Linkey

A spoiler is a person who show themself being an oppositionist while in fact he serves the ruler. "Deep state", "Financial aristocracy", "300 families", etc.

Navalny was to some extent a spoiler of Putin. Al-Sharaa was to some extent a spoiler of Assad. For USA, it can be said that DeSantis was to some extent a spoiler of people who controlled Biden. And so on. This is a very common situation, which explains why often after revolutions the new power becomes even worse than the previous one. I am sorry for indeed far-fetched examples, but they still provide some insight.

All of you know very little about Russia. Of course I am against the Putin's autocracy and his war in Ukraine.

I have thought much on the question of why, often after revolutions, a new power becomes even worse than previous one. For example, in Russia after 1917 old authoritarian power was replaced by totalitarian one. Here is the answer: each authoritarian power suppresses the opposition, which pose a threat ideologically, more intensively, than rabid/extreme opposition, despite the second one often poses even bigger threat to the representatives of current power. The first opposition is a seculiar democratic opposition, while the second opposition is something with communist/fascist/fundamental etc ideology. This is very clearly seen on the examples of such countries like Syria or Russia. When protest against Assad started in Syria, firstly this was seculiar pro-democratic opposition. But Assad fully destroyed this opposition, giving more chances to islamic fundamentalist forces (al-Sharaa) - and suddenly in 2024 they came to power. I think, it can be correct to say that al-Sharaa was to some extent a spoiler of Assad. Similar things are happening in Russia: Putin unofficially declares that if he loses the power - instead of him cruel imperialists will take it. For supporting this statement, Putin always supported anti-democratic imperialists in power like Ramzan Kadyrov or Evgeniy Prigozhin. I think, Alexey Navalny was also one more of Putins's spoilers to some extent: as far as I know, firstly he collaborated with the presidency administration in Kremlin, but then he went out of control and Putin decided to finish him. Below I want to show you a picture from one Russuan website, relating Navalny; even those who don't know Russian, probably will understand the meaning of this picture:

I tried to open this link, and the site shows "subscription needed". I don't have a big experience of reading the news and so on in English. Do I understand correctly, that most websites in the English-speaking Web are paid? At one side, this seems good; but if I have to pay individually for each website like Forbes, etc., this is extremely unconvenient. Is there a way to pay once for reading all such news?

I have watched the interview of Robert Kennedy to Tucker Carlson: Kennedy speaks mostly about the corruption. He is usually accused of spreading "conspiracy theories", but this is evidently incorrect term; what RFK says is the corruption and lobbyism. Everything is very simple - people who have much money, want to have even more, and buy the officials via the revolving door effect. "Nothing personal, only business". As far as I renember, RFK said in this video, that the amount of paid articles in medicine has significantly increased in last decades, and he had some numbers, but I don't remember the values he mentioned.

Blogger Veritasium has a video about how DuPont company poisoned the entire planet with fluoroplastics: https://youtu.be/SC2eSujzrUY PFAS-es are everywhere now, for example, in the blood of Antarctic penguins. It's debatable how high their concentrations are and whether they cause significant deterioration in human health, but why not? When the potential harm of chemicals is studied, the scientists don't check whether several chemicals are harmless individually but can become dangerous together. I am not saying about more obvious cases when the data about of harm is not published, since the studies are conducted by people with vested interests—a point the video discusses in sufficient details.

In the OP. I am a fan of Bhagvad Osho, an Indian guru who was a very popular writer. I think, possibly he was even an atheist, trolled his admirers, and understood that his political ideas are more important than the "spirituality" and "enlightment". He wrote the ideas I have explained here.

I will write my ideas. "A cured patient is a lost client" (c). The second point is that modern medicine lacks a holistic approach to health: when a patient comes with a problem, it's solved, but then another problem arises (for a doctor of a different specialization), then another, and so on—so doctors unconsciously help each other make money.

Accuhealth Technologies LLCAmerica’s Silent Epidemic: The Alarming Rise of Chronic D...Explore how chronic diseases are reshaping U.S. healthcare and how RPM, telehealth, and prevention offer a path forward. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/03/combating-americas-chronic-disease-epidemic.html https://www.factcheck.org/2024/08/rfk-jr-s-exaggerations-on-chronic-disease-in-children/ I can write here some of my ideas ideas on the reasons of this problem, but my ideas can be considered as "pseudoscientific" and "speculative".

I have a very simple idea, good at least for sci-fi novels. Currently there is a battle in the world between autocracies and Western democracies. According to MWI, some time later there will be two universes - in the first the dictators will finally win, in the second the democracies will win. But in the first universe, maybe in 22nd century, the humanity will perish in a big nuclear war; and in more prosperous second universe, in far future (maybe 2500 AD), humanity will establish the Time Patrol. The Patrol will affect the past via Mermin-Peres game (quantum pseudo-telepathy), and it will reduce the amplitude of the state |Dictators_win>. This means for us, that the probability that people like Putin will win is almost zero (according to Born rule). I have a question: would these speculations be the same, if we switch from MWI to TSVF interpretation?

The authoritarianism is the situation when people in a country can't vote for some changes they want, for example increasing of equality in the country, or e.g. prohibition of the abundance of transgender athletes in big sports. Sorry for my last example, I understand that you don't like this theme (since you support the Left), but I can use this for illustraion of my views. When the people in Poland voted for PiS, they demanded exactly this, but they were unable to achive what they voted for, because in 2023 the PiS party was replaced by a coalition of Left parties. I want to repeat my point that the Polish people voted in 2023 for parties other than PiS not because they stopped wanting these changes, but because PiS made some bad laws in other subjects. If during the rule of PiS some referendum in Poland was performed, the new parties would be unable to cancel the decision of the Polish people. But in most Western countries, the ruling elite understands that such referendums can threat its power, so the referendums are not performed. I see exactly the same situation in Russia: Putin states that since the Russians have voted for him on last President elections, this means that the Russians "support all things he does", but in fact of course they don't support such things as blocking of youtube or messengers. When the Russians voted for Putin, they voted for "stability", not for this.

As mentioned above, the authoritarianism in Western countries is mostly based on package voting, where each choice the voters have has both some good and bad decisions, and they can't separate them to vote for each point independently. For example, a frightening scenario of the near future is as follows: Trump dies or gets a dementia or becomes impeached by the US parliament, and the Americans choose a president of e.g. these two candidates - J. D. Vance vs Kamala Harris. A half of Americans will vote for Harris because they do not want the abortions to be prohibited, and another half will vote for Vance because they do not want transgenders in big sport. Possibly the choice will be even worse, because both candidates will not talk about cryptocurrencies (this will mean that they plan to forbid them), and they will promise to de-anonymise Meta and X (because people talk too much about politics in the social networks). Both choices will be terrible, and I am sure that the best vote in such situation will be NOTC, or, more exactly, spoiling the ballot. The best thing Trump can do now, to prevent such a scenario, is the initiation of some all-US referendum with 4 proposals (each point will be voted separately): 1) Ending of "gender diversity"; 2) Full legalization of abortions; 3) Legalization of cryptocurrencties; 4) Some declaration that the social network have all rights to make their users anonymous.

Ok, I have more arguments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Switzerland

Before 2022, Europe bought the oil from Russia, and China from Saudi Arabia. After 2022 this reversed - Europe is buying the oil from SA, China from Russia. If Gemany bought less oil from SA, SA would sell its oil to China, so the China would stop buying the oil from Putin and this would stop the Putin's war. Ukraine is fighting for freedom (maybe even for all humanity), and supporting the Putin's war is really a crime. And if the goverment of Germany conscieously ignores the will of Germans, this is evidently not the freedom.

https://www.politico.eu/article/friedrich-merz-is-right-to-reject-germanys-nuclear-phase-out-says-iea-chief-fatih-birol/ For me, this was rather not mistake but a crime: the closure of atomic stations has lead to an increase of oil consumption and buying the oil in Germany, and in fact this means that Germany is now funding the Putin's war in Ukraine (exchange with Saudi Arabia). And it is very possible that the decision to close the stations was payed by the Putin's lobby (as an example, Gerhard Schröder has been working in Russia for a long time). Clean Energy WireTwo thirds of Germans against shutting down last nuclear...dpa / Clean Energy Wire About two thirds of Germans are against the country’s imminent shutdown of the remaining three nuclear power plants, a survey by opinion research institute YouGov

I have already written, that Europe is close to USSR: it has more equality, but less freedom. There is indeed often some correlation between the authoritarianism and the equality: for example, in China there is a large middle class now. Maybe the explanation is that since China is a hightly authoritarian country, its rulers are not afraid of the middle class (while in the Western world the middle class could overthrow the ruling elites, because it has more civil rights).

https://kimgriest.medium.com/real-reason-the-american-middle-class-is-disappearing-901cb78ababf So these 1% welthiest are the "nobles", while maybe the FED bankers are "monarchs".

Very simple – the real rulers of the USA and the Western world in general (financial elite) do not allow smart and honest people to start a serious political career, because a smart politician can become a threat/competitor for these rulers. So only bad candidates can participate in elections, and so the voters do not have a good choice. I have two questions relating last US presidential elections: 1) Am I right that the US mass media like CNN and Fox News supported Disantis instead of Trump, stating that Disantis is “a young and smart Trump”, “let it be the Trumpism without Trump”, “the approval rating of Disantis is increasing while the rating of Trump is decreasing”? 2) I saw the presidential debates between the candidates; Haley said there that Putin is a murderer. Disantis always said that he plans to stop supporting Ukraine. Logically this means that Haley must had hated Disantis, but instead they rather were “friends against Trump”. Am I right?

So you believe that the Americans had good choices - previously Biden, then Harris - and they showed themselves stupid since they voted not for Harris but for Trump?

Again: a common situation is when candidate A promises something ugly regarding question 1, but something good regarding question 2. Candidate B promises something good regarding question 1, but something ugly regarding question 2. So the voters do not have choice. For example, some candidates promise to supress gays, while others promise to supress homophobes; and when these candidates change each other, nothing changes, because both parties are rather spoilers serving the financial elite. This is clealy seen in case of USA and Poland.

I suppose, the members of this forum hate such politicians as AfD, Le Pen, DiSantis? I understand their reasoning.

The problem is that the choice of candidates is only among people approved by the elite. And often, if some candidate declares something good, at the same time he declares some ... on other subject, so the voters don't have a possibility for vote for a candidate which is really good for them. I hope you understand my logic for the case of e.g. AfD in Germany.

As far as I can see, the Western democracy is mostly an illusion; the Western countries are ruled by the financial aristocracy. This works as follows: if a problem arises in society, the financial elite, represented by parliamentarians, passes laws to solve it; but these laws simultaneously serve one more purpose—increasing the wealth and power of the elite. In particular, these laws are always aimed at suppressing the small businesses, because small businessmen are less dependent on the power and can overthrow it. Currently I have two examples, but I apologize for not fact-checking everything thoroughly; I hope somebody here can help me with this: 1) I have seen an interview on Euronews, where it was said that agricultural subsidies in the European Union always help large agricultural holdings more than small farmers; 2) One blogger wrote about how laws aimed to combat global warming (greenhouse gas emission quotas) in New Zealand similarly benefit large agricultural holdings, and lead to ruining of small farmers. Please comment my examples above and suggest any others.

I hear often that the world is currently experiencing a “loneliness epidemic”; for example, in Japan, pensioners are now often committing small crimes to end up in prison, where they'll feel less lonely. Another similar phenomenon is "atomization," when people live in an apartment building for years without interacting with their neighbors. I see that all of these phenomena have a common cause: politics. Many people confirm to me that educated people, on average, have fewer friends than the uneducated ones. There are also studies showing that smart and educated people have fewer children, a problem mentioned in the film "Idiocracy": I think that I understand perfectly how this works. Friendship requires common goals and interests; and when people in normal, non-sectarian groups begin discussing various intellectual topics, they inevitably start discussing politics. Then some of them become oppositionists, then the authorities punish them, and this discourages others from engaging in such communication. That’s why usually people find friends in so-called “interest clubs”, more exactly sects, where the goal of a group is called “important” for its members, but in fact the main purpose of it is only helping to find friends. This is very clearly evident in my country, but the same trends are evident in the West, only more hidden there. Western democracy is illusory, the deep state rules there. A psychologist also told me that a person starts drinking alcohol, if he lacks a purpose in life—and this happens because his country lacks democracy, he can’t vote for something that makes the world better. I am certain that if we introduce a political system with many referendums, people will easily make friends anywhere, and loneliness will disappear, as well as alcoholism.