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.