistic comfort in thought that God is watching them like a loving parent. Pope's title as well as addressing priests as father further hints towards this theory.
Modern people who often have problematic and dysfunctional families do not find the same comfort in paternalistic god. They more likely think of him as a creepy stalker. Recent issue with NSA surveillance makes problem even worse as God is essentially supernatural NSA in that regard.
Virgin Mary's story, that perhaps was an ideal mother for the people of the past, looks more like an adulteress in the eyes of modern man. People no longer dream of having children and often suspect that their wives cheat on them with outsiders to be inspired by Virgin Mary's story. No one wants to be a cuckold.
Finally, priest's holy and respectable status attracted crooks who wanted to use it as a cover for their nefarious actions. Eventually these actions destroyed reputation of Christianity itself. Recent paedophile scandals among priests come to mind, but even long before that corruption of Borgias and many other priests already damaged the Church. Paedophile priests were the final nail.
All of the above clearly indicates that God is indeed dead. Christianity no longer inspires but rather intimidates people with a creepy by modern standards narrative and imaginary. It also does not give people anything valuable that will make them come to priests and churches. Modern attempts at religious revival at pathetic at best and completely pointless at worst. People could no longer believe in God or Jesus. Neither could they trust priests or institution of the church.
Religion come and go. Roman religion was at one point replaced by Christianity. Christianity had its time in the sun and contributed a lot to a civilization. However, that was long ago. By now Christianity run its course and no longer capable of anything worthwhile. By now it's a moribund sclerotic religion that lost almost all its followers. Time has come to close the door on its existence.
As for what can replace Christianity then there is hardly any cohesive answer. In fact, different aspects of what Christianity used to do is now done by different institutions. Education and science are their own distinct spheres of live, unconnected to religion. So is government bureaucracy that replaced administrative clergy. Entertainment industry now creates characters that people love and who inspire them. Finally, internet and community centers connect people like never before. There is no role for Christianity left, it's time for it to go.
Since everything that religion once done is now done by other structures, we no longer need church in our lives. It's time we phased out religious institutions from our life and make that final step into the future.
Saturday, October 18, 2025
Propaganda in UK and in Russia
I recently watched this article about how tree powerful families of UK control all the news media and brainwash society. Even their headquarters are located only a short walk from Westminster Palace where Parliament sits.
Friday, October 17, 2025
Actual White Values
Recently people on twitter pointed towards so called "White Values by Smithsonian." In these small picture Smithsonian claims to have summarised what all white people believe in. Some of these not really wrong but many others are downright wrong and opposite of what any kind of white people actually believe or practice.
Unmasking Smithsonian Values
Here I also need to add that, "White people" are not a single entity with a single set of values shared across entire NATO or OECD. Germans and Italians are very different from what they believe and practice. However, the so-called White Values by Smithsonian managed to cite certain things that pretty much entire OECD rejects. I cannot say much for the US as I have not been in America, but even in theoretically culturally close Anglophone places like Australia and UK a lot is different.
However, I can point out where these so-called Smithsonian White Values came from, Puritans. Back in the days, Puritans were expelled from England for trying to impose on society their extremely radical views no one else could agree to.
Nonetheless Puritans found new home in what is now the US, they founded Massachusetts Bay colony and run it according to these views and values. As time went on some of them who grew to disagree with Puritan rule, splintered from them to create their own colonies of Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Maine. Together this area of the US is called New England. That is about 1/3 of total original colonies that later rebelled against British rule and created the United States.
Officially Puritanism have disappeared, but I always suspected that its influence lingers in the US to a certain extend. These Smithsonian White Values is a prove of that. White Values here is misnomer however, it's not White Values, it's just neo-Puritan values. Some, but not all Americans share these values. I absolutely doubt they hold true elsewhere in the world.
Actual White or Western Values
Conclusion
Thursday, October 16, 2025
Countries Should Buy and Sell National Land
The premise is in the title. Countries should buy and sell national territory more often. For example, Russia famously sold pictured above Alaska to the United States in 19th century. It is sometimes criticised in modern times as Americans later found a lot of natural resources in the area. However, at a time of the purchase the transfer was beneficial as Russia could get something for a piece of land it did not know what to do with and the US could get more frontier to explore.
That is not the unique example either. Earlier that that in 17th and 18th century trading national territory was common. Every peace treaty diplomat will trade more land than stockbrokers will buy and sell shares on a stock market. Selling an unprofitable colony was Tuesday. Sure, it was mostly done with colonial sparsely inhabitant land, but the point stands. Seeling land was normal.
Somehow from that we went to a 20th century notion that land is sacred patrimony of this or that people, must be defended to the last drop of blood and so on. Even politicians of nations in questions, who should be able to know better, often stick to the same stubborn refusal to even consider it.
Thanks to that we are stuck with unmovable borders and extreme nationalists who claim that their nation's rightful and sacred patrimony extends into some of their neighbors, causing animosity between them.
It would not be half bad if these borders were at least half decent, but they are not. Depend on where you look, current borders raise uncomfortable question of "who on earth thought it make sense to draw border here". Yet no matter how ridiculous these borders are, there are always those who will defend them to the last drop of blood. Talking about buying or selling territory just gets dismissed out of hand. Trump's attempt to buy Greenland shows us just that.
It leads to a situation where the only way to move borders is the war. However, it does not have to be this way. Leaders of nations could sit together and agree to a deal that will work for both sides. They could either trade land in one place for equivalent piece elsewhere or sell it for money or other valuables, like technology, even shares in valuable companies. With that the geographic obstacles with turn into business opportunities for prosperity and development. This will allow humanity to reach even greater potential and solve many geopolitical problems that plague our world.
There are plenty of historical examples of how trading land led towards better outcomes for both parties. Dutch could not make any profit on their colony of New Amsterdam and agreed to swap if for sugar producing Surinam with the British. For British New Amsterdam was valuable because it allowed them to connect their northern and southern colonies together, sparing colonials the trouble of sailing around it. Nowadays it is called New York and is one of the richest and largest cities in the world. No one would have guessed that mere 200 years ago Dutch wanted to abandon the settlement and do nothing with the area. That is one of the examples of how trading land benefitted both sides.
Thus, modern countries should start trading land too. That is much better than keep staring at each other menacingly and white countless comments on internet on how Kosovo is Serbia or Albania. I myself wrote several articles on how many borders in former USSR make no sense and should be changed. There are many other places that can benefit from that such as Balkans. Old pointless borders can give way for a new development and prosperity.
Rules of International Land Trade
To make it beneficial for all sides of the issue we should lay some groundwork rules to make sure trade is fair and does not impinge on the selling party and its citizens rights and interests in significant ways.
Every ethnicity is entitled for a country they can call their own. Such country should have at least reasonable amount of land space per person of said ethnicity to accommodate them all within their borders.
Nevertheless, they can only claim the areas they actually inhabit and use. Greenlanders, whose total population is less than average rural town, cannot call the entire huge island as their own, but they are entitled to the part of it that they currently inhabit.
No country should completely disappear from the map of the world. Saying that country should disappear from the map of the world in its entirety puts both government of the country as well as it people into corner and leaves them no choice but to fight back. Good example is current Russian war in Ukraine. That is counterproductive. Instead, certain parts of the country can and should be traded.
An adequate compensation has to be paid for the land traded. It can be paid in land, money, company stock, commodities such as oil, gold or diamonds. The selling party has ultimate choice of compensation they wish to receive for the land they sell.
If population of the area is significant, the people should be given a vote on whether they want to change the country they live in or not.
Residents of the traded area in question should further be offered a choice of whether to keep their original citizenship or switch citizenship to that of the purchasing nation.
Finally, residents should be given enough time to sell their property and relocate to the remaining area of their nation. If number of residents wishing to move is significant, a dedicated relocation program should be organised by nations who trade lands.
To facilitate the above, a transitional period of at least 1 year should be arranged between completing of sale and actual transfer of sovereignty between nations. That will give residents enough time to move if they so wish.
A nation selling land should not be deprived of access to sea and ability to use it for shipping and such.
International community should be given an opportunity to assess the deal and voice their objections if they have any. The final deal may be adjusted or even outright blocked based on these objections.
Fundamentally decision to trade or not will rest with the two trading nations in question, but neighboring countries as well as nations with vested interest in the deal should have input in final decision as it affects them to a certain extend.
An impartial mediation by the UN or other international body can be arranged if the trade is essential for the global security and prosperity.
Lands that Should be Traded
Tuesday, October 14, 2025
Truth about Stalin and Inner Working of Communist Party
It's no secret that many historical figures of the past have lots of books and narratives written about them. Some of these exacerbate things either embellishing or demonising the person in question. Yet others go further and completely misinterpret the person and their action into something that no longer resemble the person in question of the times they have lived in. Sometimes it is done due to genuine lack of understanding of person in question and other times due to desire to hide the truth.
Stalin is one such figure. Stalin is often portrayed as paranoid homicidal tyrant that intimidated everyone around him, killing anyone he felt like and forcing others to do silly things for his amusement. Some of this narrative come from Khruschev's account, who might had reasons to twist the facts if not downright invent them. Even Supporters of Stalin tend to cite him as strong leader who ruled with iron fist.
While Holodomor, purges and atmosphere of fear indeed existed and it is reasonable to blame Soviet regime and Stalin personally for that. However, it did not happen on orders of a barking mad full of himself cinema dictator, surrounded by sycophants who could never say no to their boss. Such things and relationships only exist in cinema. Real world works differently.
Accidental Leader
Some occasionally heard the story that Lenin did not want Stalin to succeed him and cautioned the party against him. Reality is that party worked in such a way that a successor could not be nominated in such a matter at all. In fact, there could not be a successor at all.
Early communists believed and practiced collective leadership. In practice that meant that members of the party will occasionally meet to discuss and debate policy and other issues. After debate they will vote on policies, and those that could get majority in favor will become binding directives for all members of the party. Lenin called it democratic centralism.
Back them vote was actually free and uncoerced unlike later times. Nonetheless continuous practice of this democratic centralism resulted in a situation where some had more sway over the body of party members compare to others. Oratorial skills were everything. Those who talked well could sway other party members to their side and get nearly anything voted in. Others could try but will get voted down.
Best speaker was Lenin himself. Even Trotsky acknowledged how well Lenin could convince these guys to his point of view no matter what the issue was. The real testament to Lenin's oratorial skills was an issue of NEP. Convincing die-hard fervent communists to adopt it was akin to convicting devout Christians to replace Jesus with Satan or Prophet Muhammad, yet Lenin talked them over to his side.
While Lenin was alive this system worked. Other party members not only acknowledged him but also trusted him. They thought he was some kind of genius who saw many more steps ahead than they did and could figure out a solution where no one else will know what to do. Thus, Lenin de-facto ruled the party without any formal title or any even minimal formal authority. Officially he was just an ordinary member, like the rest of them and in reality, he was much more than that.
All that worked fine when Lenin was alive, but then he died. The system did not have a mechanism to replace him with someone. Nominally the collective leadership will govern just as it did before. In reality collective leadership very soon devolved into battle royale for power.
The second most oratorically gifted after Lenin was Trotsky, but the rest of the party did not hold him in the same high esteem as they did Lenin. They saw Trotsky more as a threat then as a leader. Reason for that was Trotsky's popularity in Red Army. Trotsky was not always able to convince fellow party members of something, but he could convince soldiers to invade hell itself if he so wished. Thus, other party members feared that Trotsky will use his popularity in the army to stage a military coup and then rule as military dictator.
Because of that most of the prominent members of the party decided to unite against Trotsky. Instead of debating honestly and openly they decided to use every opportunity to attack Trotsky, hoping to eventually sway party members to fire Trotsky as commissar for war and later even expel him from the party.
Eventually they managed to remove Trotsky not only from power but also from USSR itself. Problem solved? Not really, it only got worse. Former allies, no longer united by common threat, started to look at their former friends with suspicion.
Next after Trotsky was Bukharin. He was popular editor of main communist newspaper Pravda and could use the paper to rally the public against his party rivals. They removed him next. Next fell Zinoviev and Kamenev, who had certain clot and sway in the party and thus could use it as power base. Eventually everyone with any modicum or power and influence was purged by the majorly rule of the average party member. The last man standing was timid, humble and unambitious guy, whom no one could possibly perceive as a threat. That man was Joseph Stalin.
Some might want to point out that Stalin was General Secretary since the beginning of the communist rule. Yes, that is true, but originally office of General Secretary was not intended to be the seat of power. It gradually evolved into one as Stalin accumulated power around him. Later leaders like Khruschev and Brezhnev did deliver their power from this office, but not as much from the formal responsibilities or powers of the office itself, but from the fact that Stalin once held it and convention and habit of communist party members associate it with power.
General Secretary is a person only in charge of party Secretariat. Party Secretariat handles various paperwork for the party, like processing membership applications, collecting membership fees, scheduling party activities, including meeting of central committee and so on. Lots of boring bureaucratic paperwork, a work for someone quiet and boring, but with good attention to details.
Stalin was given that role almost as an insult, other Bolsheviks did not think much of him so gave him something not too important and significant. However, the job was more than it seems. As head of secretariat Stalin and his crew got to meet and interview many people who aspired to join the party.
Unlike the old guard, the newcomers saw Stalin as the boss, since he was the guy who approved their applications to join and generally spend more time with them compared to other old Bolsheviks. As old guard was busy fighting for power, the newcomers gradually became the majority of not only the party but also of central committee. As party grew bigger, holding all members meetings became impractical so Central Committee was created to replace it.
Eventually new members came to dominate the party. With that role of Stalin have dramatically increased. He became a de-facto leader of sorts, not yet on the level of unquestionable authority, but a leader, nonetheless. Since most influential members of the old guard were gone in the power struggle, there was no one left to even contest Stalin's rule.
Stalin of course was not as simple as people though he was. Underneath rather humble outer appearance was rather cunning and calculated man who survived many hardships such as Siberian exile.
During old guard infighting Stalin played it safe, by supporting moderate centrist by party standards views. That prevented ideological radicals on both left and right from targeting him, as they did not see him as being against their views. Generally, he was too small of a target for anyone to bother with and thus he was left standing when the rest knifed each other out.
Surviving at the Top
Stalin's early rule however was not all smooth and easy, it was far from unaccountable unquestionable dictator people see him now. Loyal to him new members thrusted him into power and limelight, but once their Stalin had to act and actually lead.
Stalin's first major policy was collectivisation. The idea was to replace outdated methods of agriculture with modern ones. Russian peasants still used horse driven wooden plows instead of tractors and harvested using scythes instead of harvesters and combines. Using these methods, they could only work small plots of land and produce too little surplus grain to feed the country.
Communists decided to solve that creating collective farms (kolkhoz). Peasant's land would be confiscated to create large modern size fields, and peasants themselves will be employed by a collective farm to work these fields using modern machinery provided by the state. People from cities, educated in modern methods of agriculture, will lead these collective farms.
If they were Germans, they could have created equipment sharing system instead, where peasants could take turns using tractors and combines on their fields. However, they were not Germans, so they did much worse.
The reform was rather unpopular. Peasants did not want to share work on collective farm. Rural communities are small, so everyone knows everyone else. So, they knew who works well and who is completely useless. The richer better working peasants resisted collectivisation because it will equalise them with lazy losers who don't do squat. Poor peasants instead supported collectivisation because they could easily see it as their more hardworking neighbors doing all the actual work while everyone later shares all the spoils equally.
Government however pressed on with the reform. Government misinterpreted opposition to reform as opposition to communist values and ideals and ended up repressing a lot of hard-working successful rich peasants as kulaks, while leaving poor peasants to work in collective farms. That in itself was a recipe for disaster but add to it another problem and that will be real storm.
People appointed to run collective farms were familiar with agriculture in theory but did not have any practical experience and were often unfamiliar with areas they were assigned to. To make matters worse they were sycophants, that worshiped their superiors and looked down on peasants they were in charge of. Most of them saw peasants as selfish, greedy and backward. The kind of people who would hog up the produce and put country and production plans in danger over their petty selfish desire to not part with their harvest. On the other hand, they wanted to impress their superiors with record high harvests and potentially earn a promotion by beating rival collective farm bosses.
With that kind of attitudes, they would frisk all the basements and barns in search of stolen produce. They will send all the grain they could find to Moscow, hoping for rewards and promotion, leaving not enough for peasants themselves to eat and plant next year. The result was a famine that took 10 million lives, Holodomor, a recognised genocide against Ukrainian people, those some Russians and Kazakhs died too. Read about it in Wikipedia.
If you ever wondered what Chernomyrdin meant when he said, "We wanted to make it better, but it turned out as always.", now you know. A lot of policies different Russian government ever attempted ended up a lot worse compared to how they envisioned it when they planned it.
As if Holodomor was not bad enough, what came afterwards was much worse.
The first meeting of Central Committee after the reality and scale of famine became apparent was terse and charged. Members demanded that those responsible for famine be prosecuted and punished, severely, by death sentence. Gravity of the situation and scale of the famine made asking less preposterous.
Many names were floated; Stalin himself was not immune either. He got dangerously close to losing his position and status, just like many old Bolsheviks before him. However, unlike them, he would also be criminally prosecuted and then likely shot.
Ultimately Stalin narrowly survived the vote. Stalin's role as General Secretary does not make him directly responsible for agriculture, there is separate government department for that. Humbleses of his office saved him from this purge. Some argued that he announced the policy and should be held responsible, but majority chose to spare him.
That is something that profoundly affected him, as he started to think of a way to avoid another such dangerous moment.
Other was not so lucky. Central Committee instructed KGB (then called OGPU and later NKVD) to begin investigating the famine and punish all responsible. They also instructed them to go after other crimes against the government and the system to make sure that tragedy like that will not repeat itself. A year later murder of Kirov further expanded scope of KGB investigative actions. All that gave rise to what will later be called Great Purge or Great Terror.
KGB was not very familiar with judicial due process and even if they were, they chose to ignore it in favour of fast and streamlined troikas. Troikas too were assessed based on the number of people they investigated and successfully convicted. They had no proper judicial oversight, as "judge" was also a member of troika and therefore a KGB employee. Aiming to hit their targets, they look not to bring justice but to convict as many as possible as fast as possible. If they went after you, you are as good as dead or in Gulag. Technically there was court hearing, and one could argue their innocence, but since the judge was also member of the troika, he had clear insensitive to convict, ignoring all the evidence. The best one can do it to make them look stupid before they will convict you to death out of spite. Though most convictions were 20 years in Gulag as KGB realise value of prisoner labor.
Bu unleashing KGB, Central Commitee released the djinn no one could control. Gradually the entire country was plunged into the depth of fear. KGB's approach of wrongfully accusing people of various capital crimes that carried death sentence and convicting them in spite of lack of evidence made people fear them. More stupid ones feared out of control crime levels and smarter ones feared out of control KGB instead. There certainly were no 20 million something American spies, that KGB troikas successfully investigated and convicted in just a couple of odd years.
Eventually however the rate of KGB convictions started to worry the Central Committee. They figured that in practice KGB does not go after those responsible but rather jails everyone they could get their hands on. The committee demanded that someone investigate the KGB and punish out of control operatives of secret police.
To appease the Central Commitee Stalin recommended for Yezhov to replace Yagoda as head of KGB and investigate the conduct of the latter. Central Commitee agreed. Yezhov was notably an outsider who did not worked in secret police before. Central Commitee wanted an outsider to clean up the agency they believed was a danger in itself.
Yezhov's investigation of his predecessor Yagoda resulted in latter conviction and death sentence. Central Commitee hoped that it will stop the purges, but it only made them worse. Unlike Yagoda, Yezhov went directly after old Bolsheviks as well as many members of Central Commitee. By the time of next meeting of Central Commitee, all who ever criticised Stalin, demanded removal of Yagoda as well as every old Bolshevik were long convicted and shot.
Yezhov too however fell to the same repressive KGB apparatus that Yagoda created and Yezhov later used to kill Yagoda and take his place. Most felt sign of relief as Beria was somewhat milder and not as ardent as Yezhov. The Great Purge ended with the death of the latter.
However, atmosphere of fear did not dissipate. Those who survived the Great Purge, now felt it is too risky to criticize government and the party. From an era of fight for power that preceded Stalin's rise to power, the country went to era of silence where everyone was too afraid to say anything that could even remotely be interpreted as criticism or dissent.
Arrests and convictions by KGB did not end completely. By now KGB started to see their anti-espionage investigations as a form of recruitment for their prison slave labor workforce. The work they made convicts do required constant intake of fresh prisoners to replace those who die from hardship of that work. So, arrests, fake trials and convictions have continued even during Beria, but he was more subtle than Yezhov and Yagoda were.
In their use and reliance on prisoner's slave labor, KGB was no different than SS Totenkopf. Both used prisoners to build various useful for country things, like canals. Both worked them to death. Both did not feed underperforming inmates, leading to many deaths. Overall Gulag system processed and killed more people than Nazi camps did.
Stalin personally fared relatively well and his popularity with elites and the country at large only increase. Back them no one associated Stalin with the purges the same way we do now. The reason for that is that Stalin controlled KGB informally. Party Secretariat had no direct authority over KGB, but many KGB leaders were informal friends of Stalin. Some even say that Yagoda was Stalin's friend and he did not want to see him gone but had to bow to demands from the Central Commitee to save his own neck.
Both Yagoda and Yezhov consulted with Stalin over who to prosecute, but until Stalin died, that remained a secret to everyone else. That is why Stalin eventually went from an idol and a symbol of the country to a bloody paranoid dictator in the elites and much of public image.
Stalin was a puppet master that ruled through others. Stalin instructed Yezhov to press on with the purges, dismissing his reservations over the people Stalin suggested he investigate. As Stalin encouraged Yezhov to act tougher and slay "enemies of revolution" without mercy, he simultaneously plotted with Beria to eventually throw Yezhov under the bus by blaming him for the homicidal power trip rampage that killed off most of the Central Commitee. Stalin will act through others and discard them to their death if heat from his actions will demand a sacrifice. People always blamed someone else and Stalin walked away without a scratch.
Stalin's personal demeanor and mannerism make it hard to blame him or suspect him of anything. He was humble and unambitious. That made people think he is someone they could trust in these dangerous cutthroat times when everyone else was out to get you. Stalin further contributed to this image by offering to resign as General Secretary every time something went wrong and someone blamed him. That was of course a calculated move, as immediately afterwards several of his allies in Central Commitee will take rostrum to insist that he stays. At the end Stalin will say something like: "I am but a man of the party and I do what party tells me to do. If you all insist that I should stay, then I will stay." That made people think that if there indeed were any evil people on a homicidal power trip, that was not him.
Birth Cult of Personality
Now Stalin was no longer challenged, but he was not yet renown or idolised like Lenin before him. He was but one cog in the system, important one but still replaceable in theory. What really elevated him to stardom was the war, second world war, particularly German invasion of USSR itself.
Even before German invasion there was disastrous war with Finland. However, after the Great Purge, elites were reluctant to criticize Stalin or anyone for it as they feared KGB too much. However German invasion swiftly changed that.
Beginning of Operation Barbarossa was a disaster for USSR. Pretty much every major formation, concentrated close to the border was caught off guard by Germans and forced to surrender within weeks. Fear of Germans eclipsed fear of KGB and people started voice their criticism again.
Stalin also was a target of such criticism. Real risk of fall once again hanged over his head, first time since 1938. However, Stalin again played it smart by disappearing for a few weeks straight. That was a gamble as that might have allowed the rest of the elites to replace him with someone else. However, gamble paid off as elites once again squabbled for power and could not get anything done. By the time Stalin was back, the rest of the elites could clearly see that without him their squabbles for power will doom them all. Thus, they basically had no choice but rally behind him or die in German concentration camps.
Thus, Stalin led war efforts. War effort needed an image of a strong war time leader to give confidence to troops and intimidate the enemy. Thus, propaganda begun working on making Stalin into one. These efforts portrayed Stalin and strong, decisive and unquestionable leader who with sheer strength and will power will lead the country to victory.
Most modern depictions of Stalin heavily take from this pumped-up image of Stalin and not from what the actual man was. Even those who are critical of Stalin still repeat the same stereotypes but colour them negatively instead. For supporters he is super strong defender of the country that strikes fear in the foreign invaders. For opponents he is super strong oppressor who strikes fear among the population of the country.
These propaganda efforts eventually displaced fear of KGB with fear of Stalin. Now KGB was seen as merely an instrument at Stalin beck and call, rather than a fearsome institution full of homicidal psychos in their own right.
The final cherry on top of the mountain that Stalin gradually became were Allied Conferences. There Stalin set next to Roosevelt and Churchill, clearly signalling not only to the rest of the world but also to USSR itself, that he is one of the big three people who decide fate of the world. It will be a mistake to overlook the fact that these conferences affected his perception and standing among Soviet people and even elites.
If before Stalin was limited to a certain role, for which he was at least theoretically accountable for as well as had theoretical limitations on his power, then after these things if not disappeared completely, clearly faded away. Stalin became a symbol, an idol an embodiment of the country itself. Questioning him was no longer holding an official accountable, it was opposing USSR and communism itself. The Cult of Personality, later dismantled by Khruschev, have begun.
Cult of Personality Era
Dismantling of the Cult of Personality
Conclusion
Truth About Migration
For quite a while now, immigration have been a major topic of political discourse. People blame migrants for all sorts of problems, from c...
-
I recently got good idea on how to solve Ukraine war situation. They should do massive land swap. Ukraine should give Russia Crimea, Sevas...
-
A while ago I wrote that political compass fails to represent political opinions clearly enough. By now four squares political compass bec...
-
Russian Civil War had many interesting peculiarities, in certain ways it was even more complex than current Syrian war. Each of these requ...