Principles

I am quite amazed at the fact that the stuff that I write is almost always and universally seen as controversial, because the way I see it, it’s the common sense interpretation of the available fact pool. I’m not making stuff up, I’m not making low-probability leaps of faith and logic. The fact that I’m seen as controversial means you’re all smoking the wrong shit, I would say.

If anything, I would say that my ability to see what the facts actually are, and what follows from them is controversial only in the sense that everybody else lags behind because they have some kind of emotional or intellectual resistance to accepting the available facts; it’s not that I’m making wild guesses or working with fringe theories. I’m working with the same dataset everybody else can access. I’m not even that smart; if you IQ-test the statistical sample of some demanding science-based university, a percentage of students would match my raw cognitive power, or exceed it. So, if I’m not using an alternative dataset, and I don’t possess alien brainpower, how is it that I’m routinely ahead of the “main stream” to the point where people look at me as if I have two heads when I make a statement, and then months, years or decades later it’s “fuck, how did he know that”. It’s actually very simple. I don’t care what people think. I don’t care what they believe. I don’t care what they consider to be “main stream”. I don’t care if something will be accepted as true by others. I basically don’t care, I just take in the widest available pool of data, I do several attempts at normalizing the dataset (for instance, when thinking about bone shapes of hominid fossils, I ignore those obviously suffering from arthritis; when analysing the political picture, I eliminate obvious wishful thinking), and basically let the data speak to me with as little coloration as I can manage. I’m letting the raw data speak to me, so to say, and tell me about the world it lives in. Then I try to imagine the world the data lives in, and I try to predict stuff, and as I gather more data, I check whether it confirms or rejects my predictions, and so I iteratively refine my simulation until it fits all the available facts, and I allow for paradoxes; things don’t have to be neatly arranged and they don’t have to make sense. I don’t reject a Platipus just because it appears to make no sense. I don’t reject evidence of an extinction event just because it’s a one-off thing. I don’t reject the possibility of rare events just because they don’t happen in anyone’s living memory that introduces the kind of recency bias that allows people to build cities and farms in close proximity of active volcanos that just happened not to erupt in recent memory, or participate in economic bubble hysterias just because the last bubble-popping disaster was decades ago.

Basically, I’m doing science the way people used to do it, before it got so formal and rigid. I’m gathering data, using it to make a model, and then I test the predictive ability of the model with new data, and I either revise it or abandon it, depending on whether it works or not. And I don’t care whether it works or not; I don’t care about my reputation, or other people’s opinion, or about sunk investment in the existing model. I just want to find out how stuff works, and as far as my understanding improves, I don’t care whether I was right or wrong, as long as I get better understanding in the next iteration.

Let me demonstrate this with a few examples.

There used to be a controversy about whether the Neanderthals could speak, because in order to conclude that they could speak there should be a fossil finding that confirms both sufficient tongue mobility (hyoid bone) and brain capability (Broca’s region). My logic was that the common ancestor (Turkana boy) of both modern man and the Neanderthal man had a developed Broca’s region and this had to be present in the evolutionary successors, basically assuming that stuff that didn’t change much across the evolutionary tree was developed early on and then inherited in the perfected form. What follows from this logic is that speech was developed quite early on in the hominid evolutionary tree and it is actually the driving force behind the later brain development, because once you have speech, you can communicate complex ideas, and therefore more complex ideas can actually be an evolutionary advantage, and lack of complex ideas can be an evolutionary pressure. Basically, you can communicate complex things, such as storing food for the winter season, or migrating to where the salmon will be, or ambushing a herd of bisons in order to drive them off a cliff, or tell an educational story to the next generation in order to expand the level of inherited knowledge compared to the baseline of personal experience. Basically, my model of hominid brain development assumes that speech was developed quite early on, and that it created a positive feedback loop that both motivated and rewarded brain development.

Another example is the relationship between climate and the K-T extinction. I started by looking a graph of all known great extinctions in the history of life on Earth:

The shape of the graph surprised me, because I expected the mass extinctions to be independent, Poisson-distributed events, something akin to the background radiation. What I found useful is the ability to look at the graph and ignore all the scientific labelling that concentrates only on a few spikes, naming them the P-T extinction, K-T extinction etc. In fact, the extinctions follow a pattern of an elevated baseline of extinctions, followed by a spike, which means that some evolutionary pressure was in the environment for quite a bit of time, usually millions of years, and then either the pressures exceeded the survivability threshold for a huge number of species and caused a supermassive extinction all at once, or a discrete event aggravated the situation to the same effect. I also had to ignore human ways of perceiving time, because humans are a very short-lived species of even more short-lived beings, and our perception of time and change is inherently flawed. If something doesn’t change for 10 KY, we think it’s forever. If something stays the same for longer than our species has been around, we think it was designed in this perfect and static form by God. This is the motivation behind thinking of great extinctions in terms of discrete events – a supernova explosion, a giant asteroid strike, a supervolcanic eruption and so on. We don’t think in terms of continental drift that takes hundreds of millions of years to change the configuration of continents relative to sea currents, and when a radically fatal configuration is established, it takes 60-70 MY for the effect to manifest itself fully. We also don’t connect the events intuitively across such vast chasms of time, observing the long-term trends and ignoring the very visible spikes, but that’s exactly what I did with the data. I made an assumption that is opposite to every other analysis I’ve seen, and said “what if the spikes don’t actually matter?”, because the dinosaurs were in a process of mass extinction due to the slow process of reduction of global temperature, increased aridity and increase in seasonal climate variances. By “normalizing the data” I mean ignoring the biggest elephants in the room in order to see whatever is left when the distractions are removed, and then I saw that the climate has been cooling for more than 65MY, and a few MY ago it reached the point so extreme it started throwing the planet into ice ages, alternating between glacial and interglacial cycles, where the interesting fact is that it conforms to the Milankovich’s cycles, but only within Pleistocene, only after something cooled down so much it started throwing the climate off balance, and I decided that the amount of buffers in the atmosphere must have gone below the critical level, which allows for the extremes; most likely, the atmospheric CO2 was extracted into the oceans due to greater solubility of the gas in cold water, which put the climate into its death-throes, with the anticipated stable condition of a global glaciation that might last until the continental drift gradually changes the position of continents relative to the sea currents away from the current configuration that promotes cooling. My analysis is that the anthropogenic increase in CO2 emission actually helped stabilize the situation a bit, increasing the buffer levels to a more long-term sustainable value, but the long-term prognosis is unchanged. The problem with human thinking is that, due to our short life span, we assume that the Earth was perfect “the way we found it”, while in fact it was in a configuration that is fatal for life in the long-term, because of the cooling trend, and that we are in the last, terminal phase of this transition, and this terminal phase is called “Pleistocene”, the phase in which even the extremely small variances in orbital parameters can introduce an ice age, or pull the planet out of it. The next phase, I could call it Cryocene (in order not to repeat the “Cryogenian” label), would take place when the buffer levels in the atmosphere fall below the amount necessary for the orbital variances to thaw the planet out of the glacial phase, instead allowing for the progressive increase in glaciation until it reaches the “snowball Earth” phase again. How long until then? It’s hard to tell, but my intuitive interpretation of the graph says that the error of 5MY is acceptable. Translated to human language, the next ice age might be the one we never get out of, or we might have 5MY until that point, because the industrial CO2 emissions introduced so much unexpected buffer it’s hard to anticipate the consequences, to the point where it might delay the onset of the new ice age by several MY, or it might actually destabilize the system, create an unexpected Dansgaard-Oeschger event and pull us into an ice-age sooner. The margin of “I don’t know” is the size of 5MY, which is double the size of Pleistocene. One of the instability-modes that my model predicts is that the plants are normally restricted by the scarcity factors, such as CO2 or Phosphorus in the environment, and when you remove the restrictions, their growth suddenly expands exponentially to the point where they suck up and “bury” all those factors from the environment, basically turning atmospheric CO2 into coal deposits. This means that human-induced CO2 spike can produce a plant-induced CO2 drop which can, in some kind of a perfect storm of conditions, trigger a glaciation. However, the number of unknowns is so vast that my simulation has no predictive abilities within the stated margin of uncertainty. What is quite certain is that my model of a long-term cooling trend, driven by continental distribution that allows for a Coriolis-powered circumantarctic sea current, essentially “liquid cooling” the planet more efficiently than the Sun can warm it up, and promoting gradual buffer-extraction that destabilizes the global climate, is valid, and long-term predictive. The “problem” is that the process started more than 65MY ago, and that the Chicxulub asteroid produced a very visible extinction-spike that masked the actual problem. Or, we could say that human psychological attraction to discrete spikes is the actual problem. I think it has something to do with predatory genetics, where a lion or some other animal is perceived as a significant event, and grass growing is perceived as background noise that is ignored. Well, in my attempt to become less blinded by human biases, I started ignoring the lions and zebras and paying attention to the grass. This is why my analyses start by ignoring the things “everybody knows”, and going back to the raw data, normalizing it against distractions, and letting it tell its own story.

This article is too long already so I’ll stop here, although I could cite a dozen or so additional examples. In any case, you can see the outlines of my method – absorb the raw data, ignore biases and distractions, trust the known-to-be-valid mechanisms, such as thermodynamics, inertia and so on.

But, that’s also how I model politics – it’s not that much different. See who has better debt-to-GDP ratio, who has foreign trade sufficit, who has cheaper energy and more of it, who has better access to the basic natural resources, who is less sensitive to isolation from the global economic and political systems, who has more robust and reliable basic technological systems, and who has population that has a healthier attitude towards reality, and then model interactions and time-graphs. When you do that, not only do my assessments no longer look like some fringe conspiracy theory, but you start asking yourself why is nobody else following such common-sensical principles?

Good question, I guess.

Free will and desires

I heard a saying once, attributed to Paramahamsa Ramakrishna: “Everybody has free will to choose the form in which they want to worship Krishna”, as an explanation of free will. I reduced this to the core statement, that free will exists only for God and the saints, because everybody else has so many conditions imposed upon them, it would be ridiculous to even speak of any kind of freedom of will. However, it is intuitive to people that they have this or that kind of freedom, and my parsing of Ramakrishna’s dictum is usually rejected on the intuitive level. Also, the concept of desire is very quickly introduced in any discussion about free will, so we’ll need to deal with that, as well.

I have a nasty joke from the former Yugoslavia as an illustration of the relationship between freedom and desire. The adapted version would go somewhat like this:

A guy was cornered by the street gang, and they asked him, do you want us to do it with or without lube? The guy thinks and answers, “with lube”. The gang leader shouts out: “Hey Lube, come over here, this faggot wants it bad”.

That’s the position we’re in, while in this world, and I remember this every time I hear some Hindu preacher start about how the desires need to be controlled because they somehow stand between ourselves and God. The guy cornered by a gang of sodomites actually has a hierarchy of desires; he wishes never to have found himself in that situation in the first place. Barring that, he wants to be out of there unharmed and instantly. Barring that, he would prefer to fight his way out of the situation, but there are too many of them and he assesses his chances and concludes that his options are to be either killed or beaten up first and then raped, and to be raped with varying degrees of bodily harm, and then appears to choose the option with the least harm.

That is what I call a conditioned desire, and all the desires we ever had in this world are likely of this kind, and when someone takes the last iteration of the process and claims that this thing is an actual desire, I think of that joke instantly, because one’s desire for a new car or a house or a new phone is exactly as free as that guy’s “desire” to be fucked with lube, and the Hindu or Buddhist preacher talking against desires is basically humiliating the victim of violence by claiming that “he wants it bad”.

Let me illustrate this with my own hierarchy of desires.

I want to be in God forever with no limitations of any kind, to either my consciousness, form of existence, memory, knowledge, power or freedom. I can’t have that, because reasons. OK, if I have to be here in this lunatic asylum / prison, can I have at least some of my stuff back so that I don’t have to feel like a bonsai kitten in every way possible? Nope, because reasons. [several iterations later] OK, I see where this is going, I’ll go buy a lawn mower to trim the grass on someone else’s lawn that I’m renting because I don’t have anything better to do anyway and I need a workout.

At this point the Hindu preacher pisses himself with happiness because he found the reason for all my problems: it’s the desire for a lawn mower that was preventing me from being with God all this time, and if I only gave it up and not act on it everything would be great, to which I roll my eyes and think “please kill me now”.

Basically, you’ll know what your desires actually are only as you start approaching the actual freedom. I would classify desires as intrinsic and extrinsic, where the intrinsic ones are the ones you would have in your pure, unlimited state, and for all I know, you might still want lube at that point, but I somehow don’t think so. The extrinsic ones come from the circumstances, and can be described as a desire for hell not to be as hot, or a desire for some toy so you don’t go crazy thinking about all the things you can’t do. Basically, the desire for sun block with protective factor of ten million ends as soon as you’re removed from hell.

Misc issues

There are several issues I want to bring up.

Scott Ritter suddenly changed his narrative from “Ukraine is losing the war and no amount of help from the West can change that” to “Ukraine needs to hold on until the NATO trains their replacement army which is in the process right now, they just need to hold on until help arrives”. This honestly sounds like Hitler’s propaganda in 1945 – we need to hold on until the miracle weapons arrive and then we’ll revert all our losses and achieve final victory. Yeah right. Basically, I agree with Gonzalo Lira that the guy sounds as if someone gave him an offer he couldn’t refuse and he traded his reputation for mainstream acceptance. Someone from the CIA probably approached him and gave him a “are you with us or against us” offer. Basically, I would treat him as an outright CIA asset at this point.

As for the argument itself, it exists only within the Western disinformation thoughtspace; the idea that the purpose of Ukrainians is to keep dying, spending old Western weapons and laundering American freshly printed money in order to strategically weaken Russia is American idea and nobody with an independent thought in their head thinks that is a good plan, especially since the time-curve is that Russia is getting stronger and everybody else is about to have a crashing economy, mass starvation, fuel shortages and popular uprisings. Basically, it’s the Russians who have to keep the fire going and the West is going to end up in the post-Soviet 1990s. The most viable part of the Ukrainian army is being mopped up as we speak and there won’t be any of it left in the following weeks. After that, the Russians will deal with Kharkov and Odessa, probably offering them terms for surrender, because it would be either that or repeat Mariupol. What I actually expect to happen is an American intervention that would attempt to broaden the conflict significantly in order to complicate things for the Russians.

Another complication for the Russians is the fact that it might actually be immoral for them to perform tactical withdrawals from the territory they hold, because the Ukrops have shown a propensity for “cleaning up the traitors” at such areas, as shown in Bucha; basically, they execute all the civilians who in any way “collaborated with the enemy”.

Anything the Russians hold, they must hold perpetually in order to protect the populace from the Ukrainian fascists. This is not easily reconcilable with the requirement of having the least possible number of troops deployed. Also, they might soon have tens of thousands of prisoners of war, and those will be the real hardened Nazis like the ones from Mariupol, not the common soldiers whom they might interrogate and let go. It’s a serious logistical problem since they are unlikely to kill them outright, and they can’t really let them go either.

That insane thing about the American abortion law, and the instant pro-abortion protests everywhere looks very much like a psy-op, and a very weird one, because it looks as if some AI running simulations recommended introducing additional intra-societal conflict in order to keep the populace in a certain psychological state it deems desirable. The entire thing is very weird and looks very much as if someone were tweaking variables. Also, the story about the next virus out there, the monkey pox, looks actually counterproductive. I’m having a weirdness overload from some of the things I’m finding in Western press, and it goes further than just common war propaganda; it looks artificial, synthetic, like something that uses principles devised by human psychologists but turned into society-control widgets tweaked by computers. Basically, it looks like the smart humans created a complex AI system and filled it with data, the system is saying what needs to be tweaked, and then the orders are given to the moronic humans who work in the politics, NGOs and the press to create artificial issues or aggravate existing but unsolved ones. This might actually be very close to the root of the problem.

The financial system is in a state of flux preceding a major crash and is conforming to the predictions postulated by the “Dollar milkshake theory“. The cryptocurrencies showed that they are only an extension of the stock market’s high-volatility, high-risk asset pool and not a new financial system, they are as restrictive as the fiat currencies and have by all standards failed. The precious metals are behaving more-less according to expectations for the rising-dollar phase of the crash, and according to my feeling for these things, the last train for getting out of the financial bubble was the end of 2021; now it’s already late in the game because if you were in the stocks and crypto, you already suffered huge losses, and if you were in fiat currency, the metals are now more expensive but still a good idea to get in while they are still available in retail, which might not last long; also, in the later phases of the Dollar collapse when everybody attempts to get into gold, the prices will skyrocket in the Bitcoin-like manner, and availability will be severely curtailed, because the governments will suck up all the 400oz bars in attempts to shore up their currencies, which will make it hard for retail product manufacturers to make coins and smaller bars. If you have confidence in “cloud gold”, basically “gold in someone else’s safe”, you haven’t been paying attention to what’s been happening to those who held gold “in the cloud”. America and the UK will outright confiscate other countries’ gold, and countries will outright confiscate private citizens’ gold with some lame excuse.

So, the US Dollar will be the last of the Western currencies to go down the drain, but I would recommend against going into the Dollar to save yourself, despite the fact that it might look very profitable in the short term, because it might be hard/impossible to get out of it, and you’ll end up with lots of numbers on the screen, unless you’re incredibly lucky and play it exceedingly well, and ride the wave of the “Dollar milkshake” by first going from other fiat currencies to the Dollar, exploit the growth of Dollar, and then manage to get out of it and into physical assets while they are relatively undervalued. However, I think it might not introduce benefits compared to what you would obtain by going straight into physical assets immediately, but it does contain significant additional risks, such as timing the things wrongly and being unable to get out, or only being able to purchase gold at exorbitant prices and incurring huge losses. I stand by my old recommendation of keeping only as much fiat currency as you need for monthly liquidity, and putting everything else into precious metals, and staging it in both physical and “cloud” storage so that you retain the flexibility of remotely allocated gold/silver for liquidity purposes.

Analysis

I haven’t been writing anything here for several reasons. First, I wrote my opinion on the closed forum in Croatian language and simply never got around to translating the articles here. Second, I haven’t been feeling well, due to the enormous pressure of all this toxic garbage I’m ingesting and analysing; it’s not health food, by any means. Third, I didn’t have anything really new to say, because things are progressing at their rather slow pace and it’s not like I have anything dramatic to report every couple of days, like those attention whores online who try to keep the audience wound up with artificial drama in order to get money from ads and Patreon.
Also, I’m trying to figure out what’s going on myself, because it’s not like I have a very clear idea. The facts are hard to discern, and even then it’s hard to understand what they mean. But let me share some of my provisory conclusions.
One of the most fascinating things, if I’m interpreting the facts correctly, is that Russia managed to invert the “bear trap”. You see, the entire Ukraine thing was designed by America and the UK as a new Afghanistan or a Vietnam for Russia, an endless war where they would lose people and equipment, suffer sanctions that will create a black hole that will suck all of Russia’s resources and create impoverishment, domestic discontent, worldwide isolation and, eventually, a repeat of the 1990s collapse of Russian society, which the Americans see as some sort of a golden era that needs to be brought back. What actually happened is that Russia is doing this with their little finger, and they designed the entire thing so that it consumes as little of their manpower, equipment and intelligence capacity as possible while still winning the war, while consuming as much of the manpower, equipment and financial resources of their enemy (America and their vassals). From what I can see, their losses from the war are insignificant compared to their losses to the American covid bioweapon, they get to train their troops in an actual conflict instead of devising massive maneuvers and exercises that they do every now and then, they get to iron out all the flaws in their tactics, see which weapons actually work and which are expensive failures, their economy is getting healthier because the remaining foreign dependencies are removed (which would be very hard to do in normal circumstances because some imports are so much cheaper than designing the entire thing domestically that it wasn’t worth doing), their society is getting healthier because the people are finally understanding that the West actually hates them, and I mean “hates” as “wants to destroy them”, and “them” as literally them, the people, despite all the hypocritical talk about hating Putin. They hate Putin because he is the personification of Russian people, a personification of strong and independent Russia. They hate Putin because they want to enslave and kill the Russian people, and the formerly pro-western part of Russia is starting to get it. So, basically, Russia has cheap food, cheap energy, and is winning the war with their little pinky finger. At the same time the West is having a slow bankruptcy avalanche; their finances were shit for decades already, they don’t produce any actual goods, they destroyed their energy sector with all that carbon bullshit, they destroyed their capitalist economy with hyper-regulation, they imported huge numbers of worse-than-useless refugees from all kinds of shitholes because of their misguided ideology, and now they are adding the additional stress of increased military spending, combined with the circular firing squad maneuver of sanctioning their major provider of food and energy.
At this point, Russia is destroying the NATO equipment as fast as it is arriving in Ukraine. They are adhering to the doctrine of minimizing exposure to harm, while exerting maximum pressure on the enemy, to the point where the entire Ukrainian military that has been surrounded in Donbass is crumbling, and the Russians are already experiencing a shortage of men handling the prisoners who keep surrendering faster than they can properly process them, which I guess is a nice problem to have for a military.
America’s main problem at the moment is that they seem to be losing the Ukrainian military, and they are trying to prevent that by all means, because if that happens they will find it difficult to justify pumping all that money out of the West, pretending it’s directed at Ukraine, while it is actually directed at their offshore bank accounts, while the Ukrainian Nazis get a hefty “commission”. It’s all a giant money-extraction scheme that uses the American printing press while people still accept that shit for goods and services, because a day will soon come when it will dawn to a sufficient number of people that allowing Americans to buy up the world’s real estate and goods with fake money, backed only by the fear of American military power, is not in their best interest.
NATO has been sliding down a slippery slope of committing themselves to increasingly provocative and hostile actions against Russia, thinking that Russia is apparently afraid of going into open war against them so it’s all fine.
America and NATO are basically in a situation where they are accelerating their collapse through instruments the Russians managed to leverage against them, and the entire thing is like a black hole, or a meat grinder. The Russians are going at it slowly because taking Ukraine was never their goal; defeating the West is. They took pains avoiding the kinds of mistakes that could cost them, such as trying to show off by trading casualties for time. They don’t care if this war lasts as long as it can, if the dynamic remains as it is now, where they are turning the meat grinder slowly with their little finger, and the West keeps being dragged into it.
Sure, if the collective West were what it used to be, with a vibrant capitalist economy, the Russia would never be able to pull off such a stunt, but the West consists of hysterical women in places of power, of communists educated way beyond their intelligence, and of people who don’t actually know how to do anything useful in the real world, and actually look down their noses at anything that has anything to do with actual physical reality. In such a geopolitical layout, where Russia controls the things of the real world, and the West lives in la la land and tries to win real wars on Twitter, the image of the meat grinder which Russia turns and the West falls into is actually quite valid. If this gets any worse, they might actually smell the coffee and turn to China, which they see as the weaker opponent, probably because they think the entirety of the war will be waged on Taiwan, where China won’t be able to utilize its massive land forces. Also, the Russians look as if they’re just doing their thing and waiting for the Americans to get desperate and over-commit, at which point all hell will break loose.

 

The West is a cult

I’ve been thinking about something for the last few days: it’s incredible how the people in the West make counterproductive moves because they start from bad premises, and when the evidence starts showing their errors, they stubbornly insist on their original course, and use their own lies and fallacies as inputs “proving” how they are right, and dismiss facts and evidence as “enemy propaganda”, and all the “official authorities” spew ideological nonsense that is completely out of touch with any kind of reality perceivable “on the ground”. I’ve seen that mentality before, in the Soviet Union. They fought reality with ideology, and when ideology produced disasters, they attributed that to “sabotage” by “foreign agents” and “counter-revoutionary forces”, because their ideology was unquestionable, it was axiomatically assumed so the problem must, obviously, lie elsewhere. Interestingly, I also saw this mentality in various religious cults, where it’s obvious to the impartial observer that their problems follow from faulty ideology that doesn’t interpret facts and reality properly, and then they have problems which they don’t acknowledge and handle properly, and instead of that they double down on their ideology which of course is correct and is the answer to all of world’s problems, which in turn increases their problem until everything falls apart.

Basically, the West is a cult, and it lives in a similar kind of a false narrative that we find ridiculous in North Korea, but are completely oblivious to the one we live in, because we don’t know the actual facts, and instead we work with the false facts created by the cult we live in.

I will need to illustrate this by concrete examples. You see, people underestimate how much progress was actually made during the Russian Empire; they think it was a feudalist backwater, and then the communists came and industrialized it all, but unfortunately this process had a high cost in human lives, yada yada. That’s not how it was, at least not during the late imperial era. The joke is, even I believed the official Stalinist narrative, until I found out several facts:

  • The Trans-Siberian Railroad was envisioned, designed and completed during the Russian Empire; the construction started in 1891 simultaneously from Moscow and Vladivostok, and it was completed in 1901, with an additional route to avoid Manchuria completed in 1916. I thought it was all done during the Soviet times, which was completely wrong.
  • The agrarian reform from the serfdom model to the capitalist enterpreneurial model was implemented in the imperial times, where the serfs were liberated and were given land, and the more successful ones (later known as the kulaks) bought land from and employed the less successful ones as labor. This increased the effectiveness of agricultural production greatly, but also introduced great differerences in wealth between people working in agriculture, which the communists exploited to forment envy and hatred of the successful ones. The communists actually re-introduced the serfdom model, disowning all the peasants (“dekulakization“) and converting them from the modern and successful capitalist model to a state-feudalism “Kolhoz/Sovhoz” model, which resulted in mass starvation later known as “holodomor”.
  • One of the main causes of the first world war was the worry within the Prussian elites that the imperial Russia is industrializing at such a magnificent pace, that it will overrun Europe within a century if they are not stopped. Obiviously, ther had to be great progress for such a concern to arise.
  • Rocket and aircraft engineering, as well as other magnificant feats of science and technology started in the imperial era, and were merely grudgingly adopted in the Soviet era, if not outright suppressed by purges and Stalin’s lunacy. For instance, Sikorsky had to emigrate to America in order to continue his work on helicopters, and Korolev was imprisoned in a gulag because his attempts to work on rocketry were deemed “sabotage of military technology”. The foundations of rocket technology later developed in the Soviet Union were made during the imperial era by Tsiolkovsky. All the great Russian literary and music work were done during the imperial era. Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Musorgsky, Dostoievsky, Tolstoy and many others, all from the imperial era. Also, Mikhail Dobrovolsky devised the three-phase alternating current system independently from Tesla, and the Russians actually had the world’s first alternating current power plant, in 1891.

I never knew any of this until I did independent digging; this information is obviously suppressed by the mass-indoctrination and disinformation industry also known as “education” and “information” in the West. Because of this, Russia is seen as a primitive backwater, and its undeniable achievements as accidents and glitches. In reality, they are only peaks on a huge mountain range of achievement that is intentionally underestimated in the West. The socialists in the West tried to indoctrinate us into believing that Russia was a primitive feudalist shithole and then Lenin brought the light of communism and in a few decades Russia became a nuclear superpower with human spaceflight and other wonders. In reality, the communist revolution stunted Russian development by at least half a century if not more. If there were no communism in Russia, and no disasters of two world wars and a fratricidal civil war in between, and imperial Russia had the chance of progressing at its own pace linearly, it would have colonies on Mars and the moons of Jupiter by now. This is a shocking statement, I know, but imagine the shock and disbelief the Germans experienced during the WW2 when they had to deal with the fact that the Russian tanks were technologically superior to their own. Apparently, they consumed their own propaganda thinking it was fact, and when reality reasserted itself the results were unpleasant.

We are dealing with something similar now. You see, I’m very tired of listening to Western analysts explaining how Russian GDP is the size of Italy and how America spends 10x more on weapons and so is 10x stronger. If something here sounds strange and contrary to experience, then congratulations, your brain is working. You see, those numbers are the result of Western economic pressure against Russia, which prevented it from being a debt-based economy, unlike literally every single country in the West, and most countries in the world, with the notable exception of China. Being debt-based functions like this: the American-controlled credit rating assessment firms assign a rating to a country’s bonds. If the rating is good, a country can go into debt cheaply, and finance its industry and spending cheaply. If the rating is poor, the opposite happens – debt is expensive, and going into debt is avoided since it’s almost impossible to pay it at huge interest. This forces most countries to be stunted in their development, because they can’t finance growth easily, and have to actually earn money in order to invest it, which takes time. However, since they have almost no debt, they are completely resistent to credit rating manipulations and pressures, which the Americans use to control their vassals – if you’re a bad boy, your credit rating gets degraded and your country can no longer refinance its debt to go into more debt, which collapses your debt-addicted economy. Be a good boy, and your credit rating stays “investment grade”, and you can continue to keep your Ponzi scheme economy afloat. The fact that Russia had to finance its economic growth by selling commodities, such as oil, gas, metal and food, made it essentially the only commodity-based economy in the world. Translated, an economy running a gold standard for its currency is commodity-based, because gold is a commodity. A petrodollar is theoretically a commodity-based currency because you need the dollar to buy oil, but in reality it’s backed by military force and blackmail – start selling oil for something that’s not dollar, end up like Saddam or Gaddafi. Continue selling oil only for dollars and American military will continue “protecting” your country. After all, it would be a shame if something happened to it.

So, basically, what this means is that there are only two commodity-backed currencies in the world, namely the US Dollar and the Russian Ruble, and only two commodity-backed economies in the world, namely Russia and China. The weakness of the Russian economy is its reliance on foreign exchange with fiat currencies, which used to make Ruble weak due to forex manipulations by America, and the weakness of Chinese economy is its reliance on export. The sanctions imposed against Russia essentially removed its main weaknesses, the forex market and foreign credit, leaving it completely commodity-based and with no vulnerabilities, which is why it has recently been the best performing currency in the world.

Of course, you won’t hear this interpretation in the Western press, because you live in a cult, and this interpretation would make you question “facts”. One of those “facts” is that Russia is economically weak, and the slightest whiff of sanctions will make it collapse, and the West is economically strong and can sanction and bully other nations. It’s actually the other way around, because the entirety of all Western economies is based on the credit-rating dependent Ponzi scheme, which created enormous financial bubbles that show good GDP numbers, but when you calculate the actual purchasing power, and when you factor in what would happen if a country couldn’t refinance its Ponzi economy, you would get a very disturbing reality, which is starting to become visible now: the West is actually completely dependent on buying commodities cheaply, at suppressed prices compared to the prices of “intellectual property” and other bullshitful constructions that form the inflated prices of their retail products, and they are addicted to selling those bullshitful products at inflated prices back to the exporters of commodities, and that’s how they keep financing their Ponzi economies that are geared to constantly work in a bubble. What the sanctions did was compromise access to cheap commodities, and prohibit their own export of inflated bullshit, thus compromising their own ability to refinance their internal Ponzi scheme, bringing their entire socioeconomic system to the brink of collapse, with very poor short-term prognosis.

When you ignore the Western fake numbers, you are left with the following realities:

  • Everybody needs energy, and Russia is a major exporter of energy, meaning it has super cheap energy to power its own economy, with enough to spare to power its currency. This includes electricity, nuclear fuel and fossil fuels.
  • Everybody needs food, and food production is dependent on two things: the Haber-Bosch method of producing fertilizers, and diesel fuel for agricultural machinery. Russia is a major producer of both natural gas used for producing fertilizers, petroleum products for powering heavy machinery, and agricultural products.
  • In order to have a modern society you need to have industry capable of producing technological artifacts, such as aircrafts, automobiles, ships, tanks and so on. Russia produces basically everything, from tractors to human spaceflight, and what it doesn’t produce currently, such as semiconductor foundries, it is in the process of building. As far as the industrial and technological basis, Russia is probably the closest to total autarky, of all the countries in the world.
  • Russia has almost no debt. Attempts to collapse its economy by making debt refinancing expensive or inaccessible would necessarily fail because Russia has been under American financial pressure for so long, it had to find ways to finance itself that are alternative to the debt bubble used to finance Western economies. However, all the Western economies are extremely vulnerable to this type of a threat, which is how America keeps them all in check.
  • The major weakness of Russia prior to the sanctions was its love affair with the West. The West made sure to make Russians realize how much the West hates and despises tem, turning the pro-Western Russians into patriots.
  • As a result of sanctioning Russia, the Western countries now have expensive and insufficient energy, shortages on the domestic market, price hikes on the domestic markets, reduction of purchasing power on the domestic market, and they already inflated their currency in response to the 2008 economic crisis. Also, they now have reduced access to foreign markets for their exports. Economic prognosis for the West is dire in the short term.
  • Euro, Yen and other currencies are falling compared to the US Dollar. The US Dollar is falling compared to the Russian Ruble.
  • Russian weapons aren’t 10x cheaper than the US equivalents because they are worse. They are actually better. The reason why they are cheaper is because the Russian weapons industry is orders of magnitude more efficient, because the American model is based on state corruption. The Russians make weapons in order to defend their country, the Americans make their weapons in order to line the pockets of the weapons industry oligarchs. The Russian model requires weapons to be as good as possible and as cheap for the state as possible. The American model requires weapons to be as expensive as possible in order to transfer money from the tax payers to the oligarchs, and quality doesn’t matter.

As for Russia, yeah, you let them know how much you hate them and think they are subhuman. You pissed them off and now they are urging Putin to nuke you, and he’s actually holding them all back. The only thing the sanctions did is clear their domestic market of imported overpriced garbage which used to finance your economic bubbles, so they are now forced to buy cheap, superior domestically produced goods. I heard a guy who lives in America, but visits Russia occasionally, say that he bought shoes in Russia and they were the best shoes he ever had. That tells you something about the terrible fate the Russians are destined to without your Gucci and Prada bullshit. They will buy better shoes for less money, eat better food for less money, fill their cars up for less money, and they will colonize Moon and Mars together with China while you learn how to eat trash out of dumpsters, thinking you’re sticking it to Putin.

What’s the actual, objective magnitude of Russian economy? This is very hard to assess, because it’s relative to circumstances and pressures. For instance, a sudden currency/credit collapse would produce a world where Russia would be the absolute No1 superpower, with China dependent on symbiosis with Russia to survive, and America and EU reduced to post-apocalyptic dumpster-fire shitholes. This is because so far Russia has been sailing against the wind, against the current and with enemies boring holes in the ship, and the West has been producing hot air to power its baloon economy. The Russian economy is closest to the physical reality, in the sense that it’s based on power plants, steel foundries, hydrocarbons, nuclear plants, and large-scale agriculture, and the West is increasingly based on the “service economy” and “intellectual property”, which are very fragile and ungrounded entities very sensitive to needles poking holes in baloons.

So, it doesn’t matter how big your baloon economy currently seems to be, and how small comparatively someone’s real economy is, if it only takes one needle to reduce your baloon to something that drops you from great height onto very hard rocks.