Pro-Culture vs Counterculture

People often talk about cultures. These are often basis for personal identities, that keep people distinct from one another, create basis for different nations around the world and so on. There is also plenty of talk of subcultures, small colourful things that allow people withing any given country to distinguish themselves from their peers without necessary going against main culture.

What gets rarely mentioned and almost always negatively is a counterculture. It often viewed as dangerous, violent and undesirable. However far not every counterculture is violent or about violence. I wrote one other article about this topic but now think it was not enough to cover this phenomenon sufficiently.

To begin with I need to set a definition. In this and my other articles, counterculture is an inversion of the country's official culture. Inversion like the inverted colours of the flags in the picture above. Why it is so I will explain further below.

To begin with I have to outline how official culture is formed. Sure, one might say it develops organically overtime as a reflection of people of any given land and such. However, reality is that government plays much greater role in shaping this culture than most willing to give it credit for. Of course, more often than not it does it in a subtle way to avoid making people suspicious. Government can promote and encourage certain trends and developments while discouraging others. Why do so? Simple, to better shape society to a form desired by elites. Traits elites find desirable are claimed to be part of national character and culture meanwhile traits they do not like are called un-Australian or un-<insert country name here>

Different governments find different traits desirable or not. Sometimes it's just minor matters of aesthetics but other times these differences are much more substantial, producing cultural antagonism between different governments and their societies. 

Most recently war in Ukraine can be explained with such cultural differences between Europe and Russia. More and more people in Ukraine and other post-Soviet states embracing European liberal democratic culture and that makes Russian elites fearful of losing their power to the common people. Europeans, who deliver their power from people, do not fear that and mock antagonism of Russian elites. Russian elites fear the same end suffered by Charles I and Louis XVI frantically try to figure out how stop democracy from beheading them as well. They and I have no doubt that they are guilty of the same crimes, these two monarchs were beheaded for. Just like them, they try to avoid being judged for these crimes. I personally want to see their heads roll.

However back to culture. There is a physical concept that any force produces an equal amount of counterforce. If we apply it to culture, we can say that any official and promoted culture will create equal amount of counterculture. Why does that happen? Because not everyone can relate to traits and values, official culture acclaims and promotes. Some bound to find these to be downright wrong and wish for a different alternative values and principles. Gradually these alternative countervalues will produce a counterculture to match.

The stronger and in a more ham-fisted way government tries to shovel its official culture down people's throat, the stronger the resistance to it will grow, eventually resulting in stronger and more cohesive counterculture. Generally western liberal democracies handle this much more subtle and skillfully than dictatorships. Thus, western countercultures typically remain weak, scattered and undeveloped. Only truly lunatic people embrace them. 

In contrast many dictatorships that overuse censorship and coerce people into official culture using police and threat of prison often end up with strong and cohesive countercultures with their own symbols, ethics, values and more. Sometimes these countercultures could even pull off a revolution and overthrow the regime. Clearly dictatorships are shooting themselves in a foot there, but they do not see it this way.

Just like cultures differ from one another, countercultures also differ from one another. Russian counterculture will hardly have anything in common with a British counterculture. In fact, most countercultures tend to think of themselves as having more in common with official cultures of one or another foreign country. Western leftists idealise "Socialist" countries, rather erroneously thinking they are the same as their countercultural views. Russian and other eastern countercultures idealise Western democracies instead for much of the same reasons. Once again there are differences between Russian counterculture and official cultures of most Western countries, but these are less apparent than between Western socialism and actually communism.

As I mentioned before counterculture is an inversion of any given country's original culture. Its traits are opposite of the tenants of the official culture, traits official culture labels as flaws and wrongs, becoming virtues of counterculture. It's much like psychological trauma that pushes a person towards the polar opposite of things that hurt them. 

For example, when it comes to picking one's girlfriends and wives, men tend to choose someone who resembles their mother. However, if they had conflicts with their mother and associated psychological trauma, they will instead look for a girlfriend who is unlike their mother in every way imaginable, the more different the better. They will think they will not repeat the same mistake so they will not choose a person that shares any similarities with their mother.

In the same way, counterculture treats anything that resembles their official culture with wary and disdain. Western leftists equate social democracy with fascism because some commie once said so, eastern anti-communists think anything with word socialism in it will mean Gulags and Pol Pot style purges.

On the other hand, counterculture can justify a lot of traits typically considered bad. Most official cultures wanted to cultivate one or another form of virtue. Some of these virtues could end up being seen negatively by counterculture that will instead value a corresponding vice. Western countercultures tend to indulge in social disturbance, property destruction as well as blaming West and capitalism for every problem out there, no matter how unrelated. Russian countercultures tend to approve tax avoidance and downright stealing from the state as well as calling state and government in itself evil.

Reasons for these behaviors lie in certain aspects of the official cultures of any said countries. For example, in the West there is strong emphasis on rationality, skills and abilities. Common good is praised but not at expense of self-interest. Facts matter more than emotions and emotions are sometimes mocked altogether. Thus, counterculture embraces these things instead, going all "my feelings do not care about your facts", as well as embracing the benefit of majority ethos of socialism. Finally western respect for property and value of material things lead towards counterculture just wantonly destroying these things for no particular reason other than just to show how they do not care for material things.

As for some real-life examples, then for example in Russia official culture emphasize so called statism: devotion and service to the state. State is object of near religious worship and people should deny themselves anything if it is for the common good, benefit of the state and the county. Calling the country "motherland" is all to further instill this sense of devotion and reverence to it. 

A certain Soviet era propaganda character, called Pavlik Morozov, emphasize Russian government's official ethos. Pavlik's grandpa hid a portion of harvest from the government officials, Pavlik learned of it and reported that to government officials who arrested and shot the grandpa, confiscated hidden grain and gave Pavlik a medal for service to the motherland. Government message is clear: be like Pavlik Morozov, report any crime even if it's your relatives or against your own best interests, be loyal to the state and society first and foremost, treasure government medals and decorations. People like Pavlik grandpa are selfish, endanger common good and the motherland with their selfish actions and thus deserve contempt and punishment. People like Pavlik Morozov adorned many propaganda posters all across USSR, all emphasising how important and honorable it is to sacrifice for motherland. 

Russian counterculture instead emphasizes not being as Pavlik Morozov in every possible way. Hide wealth from government to prevent them from confiscating it. Never report anyone to officials, no matter what they do. Steal from government because all they have was stolen from people like Pavlik's grandpa. Ignore state and common good and get rich and then retire in Rio de Janeiro (or similar tropical paradise place) like Ostap Bender wanted to. Pavlik Morozov and Ostap Bender became two antagonising characters of Soviet culture and counterculture. Bender is downright swindler and crook with hardly any redeeming qualities, but people love him regardless because he is polar opposite of hated Pavlik Morozov.

Western people will hardly call Bender a hero, self-interest may be Western value, but fraud and stealing are not. To top it up Bender has rather unpleasant personality and does not hesitate to swindle even his associates and run for it. They will not endorse Pavlik Morozov but will hardly praise Bender just because he is not Morozov.

Ostap Bender is just one example of such counterculture idol, not everyone is inspired by him, but I am pretty sure that almost every Russian Oligarch was inspired by him and likely employed his methods to get what they own.

Another countercultural icon of Russia is Victor Tsoi and Kino band. Their melancholic songs about personal concerns and reflections about world and life around them, still attract huge crowds long after the person himself died in car accident, allegedly orchestrated by KGB. Government wishes people would move on already, but public stubbornly graffities "Tsoi lives" on walls of apartment blocks and other areas, imitating Soviet slogan: "Lenin lived, Lenin lives, Lenin will live". 

I doubt it is possible for me to find characters that held similar impact on western culture or counterculture. Some might call John Galt from Atlas Shrugged or Ayn Rand herself as Western analogue of Pavlik Morozov because Western leftists are so hell bent on hating them. However official culture does not promote them in any way, so they are hardly poster children of the system. Real life self-made businessman like Elon Musk or Warren Buffett probably fit this role better. There are also war heroes and presidents and more. Prometheus from Greek myth or Jesus is possibly Western analogue of counterculture hero. Western lefties tend to believe that western prosperity needs to be stolen and shared with the rest of the world, just like Prometheus stole Fire of Gods and gave it to people. Lefties relieve Prometheus life by voting to increase migration or advocating black people's rights and then endure right wing backlash. All that will mostly apply to the United States as Australia and Europe are rather different in that regard.

One might want to mention Ned Kelly or Eureka Stockade as a counterculture hero, but Ned Kelly does not polarise society as other examples here do. There is a dichotomy between wowsers and larrikins as well as between Tories and Laborites, but I do not think there are characters that archetype each of these groups. We in Australia go easy on propaganda and ideals; instead, we surf, drink and barbeque food instead.

Also, I would like to mention that it's not necessary only a single counterculture for every given official culture. In any given country there could be several different countercultures with different opinions about each other, they can see themselves as complimentary but different or even oppose each other even more than official culture. 

If we compare cultures to atomic structure, then official culture or cultures are like protons forming the core or monolith of the state and giving it positive charge, subcultures are like neutrons, also hanging around the core but with no charge, just atomic mass, finally countercultures are elections, negatively charged and revolving around the core at a distance and hoping to escape to another atom.

Negativity towards official culture does make one think that things are better elsewhere where culture is different. However, cultures of the idealised foreign countries are almost never the exact match to the counterculture of another countries. That said they are still closer to the countercultures of the said counties than their own official cultures are. 

Thus, countercultural people on average are more inclined towards individuality, solitude and negativity. In general, countercultural people exhibit electron like behavior. Unlike official culture people or subcultures who like to band together like protons and neutrons in atomic core, countercultural people keep their distance from people around them as they float at the distance and thinking of switching from one core for another.

Just like in atomic physics some atoms are more inclined to lose their electrons while certain other atoms instead gain them. Smaller atoms with just one of two electrons on outer layer often lose these electrons to atoms with many electrons on outer layer. It works the same way with cultures. Monocultural and autocratic societies with few countercultures tend to lose its countercultural members to the multicultural societies with many subcultures and countercultures. I forgot how it's called in atomic physics but in human societies it's called brain drain.

Finally, about flags. Since counterculture is inversion of any given county's official culture, it would be natural to use national flag of inverted colours as a counterculture flag of any given nation. For example, this is inverted flag of Russia and this one is of Australia. There are more in the picture above. As I mentioned in another one of my articles that Bahamas are likely the most un-Russian country in the world. True to this idea inverted flag of Russia or Australia has broadly the same colours as flag of Bahamas. So are most other nations inverted flags as white inverts to black, red into turquoise and finally blue into yellow. 

Black stands for defiance, turquoise for tropical paradise sea and yellow for sand on the beach of such tropical paradise. That is possibly something most countercultures could agree on. All these values, principles and sacrifices are pointless (unless they exist to protect this tropical paradise lifestyle, like EU liberal democratic values do), what matters is 5-star resort living in a tropical paradise. I call it 5-star-resortism, the only ideology that touches my soul. 

To that end we can adopt flag of Bahamas as international counterculture flag. Flag of people who do not give a fuck about your feelings and values, will not sacrifice for your stupid shit and in it only for themselves and their tropical paradise living.

How Open Pit Mining Changed the World

 

Back in the days I liked to watch a Russian TV show called Chto, Gde, Kogda where a group of very erudite people would answer not so trivial questions about various global trivia. Despite their erudition I doubt they will be able to explain how the process, depicted in the picture above, caused both rule of Margaret Thatcher in UK, collapse of USSR and war in Donbas. In fact, they might even struggle to name the process, much less explain its far-reaching implications. Their knowledge is more of cultural rather economic kind.

Now the correct answer. The process above is called Strip Mining and the machine doing it is Bucket Wheel Excavator. The experimental prototypes appeared in early 20th century but really took off around 1970. There are more technicalities a professional miner will be able to point out but for the purpose of this article they are not important. 

These technological and other developments revolutionised mining. If before a lot of people had to work together in small pits or underground shafts to painstakingly collect a few pieces of coal every day, then with BWE a small crew can easily extract tons upon tons of coal every day. Coal, that was very hard and sometimes dangerous to mine, suddenly became cheap easy and abundant.

However new methods of mining did have a certain negative effect. Just like any other technological breakthrough, it did make obsolete the methods that were used before. In this case old mines, using more traditional methods of mining, became unable to compete with new much more productive and cheaper ones.

Already in 1973 government of UK considered closing some of their mines. The miner's strike did put an end to this plan, and miners even got a pay rise. However, that made traditional mining even more unprofitable than it was before. Combined salaries of miners were much higher than the price Coal Board could get for the coal they could mine. That was not sustainable. As time went it only got worse.

Eventually government struck back. Charismatic Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher first convinced the public the cuts were necessary and then went after mines. She closed the already unprofitable ones and promised to gradually close the rest as they gradually deplete. Miners fought back with strikes and protests, but this time government was prepared. They stockpiled coal in advance, and this time had access to significant amounts of imported coal. 

Fundamentally miners lost precisely because their mining was no longer as essential to economy as it once was. Early 1900s of peak coal when without its mines and miners UK would just stop were long gone. Now miners and their mines were history, a different kind of mines that used heavy machinery like BWE were now making more than enough coal to heat not just UK but the world, cheap and easy.

Now to the second part of the question. Why it collapsed USSR. BWE sure is big but not big enough to destroy the superpower armed with nuclear weapons, right? Turned out BWE could and did destroy a superpower armed with nuclear weapons.

Unlike UK, where Thatcher government could alter laws and close mines, Soviet system had workers protections enshrined on nearly constitutional level. That gave workers unparallel job security that USSR liked to brag about both to its public and abroad, never failing to mention how Soviet worker cannot be fired on a whim of some greedy capitalist boss. In times of economic stability and absence of dramatic technological changes it worked well, but when technological change required that some industries be completely re-imagined, it was an unacceptable impediment. 

Since Soviet Socialist ethos prevented them from just firing workers, they decided to fight the economy instead. Ever since early 80s successive governments tried variety of measures to improve productivity and stave off economic collapse and bankruptcy. One year they will toughen measures, institute strict accountability and tell people work harder or else? When that did not work, they will try the other way and instead allow private enterprise. A year later Gorbachev will go on a global charm offensive to get loans to democratise USSR and prop up the economy while at it.

Despite best efforts, Gorbachev policy experiments have not managed to beat the economy. Late 80s were characterised by shortages of food and other basic goods. Finally, USSR itself collapsed in 1991. Economy won. All that showed that if a country will not adapt to an economic change, it will be swept away by an economic storm even if it's a superpower armed with nuclear weapons.

The final question. How that relates to a War in Donbas. Simple, the people do not get the economy. Even in relatively economically savvy UK, if you ask anyone from a mining town why mines closed. they will squarely blame it on Thatcher. Most will say it her sheer malice and evil nature that make her close mines, hurt workers and steal children's milk from schools. Even complex in depth explanation by YouTube pundits often cite neoconservative conspiracy to enrich the rich by robbing the poor. Hadly anyone will quote Bill Clinton's famous "it's the economy stupid".

That should be no surprise than their colleagues in Ukrainian Donbas also do not blame the economy for their troubles. If an average erudite from Chto Gde Kogda will not be able to get that one, what can one expect from a miner that goes down the dusty shaft every working day. Not the most conductive environment for intellectual development.

Back during Soviet times miners would blame Gorbachev and Soviet government. Most actually supported Ukraine's independence for that simple reason, thinking it will make mining great again. However, after independence they would soon start blaming new government in Kyiv that old underground shaft mines do not pay as much as they used to during 70s. Eventually this sentiment gave rise to Soviet nostalgia and pro-Russian irredentism. Miners forgot how they thought separating from USSR will solve the mining problem, now they thought re-uniting with Russia will solve it instead.

Hawks in Russia, overrepresented both in government and among the general population compared to other countries, saw it as a call for action. To "liberate" the miners from government in Kyiv. Concerns for Russian language, culture, EU, NATO and other things further added to the casus belli. In actuality Ukraine was and still is very reasonable in phasing in use of Ukrainian language instead of Russian one. It natural that every country would expect its residents and citizens to be able to communicate in its national language. Even that however offended Russian hawks as they see Russian language and its continued usage as some sort of unalienable right of Russophones of post-Soviet states. 

Russian government made things worse by either deliberately exacerbating or downright inventing obstacles Russian speakers face in Ukraine, giving hawks more reasons to call for action. At first, they simply wanted cheap distraction from domestic problems for Russian public. However, the lies they told eventually grew so large, it became impossible to not act on them. After certain point refusing to do so would either mean Putin is too weak or cowardly to do anything. Admitting that all Russian TV has told them about Ukraine was a lie (which it was), including life footage of abuse that was staged or fabricated, was not good either as that will make people question other things Putin and Russian TV ever claimed or showed. 

A war ensued and as of writing this text the end it nowhere in sight.

However, while war is often seen as univocally bad thing, there is one silver lining that can actually produce something good from all that destruction. It will open Donbas area to a more modern methods of mining.

Most of Donbas mining was in underground shafts. These take very little space on the surface, so mining towns were built all around mines. The density of build-up makes it impossible to convert the area into open pit or strip-mining area, where heavy machinery will fit and be able to work, without destroying the mining towns themselves.

Now that war brought destruction in the area and Russia literary levelled several towns like Bakhmut with the ground, that surface mining could become feasible. 

If Ukraine will begin shelling the annexed areas controlled by Russia the same way Russia shelled Bakhmut, soon the entire area will be rubble. War will give convenient excuse to do this to this area. Most of the population has already fled and a lot of housing is already damaged beyond repair. There is no reason to not finish the job.

Profits from surface mining will be able to bring prosperity to Ukraine and fix the damage war has done to it. At the same time there are hardly any downsides left as most towns are already damaged beyond repair and most people have fled. So, it's time to make lemonade out of proverbial lemons that life gives sometimes. The country will be richer from it.

Socialism is Dead and We Should Move On

 

Socialism is dead. As someone who looks at things objectively and does not hesitate to point out issues of both right and left, I have to say it straight and clear. Socialism is dead, it will never recover and it's time to move on.

In this article I do not mean Social Democracy that is practiced in Scandinavia and generally across the Europe. Neither do I mean new left like Podemos or Syriza. They do have a future. New ideas such as Social Liberalism and Social Libertarianism together with UBI have future as well.

However actual orthodox Marxist Socialism that wants to cease means of production is fully and truly dead. Nationalising means of production did not work then and has even less chances of succeeding now.

The reason why Socialism is dead is the fact that nationalizing means of production does not solve the inherent problems of capitalist system. It just replaces one ruling class with another one, who are no less cruel and condescending towards working people than those capitalists they replace.

George Orwell illustrated it well in his Animal Farm book. The pigs who led the revolution gradually became even more spoiled and exploitative than the farmer they expelled. Real life communists went the same way. They wear blue collar worker's uniform to look like one of the masses, but in reality, lead a more spoiled life than kings they replaced. Look and Kim Jong Un or Fidel Castro and see if for yourself.

Even when first socialist congress was convened in the middle of 19th century, many cautioned against this very outcome. What was the reaction of the congress: to expel the critics, labelling them naysayers and press on.

Several splits on, the more radical socialists managed to seize power in dysfunctional and backward Russian Empire. They finally got their go and what did it showed. The fact that critics were right. The new ruling class replaced capitalists and now exploiting workers like never before. Even some very fervent supporters of revolution like Trotsky and Mayakovski were pointing that out. What did communist party did about, it? Once again expelled the naysayers and pretended that there is no problem.

What happened in USSR afterwards? Did they tried to address the issues and fix the system. No, far from it. Instead, they doubled down on repression. 

Anyone critical of the system in any way was silenced and repressed. Zealotry and unwavering faith in the system became the modus operandi of the party. Competence, ability, science, skills and other useful abilities that could actually move country forward were ignored and sidelined in favor of blind faith that Lenin and the party know what they are doing and unflagging desire to carry their will forward. 

Even leaders who wanted to improve life of common people were removed in favor of brain-dead dogmatic zealots. Khruschev fell because he had ideas and wanted to make things better. He was replaced with Brezhnev who just parroted the slogans and pretended that everything is sunshine when it clearly was not.

How was life for an ordinary worker. Much worse than in "exploitative, rotten capitalism." Leaders' desire to stick it to Americans and the West bled the country dry. USSR had half of GDP of the United States, yet leaders wanted an army bigger than American one and be first in space as well. They also spend lavishly on various communist guerrillas across the globe to win the Cold War. 

Average worker had to foot the bill. Every rouble spends to help Africa is rouble not spend on quality of life. Average Soviet and Eastern Block citizen had much less wealth than average Westerner NATO member. Apartments were small, cars where exotic luxury and so were electronics. Even food and clothes were scarce, the planners of planned economy somehow calculated that person needs only a pair of socks and pair of trousers a year and produced no more. putting all surplus money in tanks, rockets and African dictators like Mugabe.

Meanwhile across the iron curtain Americans and Europeans learned from their mistakes and fixed the issues that their system had. They started spending to improve quality of life of common man. FDR introduced New Deal policy, Social Democracy was implementing welfare state across Europe. Post WWII era became time of unprecedented prosperity and comfort for average joe.

What USSR did to match that? Nothing. Instead, it double down on propaganda and tried to claim moral high ground. They had no quality of life, so instead they pushed ethics, claiming that spending of Africa and space is more moral than on yachts and mansions. Did average worker who had to work more and eat less to make it happened cared for Africa. Not at all. However self-righteous party bosses decided for him anyway. They chose to beat America, matching American achievements move by move.

Gradually USSR mirrored everything Americans had. Americans flew a man into space; USSR has to to. US build 5000 nukes; USSR has to build 6000 to top that. Americans won 40 Olympic medals; USSR has to win 50 and so on. Even organisations such as Boy Scouts and YMCA were copied. Society scouts were called Young Pioneers and instead of Young Christian Men Association there was Committee of Lenin's Youth (ComSoMol). Even that scarf around neck was the same, just of different colour. The church was of course the party itself, huge sprawling juggernaut that controlled it all.

Eventually conflict started too like Cola Wars between Coke and Pepsi, labels are different, but content is largely the same, just of different colour. Joke that capitalism is exploitation of a man by a man and socialism is the other way around very aptly described it.

Final nail in the coffin was delivered by crazy dictators such as Pol Pot and Kim Jong Un. No matter how much socialists will claim "it was not real socialism" the public will forever associate socialism with Pol Pot's brutality, North Korea Craziness and Cuba's poverty. There is just no way to whitewash any of that.

It all ended in late 80s when people grew so tired of sacrificing their wellbeing for the ego of party bosses, they just rebelled against the system, and it was no more.

Almost 40 years have passed since then. Did communists learn something from all that? Nothing at all. All communists and orthodox socialists do is wallow in nostalgia, tout few achievements and fervently deny all shortcomings no matter how small.

Capitalism won because it could learn from its own mistakes, identify its shortcomings and offer solutions that work. Communism lost because it cannot do the same critical analysis of its own system shortcomings.

That does not mean that left in general is dead. New left, born in the current system and offering solutions to the current problems still able to be popular. Podemos and Syriza win elections and form governments. Broadly left Pirate Parties do the same.

New left has future, but its bogged down by the old left. Old communists eventually made their way into Podemos ranks and destroyed the party from within. Now people no longer trust Podemos, and it could not win anything. Syriza and Pirates are smarter because they refuse to do the same and keep communists at arm length.

Pirates can win election, Syriza can win elections, but old orthodox Marxist Socialist cannot. So, it's long overdue Marxists finally get down from their high horse, admit critics were right, put their red flag into museum and rally behind the black and/or purple one instead. Then under leadership of sceptics and critics we can actually create a better world for us all.

Communism and Socialism is dead, and the sooner left realised it the better. Then we can finally work on a new and better system that will actually solve the problems.

Australia Should Replace $5 Note With A Coin and Withdraw 5c and 10c Coins

 

Ever since Queen Elizabeth II has died, there was an issue of replacing her image on $5 note with something else. A progressive crowd want aboriginal motive while those not so found of Aboriginals resist this idea.

What both sides overlook however is the fact that inflation made value of $5 note much lower than it once was. Nowadays you can buy a lot less with $5 note compared to what you could buy with $2 note when it was withdrawn and replaced with $2 coin. 

Australian mint already makes commemorative $5 coins. They are pretty, bimetallic or coloured with various fancy features. Instead of reinventing the $5 bill it will be much easier and practical to make one of the commemorative designs a permanent coin. It will save country a lot of money in the long run as coins are much more durable than notes, even plastic notes.

Also, while at it we should also withdraw 5c and 10c coins. By now their value have deprecated so much, they hardly even make change for anything. Minting them is waste of money. They are nothing more than deadweight that often just casually gets dropped on the floor and ignored by people. Yet these worthless coins cost money and effort to actually mint.

At the same time the other coins can be reimagined as well. 50c coin can be made smaller and thinner. Meanwhile a 20c coin should be re-imagined as 25c and lowest denomination available. It should also be made smaller and thinner. Prices even in grocery stores are in increments of 25c, so it will be practical and reflect reality. 

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 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.

To help remedy the situation I decided to write about migration myself. Since I am a migrant myself, I know how the system works as I went through the system myself. I also know that not all migrants are going through the same system as I did. There are many types of migrants, and their experience and reality of migration varies dramatically. I personally saw different kind of migrants with completely different situation and prospects compare to myself. 

Couple of years ago I already wrote about this topic once, but it was poorly structured and worded, so I decided to write it anew.

I will be being from the very beginning. There were at least two distinct waves of migration since mid 90s. There were more before that, but I cannot judge them much as they happened way before I was born. They say back then (50s -60s) you could get 10 pounds for moving to Australia or even get a free land for your farm somewhere in the outback. In my time (2000s) you had to pay department of immigration $2500 just to look at your application. The only explanation to that is that application is 20+ pages long and there is lots of supporting documents to process. 

First Wave - Skilled Migration - mid 90s to late 2000s

First wave that I was part of was skilled migration. Back then people complained that there are not enough doctors in Australia and you had to book one month in advance to see a GP. The solution they came up with was to convince foreign doctors to come to Australia and so Skilled Migration was born.

In addition to doctors, government decided to add other professions that are in short supply, for example accountants as well as IT professionals because IT was new and hot back then and government did not want to fall behind in tech. Other professions were available too, but they had fewer points awarded thus pushing your approval bar higher. There was a many pages long list of all recognised professions, each with different number of points available. It's likely still available on immigration website.

To simplify it worked as follows: you education and profession decided you immigration prospects. If you have a profession a country really needs (doctor, accountant), your migration will be relatively easy and streamlined. If you have somewhat average profession, they could let you in if you had a lot of qualification and experience. If you had a profession the country does not need as we already have plenty of locals doing it, they you will be told Australia is closed permanently and you cannot migrate here, unless it is to spend your money here and come back home. Blocked for immigration professions include ecology experts, teachers, lawyers (unless from Common Law country), fishers (locals do that enough already) and more.

There were other requirements too, like health (no-disabilities), English language proficiency and more. Finally, there was age. Government did not want people close to retirement to come here and almost immediately fall on government pensions. People between 18 and 25 got maximum points and then every 5 years will cut 5 points off your total, making passing it harder and harder. Cut off age was 45 and if you are older than that, too bad, Australia is closed for you permanently.

One subtype of this program was student migration. If you do not have the desired profession but willing to learn it, you can come and study in Australian University and after graduation you can get a skilled visa with permanent resident status with naturalisation pathway. All that has to be paid out of pocket and on double rate compared to locals. 

All in all, it was rather realistic, even cynical system that will bring the skills country needs, while filter out those who are not needed here. No education beyond school, you cannot come here. Uni degree but in ecology or liberal arts, the same as for school only. Too old, also no go. Disabled, same. Back that I did not care for any of that, I qualified and could change drab cold dictatorial Russia with crazy Putin and his equally crazy supporters for a tropical paradise of one of the wealthiest countries in the world. I am pretty sure I was not the only one who thought this way.

Despite strict requirements, applicants were many. Somewhat well-off and educated inhabitants of various dictatorships like China and Russia were very eager to escape their oppressive nations. Thus, demand was always higher than available quotas.

Overtime as country was managed to plug its shortages of certain skills, it could afford to be even more selective, and requirements got even tougher. Higher language skills, more points and so on. It's probably much harder to get this visa now compared to when I applied and got it.

Selection criteria were tough, but you could estimate in advance if you will meet them or not. If you do not qualify, you will not bother going through with it or try a different country instead. If you qualify then you can plan ahead and be fairly certain you will get your permanent resident status and naturalisation in the end. After naturalisation you will be considered a citizen (national) of your new country with the same rights and responsibilities as those who were born there. Now it's your new home and you are not foreign anymore. Doing that sometimes will deprive you of your original citizenship, making it impossible to travel back freely, but most migrants will naturalise anyway. 

Life on people who went through Skilled migration program was quite cozy for the most part. Once you are approved, your status is the same as that of locals. Since program is geared towards selecting only well adaptable people with professions in demand, the new migrants on average did much better than locals. That will probably not be so if you only measure people in compatible professions, say local accountants against migrant accountants.

Nonetheless I knew a migrant family on one accountant income, who had 2 cars and 2 investment properties and one daughter. Back then Migrant Dream or Australian Dream was real and well and alive. I missed out on all that thanks to Financial Crisis of 2008 and Ben Bernanke personally, if I was born earlier, I would have had that as well.

It all ended with a financial Crisis of 2008. Not program itself, it got it requirements toughened to really reduce intake of skilled migrants. However, by that point Australia had enough professionals to fill in skilled work no one knew how to do. Now they needed people to do work no one wanted to do.

Second Wave, Unskilled Migration

If first wave of migration was about filling the jobs no one knew how to do, then second (post-crisis) wave was about filling the jobs no one wanted to do. Simple unskilled but physically demanding roles like cleaning, hauling cargo, construction (in Russia at least) and so on. Low pay and unpleasant working conditions make these roles unappealing to pretty much everyone. How to fill these roles, by using those who for one or another reason have no other choice.

Demand for unskilled labor gave rise to a new kind of migrant. Lack of uni level skills was not the only difference with the first wave migrant. Second wave migrant was a complete inversion of the first wave one. Unskilled migrants were very poor, hardly knew much English beyond simple phrases, often were rather stupid and/or unable to adapt to a new environment and finally had dubious legal status. 

Unlike skilled migrants, unskilled ones did not have a dedicated legal pathway visa program for them. Some were refugees, other came of tourist visas and overstay, others had no visas at all. Unlike skilled migrant visa, with tourist visa one has no legal right to work in Australia. With no visa at all one had no right to even be in Australia. It is them who are the illegal migrants; people so like to hate.

However, these were exact traits that made them desirable for their employers. Countries like Australia have strong labor laws, guaranteeing workers protection, relatively good wages together with safe and sound working conditions. All these things cost employers a lot of money and limit their power in the workplace. Bewielded by these rules, some unscrupulous employers would like to circumvent these laws in some way. Second wave unskilled migrants provide them with just the way to do it. 

Uneducated unskilled foreign worker is unlikely to know that labor laws even exist, much less what is written in them. That make it easy to exploit them by paying them much less then minimum wage and making them work in hazardous environments. Even if they knew what minimum wage is, their own precarious legal status will prevent them from taking it to court. While court may award them the salary they were underpaid and other compensations, it will also likely order their deportation due to violating visa conditions or not having visa at all. Also, unlike first wave migrants, those of the second one have no access to welfare and have to work to survive. Because of that these illegal unskilled workers continue being overworked and underpaid by their employers.

Because unskilled worker migrants are typically also illegal migrants, they cannot simply enter the country normally using planes and airports like skilled workers do. Because of that they rely on smugglers who know ways around rules. Smugglers arrange for them to be shipped on some boats and such. The infamous boat people are likely these types of migrants. 

Though saying migrants rely on smugglers is somewhat misleading. Its smugglers who often advertise their services, luring unsuspected people towards life of near involuntary servitude. Smugglers could also screen future migrants to pick more obedient ones and turn down more unruly or knowledgeable ones.

Even after migrants are in the country, their smugglers likely continue as their handlers. Unskilled workers do not have enough ability to find their way around the country; this and their legal status prevents them from safely interacting with people around them or police. Thus smugglers/handlers do it for them. Handlers arrange for accommodation, food and work for unskilled migrants. Said accommodation is likely not much better than for similarly unskilled workers in Dubai (see here), but here they cannot show it as that violates Australian labor laws, but not Dubai labor laws.

Because of the abovementioned laws, unskilled workers do not work for Aussie companies directly but rather through some shady employment company, set up by their handlers. Such a company subcontracts their work to Aussie employers for prices below minimum wage, collects their pay and later pay actual migrant workers much less than what they received for their work, pocketing the difference. 

A person from a country that lives on 1 dollar a day will likely be happy to be paid five times that much without thinking how little it is in the country they are in. They cannot go out and interact with people in Australia so they cannot know how much a dollar buys in Australia. Their handlers will also be happy with how high the difference is between what they pay their smuggled migrants and what get from Aussie employers who use their labour. Smugglers are the real winner of this arrangement.

Unlike skill migrants that take work for which locals do not have skills, the unskilled migrants actually take work from equally unskilled locals. School grads with no tafe or uni degree are likely to be affected the most. Due to how labor law works employers actually prefer to unskilled migrant to a local because they could pay a migrant less than minimum wage and treat them like shit, while local in the same situation will eventually take them to court and win. Locals know labor laws and that is why employers prefer foreigners who do not.

That said if unskilled migrants were completely removed, most businesses will likely close rather than begin employing locals. Years of paying less and neglecting safety and other regulation will likely make complying with laws too expensive to be profitable.

I personally did not meet anyone from the second wave in Australia, but I have seen how people in compatible situation lived and worked in Russia and it was not pretty. There are people who live in the same construction site they are working at, surrounded by their work tools, toxic paints and other chemicals. Their documents are confiscated by their employers, and they cannot go anywhere out of fear of being arrested for being illegal and deported back to Tajikistan (most of them are from this country, but some are from other Central Asian or post-Soviet states).

Thanks to that knowledge of unskilled worker reality in Russia I could reasonably reconstruct and estimate what happens with unskilled illegal migrants in Australia. After all the idea that government out of sheer generosity and kindness of their hearts gives migrants free humane accommodation and everything while neglecting locals, just like Murdoch press claims, is a pure fantasy to rile up nationalistic sentiment. Unskilled migrants live in terrible conditions and work for money you will rightfully consider a sick joke or an insult. People who bring them here do so to take advantage of this fact.

Conclusion

All things considered in our current economy being on a dole over competing with unskilled migrants makes the most sense for pretty much any local. That is why being on dole should be normalised and it should be transformed into a permanent citizen allowance/dividend rather than temporary (in theory) arrangement for those looking for work. Mutual obligations and job search requirements should be dropped, and payment should be reimagined as permanent citizen allowance. The UBI solution.

However, just like age of skilled workers came to an end, the end is coming for unskilled ones as well. Automation will soon replace many menial unskilled jobs, making illegal unskilled migrants obsolete. Unlike the legal skilled migrants before them, they will not be able to fall on the dole and will either be deported or starve to death. We will or course soon forget all about them as we embrace our fully automated future. 

Extra: How All That related to War in Ukraine

One final bit of insight as to why conservatives support Russian war in Ukraine. War produces refugees who flee destruction caused by war. Since it's an emergency they have to leave with next to nothing. Once abroad these clueless foreigners with no local knowledge or language ability will very likely become easy prey for the same unscrupulous employment companies that used to smuggle boat people. These smuggler/handlers now have extra 9 million strong pool of refugees to work with, enough to man every unskilled work out there. To top this pool up even further Putin constantly shells Ukrainian civilian targets instead of military ones. Dead soldiers will not make good unskilled underpaid workers but civilians whose homes were destroyed will. 

On the other hand, Zelenski refuses to help this effort out by limiting Ukrainian shelling to military targets and infrastructure. Putin and Trump want Zelenski removed because they hope a different leader will target homes instead of valuable military equipment and will add many more millions to the already large pool of refugees, this time from Russian side of the border. Putin does not need them in Russia as they tend to protest his rule and demand fair election in which they could elect Navalny to replace Putin. Putin is tired of using riot police and communal trucks blockades to keep them off his Kremlin office.

God is Dead and We Should Move On

 

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. Jesus, his story and associated holidays like Christmas will stay with us just like Greek and Roman myth did, but believing in him is no longer possible.

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.

If you thought that could not be worse, it can. In Russia one street away is too far away. People who run the government also run media and Russian counterpart of Rupert Murdoch shuttles between broadcasting tower and Putin's office almost daily. Saying anything that differs from what such puppet media says carries 15 years in prison and there not a single TV channel or newspaper that is not controlled by this system.

If Rupert Murdoch managed to convince so many people that Islam is a threat to UK, imagine how many people Putin can convince that Nazis in Ukraine are real.

Also, Rupert Murdoch recently married former wife of Roman Abramovich. Abramovich is de-facto something of a Putin's personal asset manager. He uses money Putin have embezzled or taken as bribes to buy various luxurious properties for the use of the latter. Marriage to a former wife of such a person could only mean one thing. Putin bought Murdoch and now using his media empire to spread propaganda beneficial for Russia in the West. Internal security has to look into that.