Linkey

I mean the percentage of human population who lived in monarchies. As far as I know, 2500 years ago only some cities in Europe were city-states, while all Asia consisted of monarchies, and probably the same with other continents where people were already not hunter-gatherers.

What is the clan social system? I have heard that the nomads have a "freedom-loving spirit" or something like that. Maybe before the Ghengis Khan, a common mongol had a possibility to move somewhere apart from his current chief if he didn't like this chief. Now Mongolia is one of the most democratic states in Asia.

3000 years ago. In particular, the Persian empire included 40% if the whole Earth population, if I am not mistaken.

As far as I understand it, in ancient history, the Eastern despotisms dominated the world because they fought better than democratic city-states. Unfortunately, the one-man ruling is necessary for a war. At the same time, there is an opposite tendency: free countries support new ideas, including military innovations, better than unfree ones. The general weakness of Eastern-type civilization is that the science and technology developed more slowly there, than in Western-type civilizations. As for military innovations and ideas, I can suggest three examples: 1) The Swiss have historically lived very freely, and now the Switzerland is now the country with the highest level of democracy; and in the Middle Ages, the Swiss were a very powerful military force, usually defeating the knights. The secret of the Swiss's success was in the rational tactics of their "phalanx" (pikemen); 2) As I understand it, in the early Middle Ages, the Vikings had a military democracy, while in the late Middle Ages, a regular monarchy reigned in Scandinavia. Is it possible to draw a parallel here with the fact that in the early Middle Ages the Vikings could terrorize Europeans, but after 1064 they lost this advantage? 3) If I am not mistaken, the nomadic Mongols had a lot of what can be called democracy. On the other hand, Genghis Khan united them into a single centralized state, and achieved a huge military success. It seems to me that the following scenario can be natural in history: first, there is democracy in the country and this allows smart people to grow into the elite and implement innovations, and then a dictator appears who turns the whole country into a very effective military machine. In addition to the Mongols, another example was the Nazi Germany. Please comment my thoughts above.

During the recent US elections, polls were conducted in different countries to find out whom did people support more among the American presidential candidates; while in Europe the majority was for Harris, in Russia there were 7 times more people who supported Trump than Harris. This is understandable in light of the fact that the Trumpism is ideologically closer to Putinism: for example, in Russia, homophobia is part of the state ideology, and Trump also does not like LGBT. I wonder if Russians can now begin to change their views regarding their attitude to democracy. On TV, Russians have always been told that the excesses associated with LGBT in Europe, such as transgender people in big sports, are a consequence of democracy. This was facilitated by the meme invented by the leftists ruling in Europe - “democracy is not the rule of the majority, but the protection of minorities.” Now, perhaps, Trump will begin to fight with these excesses; and I hope that Russians will experience cognitive dissonance, when they will see that the Americans havedemocratically elected a president who suppresses LGBT. In Argentina, Miley is also trying to implement such a policy - he fired transgender people from the government and cut the "Ministry of Diversity". But Trump rules a much more important country, and maybe he will now stir the Hollywood and Disney, and stop the policy of propaganda of woke and BLM agenda in them. I hope that this will happen sooner; I want to emphasize that I am not a homophobe, the reasons is just that such a policy can change the worldview of Russians, and then perhaps they will stop supporting Putin and his war.

I don't understand what facts do you need. What I say is absolutely obvious. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic

I know, for example, that Russian government prints a lot of money for funding the Putin's war. It is really strange if you deny that the quantitave easing is the cause of inflation. Ok here are the words of Arnold Swarzenegger about the money printing: This was a link with timecode, does this forum supports the timecodes on youtube? If no, the start is at 26:06.

Because other countries print even more money that the US government. By the way, when the FED emits the dollars, it collects the inflational tax from not only the USA population but from the whole world.

In the Western world, the global elites are controlling the educational system, that’s why educated people usually vote for Dems. The Dems impose unpleasant things like transgenders in big sport, and Trump is finishing this. This is a single example, not the most important. The main reason why Trump won was the dollar inflation. The inflation is caused by the quantitative easing (dollar printing in fact). An important aspect of the program of Trump was the support of cryptocurrencies, and many people understand (or at least feel unconsciously), that the bitcoins provide a possibility to avoid “paying the inflation tax to the US government”. Supporting the cryptoeconomics is a really good thing Trump does now, as well as e.g. pardoning Ross Ulbricht.

Recently half of the America hated Biden, now another half hates Trump. And they are indeed the two sides of the same coin: both they were accepted by ruling class (financial aristocracy) to become candidates, because both aren't a threat to the money and power of the middle class. Trump now tries to create an illusion that he is a "revolutionary", but he is rather a spoiler because all good he tries to do is immediately discredited by his terrible features.

Sorry, I don't understand why you are asking such stupid questions. The prices of smartphones are decreasing because of the growth of technologies, but this does not mean that the people are becoming richer. Since the technologies are unable to produce space, the prices of earth and houses still indicate the real incomes of people.

I see much information in the Web (posts of bloggers, etc.), that in the USA and in the Western world it becomes more and more difficult for a common person to buy a house. I one film I saw the information, that 40 years ago, in USA, only one member of a family (husband or wife) was working; no both members need to work, and still it is difficult for the to use mortgage.

Some time ago I wrote here, that Trump and Biden are two sides of the same coin, that the middle class is disappearing in the Western society, and that the inflation is a hidden taxation (for the poor, but not for the wealthy). Do you still deny these statements?

They can use Russian messenger Vkontakte as well. But the Telegram is a still remaining possibility for the Russians to read independent information published by anti-Putin bloggers.

Possibly this is an example of the ”fake-news” as Trump call them; they can be also called “informational anomalies”. Somebody posts a lie, and many people repost this lie; then this lie is exposed, but the exposing information spreads much more slowly in the internet, and the lie still works in the minds of people. An example of such “fake-news” is the story of imprisoning and recent pardoning of Ross Ulbricht, the owner of Silk Road. Previously somebody wrote that he paid for 5 murder attempts; this information spread widely, but the court rejected it in 2018 or earlier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ulbricht https://reason.com/2018/07/25/ross-ulbrichts-murder-for-hire-charges-d/ However Ulbricht was still in prison until 2025 when Trump pardoned him.

I am not sure that this is true. Did you read these news from social networks? Durov is a very good person, and he has a reputation of a Russian "internet-warrior", because he tried to protect anti-Putin bloggers in Vkontakte and had to leave Russia because of this. In 2019, the Telegram was blocked in Russia, but Durov was able to make Telegram "self-VPN" and the Russian authorities were unsuccessfull.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_de_la_correspondance Autotranslation:

In August 2025, the owner of Telegram Pavel Durov was arrested in France. The French policemen accused him that because of the lack of the moderation in Telegram, the Telegram had become a platform for criminals like drug dealers. I am not sure that this arrest of Durov was legal. If I am not mistaken, the constitutions of all Western countries declare the right of secrecy of correspondence. Possibly all they were derived from the Article 2 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789. Because people like drug dealers use messengers for communication, the policemen indeed need to read their correspondence; so it seems that Durov was arrested because he didn't let the French policemen the possibility to read the correspondence of the Telegram users. But what about the constitution? If you think that the police must have the right to read our correspondence for struggling with the criminals - that's ok, but firstly you should change the constitution. Can you comment this?

One day maybe...

I believe that the game theory can be useful for improving relationships in families. Here is a simple analogy: A husband and wife are deciding how to spend their time together. If they both go to watch football, the husband gets two "units of pleasure", the wife one. If they go to the theater, the husband gets one "unit of pleasure", the wife two. If they are inclined to compromise, they can agree to go there and there alternately, then each gets an average of 1.5 units of pleasure. But if the wife is selfish and has more patience, she can make her husband choose either to go only to the theater or not to go anywhere. The husband acceps this and the wife gets 2 units of pleasure, but this approach destroys their relationship. In fact, this example is not entirely correct, later I can explain why. My main idea is that studying the game theory can help spouses NOT play such games, recognize these games and treat them negatively, and this will lead to an improvement in their relationship.

I have two examples of referendums in recent times: 1) As far as I know, in some US states the referendums were performed with the suggestion to prohibit abortions, and this suggestion was never supported by the majority of the population. At the same time, Trump will now say "the Americans have voted for me, so this means that they want to ban abortions". Is this good? 2) In Germany, the powers closed the nuclear plants, even after 02.2022, and that is totally terrible (the Germany is still buying the oil from Russia through India). At the same time, in Switzerland the referendums relating this question were performed, and the Swiss people rejected the suggestion to close the nuclear plants. I am sure that if a similar referendum was performed in Germany, it's results would be the same. But the powers of Germany will say "the Germans have voted for us, so they want to close these plants". Is this good?

[Patiently] So you think that current political system in the Western countries is better? The system when half of the US population hate the elected president, and recently another half hated previous president?

I have heard that in California there is something similar to the system in the Switzerland? However I am sure it does not work propebly, because the referendum can be initiated only by two ruling parties and nobody will suggest a referendum relating really important things for the people, like the cryptocurrencies legalization. Currently it is possible to perform referendums via the internet. so a referendum each week is indeed possible. But the ruling politicians are not motivated to implement this...

I see that in modern countries, which call themselves democratic, a hidden authoritarianism is mainteined by votings where the citizens can vote for both something good and something bad in ac single vote. For example, the Americans voted for Trump because they disliked the inflation and transgenders in big sport, but now Trump or Vance will say that they voted for prohibiting abortions and stopping the support of Ukraine. In Russia, a sample of such packed voting was e.g. the referendum of 2020 for changes in the constitution; it can be said, that the Russians mostly voted for new parts like “A marriage is a union between a man and a woman”, but after that Putin was saying that they voted for his next term. It seems evident that when the Russians voted for Putin in 2024 – they voted not for such things as blocking the youtube. I am starting to think now that the main reason of their vote for Putin was the following – if a democratic candidate won the presidential elections, a civil way could start in Russian. Putin has done very much for such situation. This is similar to Syria – Asad has allowed the Syrians to choose only between him and a civil war.