First, we need to understand the culture we live in. Most of our life, we spend within the confinement of large, bureaucratic structures. School. University. Corporation. All of that under the umbrella of a yet greater and more Leviathan-ish bureaucracy of the state machine.

It is the bureaucracy that sets the rules, and it is the bureaucratic preferences that we must (and will) adjust to, and not the other way around. It is very important to understand that. Now one thing you need to realise about bureaucracy is that it has a strong (extremely strong!) preference for monotony.

That is only natural. Bureaucracy does not know reality, and cannot process reality in all of its complexity (no one can). All it can work with is very simple mental models, based on a few standard categories, and few parameters you need to optimise for. Now what you need to know is that bureaucracy does not choose the most accurate model (also, how does it know it is the most accurate), but the more scaleable one.

When I say scaleable, I mean that you can give this model to an average, or somewhere below the average executors, and they will understand it more or less correctly, and will perform standard, predictable actions based on it. And that the upper management high above will understand what these executors are doing, again, more or less correctly. And that is only possible when you are doing standard operations, with standard objects, based on the transparent (important!) criteria.

Bureaucracy hates diversity, and does not know what to do with it. Everything it knows it how to works with a few categories of objects and optimise for a few parameters. That is the perfect world from the bureaucratic perspective. That’s what informs its preferences. Consequently, whenever possible it will be selecting for monotony, and against diversity, over the long run creating the most monotonous landscape possible. Physical. Social. Intellectual.

You have a preference for monotony. You are selecting for monotony. And, in the end, you end up with monotony, as all types of actors (including humans) will be adjusting themselves for your preferences.

This largely comes from necessity. Everything outstanding, unusual, bizarre - puzzles bureaucracy, as its mental models are simply not fit to deal with it. The most it can do, is to classify the object not falling into any of its standard categories, into the separate category of ‘bizarre’, and throw it all away, into the trashbin.

Bureaucracy is based on transparency, it is based on objectivity, because otherwise it will simply not work. It can work only with what is transparent and legible. It can work only with the well known. Now a great deal of stuff is not very well known, and much of what is not well known is important.

Frame it this way, and you will realise how a great mighty industrial company from the US or Europe suddenly loses everything to a palaeolithic workshop from China. The great and mighty are strictly limited to what is under the lamppost. The shameful and deplorable can venture outside. In fact they must, because everything under the lamppost has been already devoured by the great and mighty. They HAVE TO venture outside, into the epistemological darkness

Read more

There is a common wisdom that men of thought want to be the men of action and men of action want to be the men of thought. I think there’s lots of truth in that. Because there’s little overlap between the two, and, yes, of course, the grass is always greener on the other side.

Although praised, and canonised as a theoretician, he was first and foremost a practical politician of the enormous calibre. And the correct way of reading his works, is through the practical, pragmatic lenses.

Will you find there some deep theoretical insights about the fates of humanity? Well, yes, but not many, and not very deep ones. In this particular regard, he was okayish, but not spectacularly good. Second, or third rate thinker. No more.

What he was spectacularly good at, is sharp & deep observations on the practical issues of political struggle. What you can find in his works, is some extremely good practical advice (and not only on politics)

For example. There is a short article, named Where to start? (1901) summarising the plan for his future party (or rather, his faction within the Russian social democrat party). Where should you start, what will be your step one when launching a new movement?

And Lenin’s answer is:

There are many reasons for that.

But the real reason is: when you start propagating your creed, that will force you to formulate that creed in the first place. So, although you are writing to persuade others, in the process of writing you will discover what you yourself believe in. Because although you have some views, of course, they are vague, unclear, obscure, even to you. Writing and publishing, writing and publishing - that’s how you will sort it out.

So, ideology, and political stance is not something that precedes propaganda. It is something that is being figured out, in the process. Preaching to the flock, that’s how you discover your own symbol of faith.

And that is important, because you need a coherent system of views to persuade anyone. Nobody will listen to you if you are preaching some incoherent mess. BUT to work out a coherent system of views, you must put yourself in a position that will force you to sort it out. Otherwise, you will never do it, practically speaking

So, what would Vladimir Lenin advice today, in our age? I think his advice would be:

Start with a YouTube. Start with videos.

Start with the ‘low’ genres, and with the formats that the audience does actually consume. Start with the fast to create products, that will allow you to speed up your feedback loop from the audience. The platforms that will allow you to scale up.

In his day and age, newspapers and broadsheets were a low status product. Not something very important, not perhaps something very respected. But that was a kind of product that was absolutely booming, and that meant - people were reading it. People were listening. And a public intellectual with the political ambitions (= who Lenin was) had to come out to the people, had to find out where they were, and come there.

Everyone is starting a newspaper → You, too must start a newspaper

Everyone is starting a podcast → You, too must start it

You have to come out to the agora, to the market square, and there talk with people on their own terms, and in a language they will understand. That's what you should be doing as a public intellectual.

And Lenin understood it better than anyone

In this context, I cannot help but to draw a comparison with Plato

Plato was an impossibly good man of thought, perhaps, the single best one in the recorded history. His insights, are incredible, divine.

But as a man of action, and as a practical politician, he was a child. Absolute toddler. In (political) action, Vladimir Lenin towered above Plato just as much as Plato towered above him in thought.

Plato of course wanted power. Nearly all intellectuals do. But - wanting power - he was childishly naive and childishly delusional about how he will get it. For what was his plan?

1. Approach a tyrant, a man in power

2. Become his advisor, a power behind the throne

3. Use the tyrant to execute your plans & your agenda

The plan is incredibly common (countless intellectuals would try it in centuries after Plato), and incredibly naive. Because obviously no man in power needs a 'philosopher’ who would be telling him what to do. That is an absolute self delusion on behalf of a philosopher. A tyrant needs servants, he needs slavs, he - if he is mentally healthy - needs a jester. But philosopher? No, he does not really need one.

What is more, Plato's plan was sort of… undignified. I mean, in a childish way. He does not want to seize power, he does not want to fight for power. He wants to find a man who already has what he wants, and use his resource as if it was his own.

The audacity. No wonder the guy sold him to slavery, in the end

Lenin, the practical man, approached this problem with clear sightedness, and with dignity that Plato, the thinker, seemingly never acquired. I cannot find a man who will just give me away his power thought Lenin. Nor will I find anyone who will just obey me, and do what I tell him to do. If I want power, I must be self reliant, and rely on my own forces, and build it bit by a bit, step by step, from almost nothing.

There is much more dignity in Lenin's scheme, than there's in Plato's. Much more self reliance. In this, practical regard, Lenin compares to Plato, like an adult would to a child.

Let’s look at this one example. The Uzbekistani fertility rate

All over the world, fertility is collapsing. Rich countries. Poor countries. Mid tier countries. Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist. Everyone is stopping to have children, everyone’s TFR is crashing into the ground.

Uzbekistan may be one of the only examples of the opposite pattern: when the fertility has actually increased, in the last few years. A quick search shows that of all the countries that have increased their TFR for the past decade (usually, the increase is microscopically small), Uzbekistan bounced back the most, and by far

Why?

You see, in many and many cases it may be difficult to explain the demographic patterns. The actual dynamics are complex, and include many factors. What is interesting about Uzbekistan, is that the reason for their demographic bounce back seems to be more or less straightforward.

In the year 2016, President Islam Karimov died

Read more

So now, I am reading Winnie the Pooh stories - for the first time in my life. And I cannot help but notice how different is the English text of A.A. Milne from the Russian adaptation of the same story.

(I call it adaptation because the Russian translation by B. Zakhoder is in fact very and very different from the English original)

And one point where it is so different is the dynamics of relationship between Pooh and his friend Piglet. In the Russian story, and that is the story I learnt first, both from the printed text and from the Soviet cartoons, their relationship is perfectly harmonious. Piglet loves Pooh, and loves him blindly. There is never any sort of disagreement, or jealousy, or competition among them. Just the pure, unadulterated bliss

But that’s not how the English original looks at all. Because in the English original, there absolutely is, jealousy, and rivalry, and competition and even the conflict of interests between the two friends.

And it could not be otherwise. Because the book - all books, honestly speaking - do absolutely centre Winnie the Pooh, at the expense of everyone else. He is absolutely the main character. Now you can figure out of yourself how does that make his lil friend Piglet feel.

The theme of his jealousy, and may be some secret envy of Pooh starts in the very beginning of the story. In the introduction. And the whole introduction - as you might have expected - is all about Pooh. Pooh, Pooh, Pooh, Pooh again.

I had written as far as this when Piglet looked up and said in his squeaky voice, "What about Me?" "My dear Piglet," I said, "the whole book is about you." "So it is about Pooh," he squeaked. You see what it is. He is jealous because he thinks Pooh is having a Grand Introduction all to himself. Pooh is the favourite, of course, there's no denying it, but Piglet comes in for a good many things which Pooh misses

So, in the very, very beginning, we learn that:

1. Pooh is the favourite

2. Piglet is jealous

And, these dynamics will keep recurring again and again, throughout the entire story

No, don’t get me wrong. Piglet loves Pooh, of course, he is happy about his triumphs. But he is still a lil bit jealous. He wants some bit of glory for himself, too. He is engaged into a secret competition with his friend

Remember how did Piglet destroy the balloon, intended as a birthday present to Eeyore? He was running very fast, to get to Eyore before Pooh did, and stumbled

When Pooh proposes some exciting plan (for example, catching the Heffalump), Piglet secretly wishes that it was he, Piglet, who proposed it first. Or take the case when Rabbit suggested stealing Roo and said that Piglet will be useful for that endeavour.

Piglet was so excited at the idea of being Useful, that he forgot to be frightened any more, and when Rabbit went on to say that Kangas were only Fierce during the winter months, being at other times of an Affectionate Disposition, he could hardly sit still, he was so eager to begin being useful at once.

“What about me?” said Pooh sadly. “I suppose I shan’t be useful?”

“Never mind, Pooh,” said Piglet comfortingly. “Another time perhaps.”

“Without Pooh,” said Rabbit solemnly as he sharpened his pencil, “the adventure would be impossible.”

“Oh!” said Piglet, and tried not to look disappointed. But Pooh went into a corner of the room and said proudly to himself, “Impossible without Me! That sort of Bear.”

There’s a lot of competition going on. And Pooh is clearly favourite (as always). So, Piglet gets disappointed again, and again, and again.

Even in the smallest details, you can see a conflict of interest between the two (It is not always about the glory & recognition). It is sometimes about who needs to do the job. For example, two friends want to catch a Heffalump, and debate what kind of food do the Heffalumps like. That is important, because that determines what do you need to put into the Trap. The acorns (that Piglet likes), or the honey (that Pooh likes):

Pooh, who had gone into a happy dream, woke up with a start, and said that Honey was a much more trappy thing than Haycorns. Piglet didn’t think so; and they were just going to argue about it, when Piglet remembered that, if they put acorns in the Trap, he would have to find the acorns, but if they put honey, then Pooh would have to give up some of his own honey, so he said, “All right, honey then,” just as Pooh remembered it too, and was going to say, “All right, haycorns.”

Sometimes, they just want to shift the labour (or material sacrifice) on their friend’s shoulders, rather than on their own.

Notice, that all of these small, subtle tensions do not spoil relationship between the two friends. They are still pals, best pals. They help each other, understand each other & love to spend time with each other more than with any other animal. Pooh demonstrates courage and inventiveness when it comes to saving Piglet from a trouble

So what is story is about, and what - as I think - Arthur Milne is trying to tell his little son, is that small tensions in a relationship (including between friends) are perfectly normal. Even in the best, most idyllic kind of friendship there’s always some element of rivalry, and competition, some element of egocentrism and self-centredness even.

All of that is 100% guaranteed, and will most certainly happen. But - that should not discourage you - as it did not discourage Piglet and Pooh. You can still have an amazing relationship, regardless. Because the story of Piglet and Pooh is ultimately an earthly story, as both of them are walking upon the earth.

I’ve recently bought the first edition of the ‘House at the Pooh Corner’, with Shepard’s illustrations. Just look at the endpapers. An amazing piece of art

Not so much in the Russian translation-adaptation of the same text

What you notice immediately when comparing the two is how carefully all the details relating to the jealousy, rivalry and competition are cut out from the story. They just do not appear there, in no context. Why?

Well, that is very easy to answer

The tension between Piglet and Pooh, constantly recurring again and again in English story would embarrass and discourage the Russian audience. That is because the tension implies conflict. And what you need to understand about the Russians is that Russians hate conflicts (all kinds of conflicts really). Repeat that after me, because it is important

Read more

In the adult age, I met my old schoolmate and he asked what I was reading. I said Suetonius. He laughed, because in his mind it was a child book, something you were supposed to read around the age of 12, as a part of compulsory Soviet canon1.

And yes, I read the The Lives of the Twelve Caesars as a kid. But, as a kid, I did not understand very much of it. Specifically, I did not understand why the biographies of all these Caesars (and their families) sound like a freak show. Monstrosities, monstrosities, and monstrosities upon monstrosities.

That is, for example, the description of Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, the father of Nero:

“A man hateful in every walk of life; for when he had gone to the East on the staff of the young Gaius Caesar,⁠ he slew one of his own freedmen for refusing to drink as much as he ordered, and when he was in consequence dismissed from the number of Gaius' friends, he lived not a whit less lawlessly. On the contrary, in a village on the Appian Way, suddenly whipping up his team, he purposely ran over and killed a boy; and right in the Roman Forum he gouged out the eye⁠ of a Roman knight for being too outspoken in chiding him. He was moreover so dishonest that [descriptions of all his fraud and dishonesty].

Purposefully ran over a boy playing on the highway. And, on top of that, a generally dishonest person. Sounds like a median representative of the ruling Julio-Claudian family, according to Roman historians. When I was reading all of that, I did not quite understand why was the Roman history written this way

Now decades later, I do.

The history of Caesars sounds like a parade of monstrosities, because the history of Rome was written from the perspective of the aristocracy.

Caesars built their de facto monarchy on the ruins of the old aristocratic order, and at the expense of the aristocracy. The aristocracy, the old noble families, regarded them as the usurpers, who stole their privilege, and their freedoms. Sneaky, criminal usurpers, destroyers of the old Roman liberty, destroyers of Rome. The rule of Caesars is tragedy. The rise of Caesars is tragedy. Something to be mourned, not celebrated.

Consider Pharsalia. The epic poem of Lucan, and, perhaps, the only epics of the silver age of Roman literature that stood the test of time. Pharsalia, of course, refers to the battle of Pharsalus, the Thessalian victory of Julius Caesar, who triumphed there over the forces of Pompey, and over the Republic. One might think that the poem would celebrate the victor, and the triumphant.

It does not. The civil war, is an abominable tragedy, and its outcome reads as the fall of Rome. The author does not stand with Caesar, nor does he stand with Pompeius (all of these military dynasts menacing the state with their intrigues and ambition are highly suspicion to him). He stands with Cato of Utica, the true patriot, who dies fighting for the republic against the dynasts2.

The victory of Caesar is a catastrophe, and a harbinger of even worse things to come. The true Romans are those who die fighting against Caesar, at Pharsalus.

I very much enjoy this translation of Pharsalia into English by Nicholas Rowe. Yes, I know it does not represent the rhythm of the Latin poem very well. But let’s be honest, a poetic translation into another language is always an independent piece of art, and I like this specific piece very much. Check the scan on the Google Books. They have lots & lots of the old books scans, for free.

That is a very aristocratic perspective. Although Caesar himself belonged to an ancient patrician family of Julii, descending from the kings of Rome, and from the goddess Venus herself, he had to become a traitor to his class. The enemy of the Roman aristocracy, old and new3.

When Caesar marched on Rome, very and very few of the prominent nobles joined him. Many more refused, in fact, many more died fighting for the lost republican cause at Pharsalus. Most of the Caesar’s actual support came from the subaltern elites (such as the Roman knights, or regional (= municipal) elites of Italy).

Being an aristocrat himself, Caesar usurped power of the aristocracy, replacing it with personal dictatorship. For that, he was murdered

Following the medieval interpretations, we tend to see Caesar’s murderers as traitors & villains. But that is not how they were perceived back then. From the ancient, classical perspective, Brutus and Cassius were heroes, and their deed was a noble act of tyrannicide. Killing a tyrant, is an act of ultimate patriotism, something to be praised in celebratory poems. An act deserving a monument right on the central square of a town.

The Roman plebs and the army did not share this perspective. But the aristocracy did, and it rallied around the assassins of Caesar, and a great many of them died fighting for the lost Republican cause at the battlefield of Philippi4 , against the Caesarian legions. Again, the Caesarians triumphed, and the fields of Macedonia became the graveyard of Roman aristocracy, old and new5.

(My personal impression is that Brutus and Cassius could absolutely have won)

Unlike Caesar, his successors did not show much clemency to the vanquished. They purged the nobility with proscriptions, both for the sake of punishing their foes, preventing any future possible revenge from their side, and for the sake of confiscating enough land and wealth to reward their legions & their own supporters.

Who were their supporters, by the way? Oh, that’s a very tricky question. You see, although Caesar was often blamed for bringing the strangers and foreigners into the Roman ruling class (even the “bearded Gauls” from the north), that must be treated more as a poetic metaphor, that has a huge element of an exaggeration. The elite replacement of Caesar’s era seems to be very & very limited, and when the elites were replaced, they were usually replaced by the guys just one or two steps of the social ladder below.

Caesar’s heirs, on the other hand, executed a bloodbath, doing the massive purges. On top of that, they did indeed bring a lot of new blood into the ruling class. Of the appointees & personal followers of Octavian - who would triumph in the end - we see plenty of names that were not only not Roman, but not even Latin. Lots of obscure, alien names, whose origins are difficult to impossible to trace.

(In that, Octavian was not much different from the other military dynasts. By that point, everyone who competed for power built their personal networks of vassalage without much regard for the origins, or social standing, or family. They were all surrounded by their Janissaries. And no, there’s no contradiction between Octavian rhetorically attacking other warlords for relying on foreigners & freed slaves, and Octavian doing exactly, 100% the same)

By the early imperial period, much of what relied from the old, republican era aristocracy was largely sidelined from power. New elites, largely composed of the no names of obscure or shameful origins, selected purely for their personal loyalty to the emperor, took their places. The old freedom was dead or dying, and the old dignity too, with the increasing servility of nearly everyone at the face of military tyranny.

There’s no wonder that the old aristocratic classes, or whatever remained from them, hated the Caesars with passion. And bashed, bashed, bashed them in their writings. For the historians, the true Romans were those fighting for the republic. And, as the last of them died at Philippi, with Brutus and Cassius, we now live in a degenerate, fallen age of servility and bootlicking, bowing before the abomination on the throne.

That was the perspective of the aristocracy, and it was their perspective that tuned the spirit of the historical writings of the imperial period.

That is why all of it sounds so negative.

Is this the only reason though?

No, it is not.

To tell the story of how horrible the Caesars were, the defeated aristocracy must have survived in the first place. Let’s have a look at the family tree of the Julii-Claudii, the first imperial dynasty. I heard this name many many times, but never really questioned it

Read more

I have been reading Winnie-the-Pooh recently, and was surprised how problematic one of the original Pooh stories (from the 1920s) sounds from the perspective of nowadays.

Here it is:

One day, a new strange animal appeared in the forest. An animal unlike anything Pooh and his friends had seen before. All of its habits, all of its ways were clearly and obviously alien. It did not walk, it jumped. What is worse, it was carrying its own baby in the pouch (!)

(By this moment, you must have already figured it out that the strange animal was Kanga, and its baby was the little Roo)

Nobody knew where they were coming from, and how did they make their way into the forest. Naturally, the locals got upset and made a council to discuss their actions.

Rabbit was leading. All the rest were merely following orders

“What I don’t like about it is this,” said Rabbit. “Here are we—you, Pooh, and you, Piglet, and Me—and suddenly——”

“And Eeyore,” said Pooh.

“And Eeyore—and then suddenly——”

“And Owl,” said Pooh.

“And Owl—and then all of a sudden——”

“Oh, and Eeyore,” said Pooh. “I was forgetting him.”

“Here—we—are,” said Rabbit very slowly and carefully, “all—of—us, and then, suddenly, we wake up one morning and, what do we find? We find a Strange Animal among us. An animal of whom we have never even heard before! An animal who carries her family about with her in her pocket! Suppose I carried my family about with me in my pocket, how many pockets should I want?”

It is a special pleasure, to watch at E.H. Shepard’s original illustrations

So, what they decide to do is deport Kanga, or make her self-deport. And, to achieve that, they will kidnap her baby

Read more

When I wrote about the weakness of Russian propaganda, that may have raised a question. Like, if Russian propaganda is so weak, then why is Russia so popular? Or, more precisely, why is it so popular in the Global South?

Because it most certainly is

Westerners, honestly speaking, don’t like Russia very much. But in the black and brown world, it is the other way around. Russia is popular, and people tend to sympathise with Russia, and with Kremlin, far more than, let’s say, most Americans do

More interestingly, Russian support base seems to be shockingly wide and bipartisan. It is equally loved by the Indians and Pakistanis, Muslims, and Christians, left-wings and right wings. There’s enormous diversity, and even idiosyncrasy in all of that

For a Western liberal (who doesn’t like Russia), that may create an impression of an extremely cunning, extremely powerful propaganda machine that can persuade absolutely anyone, and recruit it for one’s cause. Because otherwise it is difficult to explain how the people of so diametrically opposite views and diverse identities can equally sympathise with Russia and its policies.

That is, as I have explained, extremely implausible.

Because is extremely implausible to suggest that a regime that does not have much domestic debate at home, will suddenly develop a masterful ability to debate on the international scene.

A regime that can just outlaw any kind of undesirable message - rather than debate with it, very quickly atrophies all of its propaganda capabilities. You don't need to argue with a message, you just kill the messenger. You don't need to talk, don't need to persuade

Whenever you face any vocal opposition, you just resort to force, foregoing any kind of debate. And, as a result, your ability to debate gradually dies off. Now on the international scene, when you cannot just shut the mouth of any hostile speaker, you must find yourself weak, helpless, inadequate.

(And you most certainly do)

That, however, does not answer our question

IF Russian propaganda is so weak and inadequate (it is) AND people scaremongering about the allegedly all powerful Russian propaganda machine are lying (they are) THEN why it is so popular, and, most of all, in the non-Western world?

Because Russian popularity has nothing to do with any sort of propaganda at all

Propaganda can go only that far. Its capabilities are not limitless. If people like the message, that is very often because they have been already predisposed to receive it positively, not because the message was extremely cunning or artful.

That is the real reason

***

So, if you want to understand the root of Russian (and Putin’s) popularity you need to understand the following:

First, America is seen as global hegemon. There is a lot of grudge and discontent about that, and about its policies, especially in the non-white world

(the nature of grudge and discontent has nothing to do with our discussion. for now, we can just postulate it exists)

Second. Russia is seen as a powerful player. Powerful enough to challenge the hegemon and to get away with it (sort of)

Third. Russia is seen as a player willing to challenge the hegemon, to a greater degree than for example China is

(again, I am not discussing reality. I am discussion the perception of it, because it is the perception that matters)

All of that makes Russia appear as a viable opposition to the current dominant power, and Vladimir Putin… as the leader of the opposition

Now when you find yourself as a leader of the opposition to the hegemon, you do not need much propaganda in the first place. Realistically, you don’t need any kind of propaganda at all. You don’t need to persuade anyone in anything, because people already predisposed to looking at you positively (and that is lots and lots of people) will project their hopes and dreams onto you.

Now that explains the wildly diverse and sometimes idiosyncratic character of the Russian support base. Because it is not created by any sort of propaganda (that would be impossible). It is created, purely and 100%, by people’s own imaginations.

You want some kind of champion for your cause. You desire some kind of a counterbalance to the American empire. Now when you find someone powerful enough to do both, you just imagine himself as your personal champion & a co-believer in your cause.

All he has to do is to not contradict

(Actually, the best thing you can do is to open your mouth as little as possible, and when you do open it, be as vague as possible. Because every time you have to clarify your stance, or take a particular position regarding… anything, you will have to disappoint someone. So, the less you speak, the better. Be vague, that gives everyone’s imagination enough room to play)

Corollary 1. Now that explains the massive gap in Russia’s popularity between the far off countries of the world, and most countries directly neighbouring Russia. People in India, in Morocco, in Paraguay may and do love to see some counterweight to the American hegemony. Some kind of counterbalance.

But people in the direct vicinity of Russia do not need any counterweight to the US. They are looking for some kind of counterbalance to Russia. It is from Russia, that they are expecting all sorts of real and potential threats. Naturally, they see America as a counterweight to the Russian hegemony, and project their hopes and dreams onto it

That is the primary reason why so many of Russia’s neighbours tend to be extremely pro-American. That is also the reason why they so often tend to be slightly unrealistic about the United States. Much like the Indian, or Brazilian image of Russia, their image of the United States and its policies tends to be woven of own projections rather than based on any sort of objective reality at all.

Corollary 2. That also explains why Russia is popular among so many dissident groups in the United States, including those of conservative or palaeoconservative views. That is not because they hate freedom, or love Putin, but primarily because they are suspicious of the US empire. So, much like Brazilians, or Paraguayans, they are looking for some sort of counterbalance to it.

But that is a topic for another, separate conversation. For now, I will just postulate that however unbelievable it may sound for an outsider, the United States make for a very reluctant global hegemon, much more reluctant than any other serious contender of the recent centuries. It has much more and much stronger internal opposition to its own imperial institutions, than any other large imperial power in the recorded history did.

That is because (many) Americans know or suspect that empire - in the long run - is incompatible with republic.

NB: It is important to keep in mind that Russia fills a niche of the viable opposition to the global hegemon, in everyone’s mind. And “viable”, is critically important here. My personal opinion is that it is actually not viable. But it is the perception of viability that matters, because people would not want to place their hopes and project their dreams on someone clearly and obviously weak.

Military stuff is much more expensive that the civilian stuff. MUCH more expensive. Notice how this holds even when the military stuff and the civilian stuff in question is sort of similar-ish.

Let me give you an example. In Russia, military vehicles and (a range of) civilian vehicles are being produced by the same dual use plants. The very same plant will be building tanks, and also railcars, tractors, bulldozers and a bunch of other stuff.

Some of their parts can be very, very similar. But. A relatively simple spare part produced for a tank will cost at least three times as much as an almost identical detail, produced for some civilian construction machine (and probably, more than that)

Why? Does that mean, that the plant is screwing the government somehow, overpricing its production, aimed for the army? No, not really. In fact, that would be a bit difficult to do, because the plant is also owned by the government. The government knows exactly how much everything costs, and that means you cannot charge it too much. In fact, margins on government defence procurements (Russian SOEs selling to the Russian state) are famously low. You can earn good money selling to Algeria, or to India, but you cannot earn very much selling to your own boss.

That implies that charging three times as much for a military product, than for a very, very similar civilian one must be seen as a bare minimum, or around that. You simply cannot push the price any lower.

Why? Well, I could give you a number of reasons. When you sell to the government, especially to the army, the government prescribes you what you can and cannot do, limits you to some extent. The process is slower, more cumbersome, involves more paperwork. The government demands are not necessarily updated when every new piece of technology appears, so they often “freeze” your production processes, forcing you to use older, and often in-optimal technology.

All of that is true, but that is not the real reason. The real reason is:

Civilian products are cheaper, because they are being produced in enormous quantities. That is the real reason.

Let me explain you what I mean

Read more

1. Iranian regime has many faults. Some of them are real, others are imaginary. All of these flaws are totally irrelevant, and give nothing for explaining this war

2. In the Middle East, there is a bad actor, a rogue state. That is Israel

3. A system of personal horsetrades with the elected politicians gives Israel a sway over the US foreign policy. That is the primary reason, why the American foreign policy has been so preoccupied with the Middle East, all along.

4. Israel is leveraging the US military machine to destroy every regional counterweight to its power. Should they win in Iran, they will manufacture a new conflict, and send the US troops against a new target

5. The US following Israeli lead blindly is the principal cause of the ill-fated Iranian operation, and of the future, inevitable conflicts entangling the US in the Middle East. All the rest is just a rhetorical clout

6. Israel has no other choice. The goal of Zionism is to establish an ethnically exclusive polity (= ethnostate) in a country already populated by another people. Such a project, naturally, can never win the hearts and minds of the natives. It can be only secured by force, overwhelming force, permanently. And the permanent overwhelming force can be only secured through the foreign alliances.

7. Since the beginning of Zionist settlement in Palestine, settlers relied on foreign alliances to secure their military supremacy over the locals. First, it was the British Empire. Britain played an instrumental role in facilitating the early growth of the colony and suppressing the Palestinian resistance to it. Defeat and disarmament of the Palestinian rebels by the British in the 1930s, was a key factor paving the way for their future conquest and ethnic cleansing by Israel in the 1940s.

   (NB: In the late 1930s, more British troops were stationed in Palestine alone than in entire British India. Since its very beginning, the Zionist project could not have been secured other than by the enormous concentrated effort by - one or another - global empire)

8. After the British retreat, Israel was playing with a web of foreign alliances, to maintain its upper hand in the region. In the beginning, it was the USSR, that played a crucial role in pumping the nascent Israeli state with arms. Then, it was France that built its airforce and helped it to acquire nukes. But, starting from the 1960s, Israel firmly and unequivocally puts itself under the American patronage.

9. The nature of Israeli relationship with the United States is fundamentally different from all of its previous connections. Its dealings with Great Britain, the USSR or France essentially belonged to the realm of foreign policy, and foreign political dealings.

10. The British or the French officials decided the matter based on the foreign policy calculations, and from the perspective of their national interest, however they understood it. In Britain, and in France, Israel had to face the foreign political machine as a whole, and to deal with it as a whole. They had to be dealing with the foreign policy apparatus, and persuading that apparatus that the deal makes sense from the perspective of their, British or French interest. That might or might not have been true. But that was the case they had to make.

11. In the United States, the situation is different. In the United States, the Israeli lobby has historically struggled to push its agenda through the foreign policy apparatus - in fact, its successes on this field had been very and very limited, the diplomats and the intelligence being highly sceptical of whether this kind of alliance brings any positive good from the perspective of the American national interest.

12. Therefore, in the United States, Israel has been playing on another field: on the field of domestic politics.

13. Israel has a hold over the American political machine through the system of personal horsetrades with the elected politicians. Unquestioning support of Israel, in return for the lobby’s political support on elections: that is the formula of a horsetrade. Indebting the statesmen and making them owe favours to Israel, it controls the state.

14. Now with the elected politicians in its pocket, Israel can easily override any resistance from the military, intelligence and diplomats, and always get its way, in the end.

15. There is nothing totally bad and nothing totally good in this world. Everything has its pros and cons. The unique nature of the American political system, uniquely dynamic, uniquely open, and uniquely susceptible to the public opinion and public pressure, makes it - at the same time - uniquely susceptible to the foreign lobbyism. That, in fact, may be the single most important polity in the world that has no immunity against the foreign lobbyism at all.

1. By the end of Republic, faith in the old Roman gods was already in a visible decline. Although it still remained a part of the state ritual, and participation in the ritual was compulsory, fewer and fewer people were finding any deep meaning in these rituals. Like, as a citizen, as an official, as a member of a corporation, or just an inhabitant of a town, you were still obliged to take part in all these (religious) festivities, ceremonies, sacrifices to gods. But all of that was merely one’s public, official duty. The actual, private belief in anything of that was in a steep decline long before the crucifixion of Christ, and long, long, before a first Christian set his foot on the land of Italy.

2. As it usually happens, decline of the old faith started the polite, fashionable society, in the upper echelons of social hierarchy. Philosophical scepticism gained its first foothold there, and, from this upper echelons trickled down the hierarchy, to the lower and lower floors. It is very important to notice, that it was not a result of any particular foreign influence, or whatever. The deconstruction and denigration of the old religion was started by the Roman elites themselves. From there, it trickled down.

3. Now it was of course not supposed to trickle down. The Roman elites still believed that religion was good and necessary, for the plebs. Them not believing in old gods anymore, and not retaining much faith in the rituals (which were still compulsory!) was supposed to be a topic of intellectual conversation in the fashionable society, and nothing more. This knowledge was supposed to be limited to the upper elites, and sort of hidden from the simpletons who could not live without their silly old superstitions. In the long run, however, this knowledge turned out to be impossible to hide.

4. Popular masses have a natural instinct to mimic their social betters, and emulate their opinions. They soon started to notice that smart, sophisticated people, their masters do not believe in Jupiter anymore. It may be difficult to establish the exact ways this knowledge was revealed to the simpletons. It may very well be that it was leaked out by their slaves, clientele, all the sorts of dependant people. You can normally assume that masters cannot hide very much from their servants and slaves, and that slaves know their masters way, way better than their masters know them. Anyway, once the masses realised that - according to the fashionable society - Jupiter does not exist, and rituals do not work, that was a mortal blow upon the old Roman religion. Its decline created a lacuna that must have been filled with something.

5. For the most part, it was filled by the oriental cults, and religions. Interestingly enough, the native cults and religions of the Western part of the Roman Empire do not seem to affect much cultural influence upon the Latin core of Rome. To the contrary, they themselves become thoroughly latinised. That is, perhaps, because all these Gaulic and Celtiberic tribes were deemed so infinitely below in terms of culture and sophistication, that - from the Roman perspective - they just did not have anything interesting to say. Nobody in Rome was emulating druids, nobody was adopting and western gods.

6. The Eastern gods, however, aggressively expanded into Rome itself. Notice, that their expansion was (often) considered troublesome and problematic, even back then. We should not exaggerate the actual extent of Roman tolerance, and political correctness. They may not have had a religious fanaticism, at least at that point, but they most certainly had ethnic prejudices and biases. The Egyptian religion, in particular, was seen as especially alien and repelling. I recommend you to check out Juvenal’s Satire 15, ‘An Egyptian Atrocity’. The negative representation of Egyptians by a Roman satirist is oddly resembling negative stereotypes of the South Asians, in modern social media.

(Stereotypes of other orientals, hellenized or not, were no less negative. Syrians were problematic, with their Orontes “polluting” Roman Tiber. The Jews most certainly were. In fact, when you are trying to understand popular imagination of a culture, I very much recommend you to start with comedy and satire. Like, were I trying to penetrate into the ancient Athenian imagination, I would of course start with Aristophanes and leave all other “serious” authors for later. Read comedy, my friends. That advice well applies both to the ancient and to the modern cultures)

7. Despite all the negative stereotyping, and regardless of the periodic repressions and persecutions, the oriental gods have successfully expanded into Italy and, with time, their worship was completely normalised. I remember a very vivid impression of walking through the ruins of ancient Ostia - the seaport of Rome. Serapeum, Serapeum, Mithraeum, Serapeum again. All around, I see the temples of eastern - and disproportionately Egyptian gods. Obviously, by the Egyptian gods I mean not so much the original Egyptian religion as it existed in the times of pharaohs, but rather a certain Hellenic-Egyptian synthesis that originated from the conquests of Alexander the Great. Anyway, by the 2nd century - that is where these ruins date from - this syncretic religion basically won, being both popular and well accepted in the metropole itself.

(Check out The Golden Ass by Apuleius. That is the only Roman novel that survived, and - most fortunately - it is a comedy. This book gives a good insight into how popular and how influential were Egyptian gods in the Rome of the Antonines. But I don’t want to give you any more spoilers)

8. Through the troubles of the late 2nd and 3rd centuries, Rome was seeing many and many revolutions, supreme power circulating from one ambitious provincial to another. And it were “the princes of Asiatic extraction”, specifically from Syria, that did the most for the progress of yet another oriental sect - Christianity.

9. It all started with Alexander Severus. And the thing with Alexander Severus, is that he was not actually a Severus. Despite bearing the name of Septimius Severus, the founder of the dynasty, he did not bear any biological connection to him. He was a Syrian, from Homs (then called, Emesa).

10. Long before assuming the throne, Alexander Severus married a Syrian woman. She was coming from the local dynasty of priest-kings who ruled over the city of Emesa, and worshipped a Syrian-Hellenistic deity Heliogabalus. Like, the Egyptian deity Serapis that conquered a huuuge following in Rome, was a Hellenistic version of Osyris, Heliogabalus was a local version of Baal.

11. So, this Emesene family, who worked as the priests of Baal, acquired lots of power and influence, first gaining senatorial dignity (within the Rome itself), and them marrying their girl to a future emperor of Rome.

12. After the true, biological line of Severan dynasty was interrupted, these Emesene guys (who were not connected to Septimius biologically) claimed the throne, and continued to rule under the Severan name. The first emperor of what was in fact the new Emesene dynasty was Sextus Varius Avitus Bassianus nicknamed Heliogabalus after the Baal-ic deity he worshipped.

13. The second emperor was Alexander Severus, his brother. Now this prince put a status of Christ in his home shrine, together with other deities, effectively adding Jesus to an already existing syncretic pantheon.

14. Now few revolutions later, Rome was ruled by another Syrian, Philip the Arab. Coming from the city of Busra, he rose to the chief of the Praetorian Guard, overthrew the sitting emperor and became an emperor himself. Upon seizing power he showed so much protection to Christianity, that some believed he was actually a Christian himself. He may or may not have been, anyway, he seems to be the very first Roman emperor suspected of being a secret Christian worshipper.

15. We have an interesting indirect evidence of the protection & promotion he showed to the Christian sect. When he was overthrown and killed himself, by yet another usurper, the usurper ordered to massacre Philipp’s entire family and court. In Christian tradition, these massacres were usually labeled as yet another religious persecution of Christians (which was, technically speaking false). It is just that the court of Philipp had so many Christians, that the usurper exterminating that court, was later labeled as a religious purge. Which it wasn’t.

16. Speaking of purges. We tend to somewhat exaggerate their overall extent and impact, portraying the history of Christianity under the Roman power as a never-ending mayhem of slaughter and violent persecution. This picture, of course, includes some elements of truth. But it is too simplistic and taken altogether, false. Were Christianity to be systematically exterminated, it probably would have been exterminated altogether, like for example in Japan1.

17. In practice, Roman treatment of Christians was inconsistent and idiosyncratic. Yes, being a Christian, and particularly refusing to participate in compulsory religious ceremonies remained a crime. But the specific implementation of this law varied greatly from region to region and from era to era. Waves of violent persecution were alternated with the long periods of grudging and dismissive toleration. Perhaps, even more importantly the actual regions of persecution were almost always limited to a specific city, province, or town. Nero’s repressions, for example, were mostly limited to the city of Rome, and did not really target Christians in other cities. What you had was some strikes falling on some Christian communities in some regions of the empire from time to time.

(Some emperors tried to uproot Christianity, others tried to regulate it. The famous restorer of the empire Ambrosius Aurelian, reviving it from the 3rd century crisis, inclined to the latter approach. Aiming to restore the supremacy of Rome over all the separatist provinces, he sided with bishops of Rome over their rivals from the East. I wonder to which degree the later Popes of Rome derived their absolute power over the Christian community, from a Pagan emperor who was simply trying to centralise the empire, and concentrate all the decision making powers, on every level, in the capital)

8. What is more, Roman persecutions lacked the theist zeal that would later make the Christian church to so mercilessly stomp on all the various heresies. Roman magistrates disdained the Christians, despised them, were surprised and astonished by their superstitions. Yet, they did not really hate them, nor did they see any particular reason to fear. By and large, they treated them relatively mild, if not by the standards of religious tolerance of today, then, at least, by the standards of the later Christian rulers and prelates of the Church. Christians, once they came to power, treated each other infinitely more cruelly (and thoroughly, and systematically), than they had been ever treated by the Pagans.

(Here, I must say, I see certain parallel between the Christian and the Communist sects. Communists, when they came to power, were slaughtering each other way more diligently and zealously than they had been ever persecuted by the Tsarist authorities)

19. The true, mass, and the empire wide persecution, came only at the very end of the Pagan Rome, in the age of Diocletian. By that time, the Christian Church got powerful enough, and popular enough, and influential enough to truly scare much of the existing elites and the established priesthood of other religion, which simply had not been the case in the age of the Antonines. By that time, many and many saw a real threat in the propagation of that odd sect, and feared its influence. We can see it, because around this period the persecutors - for the first time - started copying Christian practices, emulating rather than disdaining the persecuted sect. Fearing the influence of a Christian church, they tried to build a parallel Pagan church, largely mirroring the Christian one, in its discipline, hierarchy, territorial organisation.

20. These efforts, however, resulted in almost nothing. Almost immediately after publishing his empire wide edict in Nicomedia, suppressing Christianity (it is noteworthy enough, that we don’t have the text of this edict, and know it based only upon more or less vague descriptions. it is important to understand that we don’t really know the history of the period very well, it is all rife with holes, and assumptions, and extrapolations. we know that Diocletian suppressed Christianity, but we are not very sure what he said which exact measures he prescribed), Diocletian retired from power, leaving the empire to four new emperors (check out the Tetrarchy). Unsurprisingly, the system of Tetrarchy broke down very soon, and all these new Augusts and Caesars started fighting each other, as soon as the master was gone.

21. Now a one single emperor of the united empire might want at least to try to fight Christianity, at this point. But four, and then very soon five Caesars locked in a merciless Darwinian competition against each other just could not afford that. Some of them never really wanted to fight Christianity in the first place. Others tried to, but soon found themselves compelled to win the favour of a too popular and too influential sect. By the moment Constantine started his march south, from York to Nicomedia, all the real and potential claimants for the Roman throne competed in who will be a better defender and protector of the Christian religion.

22. Consider the battle of Malvian bridge traditionally celebrated as a Christian triumph over the Paganism. Nothing, however, can be further from truth. By the moment of the battle, both Constantine, the emperor of Gaul, and Maxentius, the emperor of Italy were patrons and protectors of the Christian creed. So what happened is that one protector of Christianity killed and defeated the other. And moreover, when he moved further east, to fight the emperor of the East Licinius, Licinius, too, was the protector of Christians. By the late stages of the civil war on the ruins of Diocletian’s tetrarchy, the question was not whether a Christian prince will defeat a Pagan one, but rather which of three very and very pro-Christians princes will triumph in the end.

I have recently had a luck to acquire an 1813 edition of Gibbon’s Decline and Fall

A beautiful thing and an aesthetically pleasing one. I, in fact, find it very important that the books must be aesthetically pleasing to read. A book is, after all, is a physical object and filling your house with beautiful objects is a proper thing to do.

Why read Gibbon? (one may ask)

Why don’t you read something of more recent scholarship? Something more up-to-date?

I could give you two reasons. One is fake, another is real

The fake reason would be that the object of study of classics has not changed very much for the past few hundred years. Like, yes, you can always find something new. But the corpus of classical texts the discipline is based upon remains - more or less - a constant, and remains as such for a long, long time1.

The contents of Loebb Classical Library have not changed very much for the last century, or so. Commentaries may have changed, but the texts are the same

So, the classical discipline is based upon reading and interpreting the very same classical corpus of ancient texts. And Gibbon was learnt in these texts, as very few people are being learnt today. He had an imaginative, inventive spirit that almost no PhDs have today, and his analysis of the (more or less the same) corpus is promising to be much more interesting.

That was the fake reason. Like, yes, it is all true, but it is not the real motivation.

The real reason is that reading the old texts allows you to look beyond the orb

Let me explain what I mean

Read more

What the interview with the ambassador Huckabee showed is that people cannot lie

No, I mean, of course they can. They can lie about what they had for lunch, about their routines, hunting & fishing achievements, etc. About all the trivial issues

But, by and large, most people find it exceedingly difficult to lie about their core beliefs

And that is the reason why most people are fundamentally honest about their convictions, and when it comes to their actual convictions

Let me explain you what I mean

Imagine a Western politician, or a public figure, talking about how deeply he cares about security and independence of Ukraine, and how he is fighting everyday for the repeal of Russian invasion. Is he telling the truth?

Not necessarily. It may very well be that this whole show is performative. It is absolutely conceivable that in reality he is not giving a flying damn about the whole thing, and is saying that for tactical/PR reasons

But it is extremely, extremely, extremely unlikely that he will be telling this while being a hardcore supporter of Russia. For a simple reason that most people will be struggling with it, no matter what the public imagines. Most people, and most politicians are simply not machiavellian enough for that

If he does not care about Russia/Ukraine at all and sees it as a somewhat comical conflict between the two tribes of subhuman savages, then he can performatively take whatever position he finds more advantageous right now, because nothing of that touches his core beliefs, and his actual political stances. He can declare for Ukraine today and for Russia tomorrow, because he has nothing personal for/against either.

But if he does care about it, and has strong opinion about the conflict, he will find it extremely, extremely, extremely difficult to abstain from disclosing his honest opinion, no matter how disadvantageous it can be.

Now forget about Ukraine and imagine that the conversation is switching to the problems of his native Slovetsia. You will immediately notice that the whole fabric of conversation changes. That is because he cares about Slovetsia, and cares deeply. He remembers all the towns & fortresses annexed from Slovetsia by the hostile Bulbustan, back in the 17th c, and will never forget nor truly forgive that horrible injustice.

The whole conversation becomes more emotional and much less strategic

That is because when it comes to the dear, beloved Slovetsia a politician cannot lie.

Territorial integrity of Slovetsia, and not in its present (unjust!) borders, but in its true, historical shape belongs to the core of his beliefs. That is what he can’t lie about, not even when it would be in his interest to lie.

He can twist it a little bit of course. Bend it, here and there. He can practice the art of strategic omission, when omission does serve his interests. But he won’t twist it very much. He will tell you his honest opinion, if you just bother to ask.

For the most part, people don’t lie about their actual, core beliefs

And are honest regarding whom they consider their foes or friends

For a simple reason that everything else is just too difficult psychologically

When it comes to the core of one’s beliefs, one can tell the truth, or one can shut the hell up. And you cannot just shut the hell up in an interview. That is not really an option.

Hence, the superpower of the follow up questions

I have really enjoyed this book, The Age of Berezovsky. Cannot recommend it highly enough. It is basically a series of interviews an oligarch Petr Aven conducted with businessmen, politicians, journalists and other public figures of the 1990s. The book is centred around the colourful figure of Boris Berezovsky, and serves as an amazing crash intro into the history of the Soviet to Russian transition, as well, as a very nice collection of primary sources on the era.

As the same events are being discussed with various people, and each tells you his or her personal version of what was happening, the final result feels a bit Rashomon-ish. By the end of the book, you can make an educated guess - what are the interviewees lying about and why. For example, if a notable public figure starts telling something like; Oh, I never really knew Berezovsky. Never even met him. May be saw him once or twice from the distance. No, we never really talked, then you know:

1. He is lying. Not a word of what he just said is true

2. He is lying, because he had been a very, very close associate of the late oligarch. And when I say associate, I actually mean a shill, a vassal. A servant.

3. Now as the former Berezovsky’s servant switched allegiance, and now serves Putin, any kind of association with the former boss is a liability now. Much like St Peter, he repeats a formula of triple denial. Never knew. Never met him. No, we didn’t even talk.

Now that is the beauty of this book. As all the interviews are put near each other, you can read them all and cross compare. And when you do, you will notice that each and every of his former pawns and bootlickers, tells exactly the same, there is not even much variation in how they put it.

You see it once. You see it twice. And the next time you see it, you know:

This book deserved a lengthy discussion & consideration. For a moment, I want to discuss just one minor aspect of it. The madness of Boris Berezovsky. Specifically, the story of how the ex oligarch lost all of his wealth.

Read more

(and of course when I say the West, I mean the United States)

Tons and tons of people attend protests for Palestine

Hardly anyone is coming to the streets to support Iranian opposition

(Except the Iranian diaspora, of course)

Whether you like it or not, you must admit the fact. In the West, Palestinian cause is popular, Iranian dissident cause is not

In this essay, I am answering why

***

In the Soviet Union, there was a joke

An American tells a Russian that people in USA have the freedom of speech and that he even could go to the White House and shout:”Go to hell, Ronald Reagan!”

The russian answers:”Oh, we also have freedom of speech. I, too, can go to Kremlin and shout:” Go to hell, Ronald Reagan!”

What is the point of the joke?

Like, it is clear that Ronald Reagan did a lot of bad stuff. Like, really, and unironically bad, especially when you consider some of his foreign operations.

Yet, an idea of protesting against Reagan in the USSR strikes us [and the Soviet people, and Reagan himself] as somewhat absurd-ish

Why would that be?

Well, perhaps the thing is that a protest against Reagan in the USSR does not really count as protest. In fact, it does not even make much sense. Bashing Reagan is already a part of the state sponsored political agenda: that is what you hear from the TV, radio, newspapers, schools and the public offices.

There is, in other words, no point in “rebelling” against Reagan, because attacks on Reagan do not constitute any kind of rebellion - from the Russian perspective. When you protest against Reagan - or the nasty regimes that Reagan had sponsored - you do not really cross any boundary, nor put yourself in any danger.

You just engage in the state-approved, and state-sponsored activity

How do we know it is?

Well, should you keep protesting, - and bringing up other issues - apart from the cruelty and bloodshed of the monster in the white house, you will soon find that you have crossed an invisible line, for which you will be persecuted and punished

Because your freedom of speech, was merely the freedom of agreeing with the state, and parroting its talkpoints. The freedom of fedposting, basically. And once you deviate from the official line, you will be facing consequences.

And that is exactly why protesting against Reagan would generate very, very little genuine enthusiasm in the USSR. Like, it is not necessarily that people will be opposed to Reagan-bashing. Rather, they - or many of them - will perceive it as a necessary, and normal part of the official speak. It is something you sort of have to do, or just suffer through on the official events.

But if someone brings it up in private setting, he will face a disinterested or - sometimes - an aggressive reaction.

(What you should understand is that by the end of the USSR, the actual, private beliefs - especially those of intelligentsia & cultural elites, not only deviated from the official discourse, but rather developed in opposition to it, as an exact, 100% reversal of the officialspeak. Officials are saying this or that is bad, ergo it is actually amazing)

Soviet poet Yevtushenko wrote a poem, that included some anti-Pinochet passages, on the horrors of Chilean dictatorship. When he tried to read it in private setting, however, one of his friends just stood up and left.

You may say this reaction is cruel, or heartless, or ignorant. After all, it was a bloodthirsty regime that suppressed the opposition with the iron hand and killed many thousands.

Yet, no one in the educated classes of Moscow wanted to hear anything about that. Should you bring up the horrors of Chilean dictatorship, some would just walk away, others would - more or less politely - tell you to fuck off. Some will actually praise the ruler of Chile

(because remember, they believe in the opposite thing, to what the Kremlin is saying)

Cruel, un-empathetic. And yet, it sort of makes sense. A Soviet man, on a kitchen of Moscow surely felt a boot on his neck, but that was not a boot of Pinochet, had nothing to do with Pinochet, and - should someone start some invectives against Pinochet - all of that would be seen as an ignorant, or just outright malicious deflection from the actual issues of the days.

I knew a guy who moved from rural Dagestan to Moscow to practice polygamy.

And no, I don’t mean some kind of modern polyamory stuff

He was deeply religious, and wanted to live a pious life, like a true Sunni. And he wanted to live it to the fullest.

If he is allowed to have four wives, that means he should have four wives. No half measures, and no compromises

Now the thing is – he could not do it in the Dagestani village he was coming from1.

The village he grew up in was a closely knit community of few hundred people.

And – although people tend to romanticise such communities, life in there comes at a cost

Specifically at the cost of personal freedom and self expression

Read more

One of the most curious intellectual developments of modernity is the rise of what I would call the Hobbit Theory of Man.

Here is what I mean by that

Traditional systems of morality - if you come from a Western culture, you may take Christian morality as an example - used to postulate that the man, as he is, is not very good. He has a dark side, a shadow side, that not only can, but most certainly will make him act evil; and not once, but multiple times, and in various contexts.

(Hence - “forgive me for I have sinned”-styled formulas. Nobody is asking whether you’ve sinned or not, just postulating that you did, with a 100% certainty. And that is because you are not presumed to be very good. You are presumed to have a dark side)

That very fact - humans not being that good, really - serves as an explanation of the problem of evil in a pretty much every universalist teaching that I am aware of. There is no great wonder that the evil is happening. It would be weird if it did not, for every man, and every woman without exception is sort of evil-ish, and it is this individual evilish-ness of absolutely everyone in the world that explains why evil exists.

Everyone is part-good. Everyone is part-evil. Everyone has a full potential to act in a good or in a bad way, and is doing both good and bad stuff in real life. Which - paradoxically and inconceivably for a modern person - implies that there is really no fundamental difference between the “good” and “bad” people. Goodness and badness is conditional, is circumstantial, and everyone of us is perfectly capable of both.

As a Catholic author once it put it:

My friend, there are no good or bad social types…. Any man can be a murderer; any man, even the same man, can be a saint.

(A Man with two beards)

Same man can be a murderer, same man can be a saint.

(and a saint is not that different from a villain)

That is the view of a man adhering to the old, traditional morality. Morality assuming that the man, and I mean a normal, ordinary, a perfectly fine man - is always sort of dark-ish, and prone to darkness, and doing bad stuff again, and again, and again.

A very old, traditional premise that turned impalpable in the modern world

***

The (partial) evilness of absolutely everyone in the world no exceptions and no group excluded - that is something that a modern mind just cannot comprehend, nor digest.

Like, some people may agree with it in theory, yet vehemently reject it whenever it comes to the actual, practical implications of this idea.

Read more