The Role of Government: The Discussion that Defines all of the Others

- The Role of Government: Finding a Middle -

There is an interesting division occurring in modern politics. The screeches of the Trump fans and the deafening clapping of the Hillary camp harmonize to an identical tune. This tune is the song of big government. Big government, as anyone who has spent enough time in the company of Libertarians should know, is a devil term that is thrown about at seemingly everything. What does it mean? Why are these people angry at the thought of government intervention? These are very reasonable questions to ask, but the opposite questions are just as valid. The division taking place is now between Libertarians, in addition to the Never Trump movement, and the advocates of Trump the strongman and Hillary the neo-con. At the center of this debate sits the role of government. Big government vs small government and the policies surrounding both theories of government.

The reason that this division is so fiercely fought over is that the issue is often rather binary in nature. Just as it is impossible for a Christian to explain the significance of Lent to an Atheist, it is equally impossible for small government advocate to explain to a big government advocate the principles of non-intervention and faith in the individual. Thus, a chasm of misunderstanding arises between people on opposing sides of this. Small government advocates are often profoundly mistrustful of the government. This is a good attitude as, governments throughout history have been corrupt, self-serving, and tyrannical. It seems prudent to examine all proposals and legislation carefully for signs of corruption and tyranny. Those on the big government field usually see and respect these concerns, but often cite security and abusers of lack of regulation as evidence to push such legislation forward. The role of government, to big government advocates, is a government which works for them, instead of getting out of the way. Those on the Trump side see the government as a facility to rid them of unwanted immigration and to 'win' on trade in order to bring jobs back. Those on the Hillary side see government in the same light but at a different angle. They favor the use of the government to force business to operate as they see fit and to give aid to those in the population who need (or simply want) it. Additionally, both sides see America as a set of groups, and the poll numbers reflect group representation in each of these candidates. Either way, small government advocates recoil to such views of the government. Such people do not want regulation nor bureaucracy and focus instead on individual rights. Unfortunately, the far polarization of these views exposes unseen potential to find a middle ground. Below lies an extensive example which depicts the attempt to find a middle ground while considering viewpoints from both sides:

Upon investigation, it seems as though there can be a united effort to find a middle ground on various issues. To preface this specific set of roles for the government, it must be understood that people must work for the betterment of themselves and ought to be expected to succeed in spite of poor government policies at all times. This being said, people are not unaffected by the government, or its policies, therefore the government should stay out of people's way where it is prudent and intervene when necessary to promote the well-being of its citizens.

Part 1: Taxes

Taxes are the lifeblood of government. Without taxes, there are very little sources of revenue for a market economy. State Capitalism, which thankfully has been almost completely phased out, would utilize national resources to run factories and produce goods. The profits of the resulting trade would go into state coffers and be used to pay salaries, expand factories, etc. Ironically, communism and socialism make heavy use of State Capitalism, so it really is fortunate that taxes are a mainstay of governments in market economies. This being said, the small government advocate despises taxes while the big government advocate views taxes as necessary and sometimes good. Those who view taxes as a way to redistribute wealth have no place in this proposed middle, as a middle cannot be achieved between those who view taxes as theft and those who would utilize it in a larger agenda. Taxes thus should be utilized in a minimal sense to fund what is absolutely necessary and be cut at every opportunity. Necessity includes baseline defense spending, various programs that protect the economy (more detail in part 2), and infrastructure maintenance. Ideally, those who support larger amounts of taxes for the purpose of paying down debt and funding vital programs will be brought on board by tax cuts with the purpose of cutting spending on the military, phasing out social security and other non-discretionary spending, and cutting waste. Refer to the charts below:

As far as what tax model to have, a flat tax is optimal for small business, but not everyone always sees one as fair. The progressive tax discourages class ascension but is seen as more fair. And, the regressive tax is only used by evil empires that have it out for peasants. This poses a problem, a small government advocate would obviously take a flat tax, as it is the most simple and requires no army of lawyers to interpret it. On the other hand, big government advocates typically want those who earn more money to "pay their fair share" in order to fund more government programs. This new middle must include such concerns. Fortunately, the base rate can be adjusted to a higher rate to generate needed government income. So, the optimal solution would be a flat tax which can be fair as well as efficient. A flat tax can be implemented to allow small businesses to flourish as well as allowing federal programs to continue unhindered. Though, as mentioned before, non-discretionary spending needs to be addressed, as well as wasteful spending.

Part 2: Maintaining Economic Interdependency 

An element that is often lost in modern discussions of economic issues is the idea of Economic Interdependency, which is the idea that everyone in an economy is connected. A computer, for instance, takes copper and silicon from mines, plastic from processing plants, electricity from various locations, led's and processors from manufacturing and much much more. All of the industries in an economy depend on each other. The discussions forget this by centering upon regulation and lack thereof. Always, the clamor is about regulation and freedom of the individual, when there is a delicate balance in our economy. As an example, the fishing industry and river rafting joints would suffer greatly if rivers were so polluted that they could catch fire. People who run camps, those who cut wood, and the industries dependent upon the well-being of forests are not helped by a destroyed environment. Therefore, the EPA has a role to perform in the economy. Such intervention is necessary. The issue is when the EPA has so many regulations and so much federal funding that they become an obstacle to business and a general pain. These are balances which must be struck. There is currently so much intervention that the business climate can feel like the rule of government offices. So comes the middle ground: regulations are great if they are efficient and not hinder some. The government has, as a result of too much spending and lobbying, become an obstacle to the success of some business. Because of Economic Interdependency, an obstacle to the success of one business becomes an obstacle to other businesses. Another issue is the idea that one's self-destruction has no effect on anybody else. At the Libertarian Debate, Austin Peterson was asked a question about drugs: this was his response. He was booed by people because he said that children oughtn't to be sold hard drugs. How can this be? How can people so rabidly defend this "right?" People who dope themselves into a numbness to life and who find themselves in dead-end jobs fit for teenagers hurt everyone. The single person will obviously not have much of an effect, but trends and occurrences happen by the millions. It may not matter to anyone that this one pot-head threw his potential to the dirt and worked in retail for the rest of his days. But, when millions of people could be allowed to do so legally, this has an impact. Donald Trump seems to think that we thrive off of factory jobs which require one standing in the same place for eight hours a day, but these jobs have been automated. The ceiling of one's potential is ever higher in this modern job market, and those who choose the bottom hurt the competing power of this country. Small government advocates cite the individual's right to trash his/her life in whatever capacity that they wish. The big government advocates cite the individual's responsibility to his/her country, economy, and family. There must be a middle. There are some activities which are morally questionable, but which do no visible damage to the economy. So, while people load up at McDonald's they may be shortening their lifespans, they aren't often reducing their work efficiency or throwing away their own potential. It is a role of government to preserve, as much as possible, the environment that achieves maximum economic efficiency through preserving Economic Interdependency, but not to get so involved in people's lives that it spends millions of dollars getting kids to eat salad. 

For more on Economic Interdependency:

Cournot, Antoine (1838). Researches into the Mathematical Theory of Wealth. Translated by Nathaniel Bacon (1898).

Part 3: Relegating Issues, both Social and Local

By now, it should be obvious that the United States is a nation divided. The polls show it, the twitter mobs echo it, and the president confirms it all. The US is divided by ideology more than by race, privilege, class, etc. The only reason that people are able to be so easily played against each other by race-baiters is because of this difference in ideology. Last election cycle, the popular vote was won by 5 million votes with a vote count of 127 million. Such a result was close. Very close. 

It can be therefore reasoned that states have general ideological leanings. Here, there is an interesting contradiction in the small government camp. Should states be left to determine their own policies if it gave states the opportunity to create big government solutions? The answer varies from person to person, but generally, a state-level solution is preferred because of one's closeness to the solution. It is far easier to arrange a meeting with your state senator or major than the president, for instance. Big government advocates, on the other hand, have a greater predisposition to favoring federal intervention on issues like marriage, abortion, guns, education, and various social programs. Autonomy works because it simply does not matter the quality, common sense, test-ability, or reliability of a program or law if it is forced upon people. Those people on whom such policies are enforced will seem like tyranny. Therefore, local decisions must be given precedent to broad-stroke decisions for the whole nation. As recompense for their loss of federal power, the big government camp can be free to advocate for big government policies within their state where more big government advocates exist. Additionally, A single glove does not fit all hands, so a middle here would consist of leaving states more autonomy to choose a social policy, financial policy, and to create statewide programs. The purpose of this middle is to allow each state to choose to be big or small government. The benefits of both can be weighed and policy changed, if necessary. There is importance in understanding that allowing people to be closer to the solution that they choose will not solve this nation's division problem. Minorities, women, and white men will not get along if they are constantly pitted against each other for political gain by these ideologies. This issue is far too large to be included in this entry; its brief inclusion here was simply a disclaimer against racial strife continuing in spite of greater local autonomy. Back to the issue, in most of the presidential primary debates of recent history, governors have consistently touted their great successes in each of their states. The idea is to allow these governors to continue to be accessible to their voting bases and to carry out their duty to such people. People, who will have more control over the levels of intervention that their government levies over them.

Subsequently, these proposals are by no means perfect, but to fight the ongoing division in this country, give them a mulling over. Division is everywhere, and the fight between libertarians and authoritarians is a necessary one. Keep in mind that political discourse can be enjoyable and friendly, especially since this is a battle which has ever-increasingly encompassed political discourse. There are views to be considered all around the spectrum. Libertarians, for the most part, are not worried about the government because they are paranoid tin-foil hatters. They hold legitimate fears about the power of government and its role in society. Authoritarians, in a likewise majority, are no fascists. They fear for the moral and economic fabric of this country and trust that a properly implemented government can tear down walls (or build them up, if that is the case). Regardless of one's view of the role of government, each side must be considered in the substance of the argument and not a summation of god and devil terms. This middle has been proposed partially as a simulation of considering multiple sides of this tedious but necessary argument and coming together to find a solution. Remember that it is possible to cross the chasm of these two vastly different views of the role of government. Make the extra effort to cross it, retreat from it, examine it as far as possible, and find a middle with those on the other side.

Congratulations on making it this far! Enjoy a comic:

No Matter Who Wins the Election, You Will Be OK.

With this election cycle comes the wave after wave of people threatening to move if  >insert name< gets elected. Most commonly, it is Hillary or Donald, though a Sanders here or a Cruz there make their way in. The simple truth is that we live in a republic. If congress and the senate were suddenly overrun with new labor politicians and the president was Leon Trotsky incarnate, then people may, then, be on to something with this hysteria. However fortunately, this is not the case. The United States is built with an incredibly flawed but equivocally genius checks and balances system. The president has his/her power, sure, but this power is limited. The wonderful aspect of this system is that, if Trump or Hilary or >insert name< gets elected, they have to contend with congress, the senate, the Supreme Court, and we the people. Obviously, those who fear a Trump or Hillary or >insert name< presidency have a point. Having an incredibly powerful executive branch makes those possibilities scary.  Fortunately, the impact of that person (and his/her cabinet), again, is limited.

To go even further, it can be argued that your life may change very little. Hypothetically, if Trump is elected, the apocalypse will not reign supreme, and KKK members will not uproot from the ground to parade the banner of white supremacy. The fact that this hysteria is so present as to manifest itself in the form of various celebrities threatening to move to Canada is proof of the horrendous misunderstanding of the US political system. The politicians, of course, take advantage of this misunderstanding by offering to resolve issues that they haven't the power to address in the first place. Trump cannot deport all of the illegals, and Hillary cannot take all of your guns. This highlights another quite brilliant system devised for this nation: local autonomy. Many of these issues are controlled by state governments. State governments are far closer to the people and have much more influence over your life. This is an incredible thing because the politicians in your state know your situation better, they know their expectations better, and they fear you more. Nameless, faceless politicians in DC are unreachable by countless Americans, but you can charge right into your state capital after a few hours of driving or less. It is far easier to get in touch with your governor than with the president. This makes two reasons that the presidency is overrated.

The third reason that you have little to fear is that moving to another country will not solve your problems ever. All countries have terrible political atmospheres. Even when you think that you are moving to a paradise an ocean away, you will find yourself surrounded with all of the elements that you were desperate to escape. Every country is divided to an extent. True, the definition of left and right may blur across borders and oceans, but there will always be an ideology to hate and fear. There will always be someone who, if elected, will represent some major shift for the nation that scares you. Several Hollywood types have announced their plans to move to another country. Additionally, the number of google searches on how to move to Canada has exploded since Super Tuesday. It is not only the sensationalist, out-of-touch stars who have considered this. It is unfortunate that this bubble has to be broken for some, but Canada will not solve anybody's problems. The bottom line of this is that the president will not affect your success unless some rare, ultra-specific circumstance occurs. If your metric of personal success is affected once >insert name< becomes president, then you will have been the only factor. Of course, this would mean that you, yourself are to blame. It is time to stop this nonsense.

The Misuse of Hitler and its Unfortunate Cause

There is an alarming trend in modern politics: the comparison of Adolf Hitler to those we don't like. If it isn't Assad, it is Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump or anyone else that isn't too popular. To the better educated, this phenomenon is a mere annoyance, but the comparison sticks with those who are quick to judge and slow to learn. I had previously dismissed this as a scare tactic for the inexperienced minions of corresponding political factions. This aspect did not change, but the alarming growth of the use of this comparison did. Ever since Donald Trump announced his candidacy, there have been non-stop attacks against his person. These attacks typically relate him to Hitler. I am no fan of Donald Trump, but these attacks are lacking in information. Therefore, I wish to do my part in putting certain aspects of this outdated comparison to bed.

An example of this ill-conceived comparison in action. 

The first and most obvious goal of the attack is to compare the xenophobia (alleged) of Donald Trump against the proven xenophobia of Adolf Hitler. This is not accurate in any way. Adolf Hilter abhorred Slavs, Gypsies, disabled people, homosexuals, Catholics, and Jews. This was not simply a desire to keep them out of Germany. Hitler did not stand in front of thousands of people to simply demand that a wall be built and illegals to be deported. His ultimate goal was the extermination of the Jews and the enslavement of the slavs. Hitler wanted to fulfill Germany's century long eastern ambitions by expanding Germany well into Poland and the Soviet Union. Donald Trump, however, only seeks to deny refugees entry and to stop illegal immigration. This is not grounds enough for a comparison to Hitler. Trump does not wish to annihilate the Syrian people nor enslave the Mexican people. At every accusation of being called racist, he loves to remind everyone how much he loves the Mexican people. One may believe this or not, but, again, Hitler would never have made the same claims about those he deemed 'subhuman.'

Now to the meat of these claims. Hitler and his Nazis are often related to the 'Far Right' of politics. In a sense, this can make sense. Populism, nationalism, and xenophobia are often attributed to the far right. Then comes the phrase 'National Socialism.' Obviously, Nazism and Communism are two different evil beasts, but they were more similar than many care to realize. At the heart of Nazism, it is true that whichever 'best race' runs the show is to be the higher class. In Communism, however, class was determined by one's allegiance to the state only. Both systems intersect, but both are opposite to the way that class is determined in a capitalist society. National Socialism was state ownership. Everything about the Nazi order was about state ownership and the relationship between the state and its subjects. This relationship would drastically change depending upon the class of citizen, which again, was determined by race. It should be needless to say that a Donald Trump economy is not about state ownership. It is, however, about bailouts, eminent domain, subsidies, and other things that I do not like. Despite this, a Donald Trump economy does not involve national socialism.

Additionally, it should be brought up that Trump is not the only subject of this comparison. That was just another instance of this phenomenon. The Hitler comparison is just a more forceful and ignorant way of calling someone racist or tyrannical. In reality, the comparison is hyperbolic, but it is never used in such a way. This comparison is a symptom of a greater problem involving politics in the English language. Hopefully, one should conjure up thoughts of George Orwell's piece about proper use of language to articulate an idea. Orwell suggested that simpler language should be used in order to more directly communicate thoughts to a reader or listener. The issue now is that our discourse is too simple. Every aspect of politics has been diluted into identity politics, name-calling, and God words vs Devil words. For example, words like liberty, privilege, minority, and totalitarian are thrown around too often. It would often give trouble to an individual if they were made to give a concise definition of the words that they throw around. For example, instead of outlining what privilege is (Like I did in the linked article above.) and how it affects society, one simply declares that their opponent is privileged. This creates a dangerous political climate in which massive hordes of uninformed populace is swung one way or the other by simple terms and insults. Several examples of this lie in the Republican and Democrat debates. Words and phrases like 'freedom' and 'income equality' and 'socialist' draw applause and booing alike. Democracy is the will of the majority, but if the majority has no will, then it is all for naught. A democracy craves substance. The people of a nation deserve to know the fleshed out ideas of their candidates.

A Spawning Ground for Poor Political Discourse. Source:Washington Post

There is one reason that can be tied to almost every factor that is causing this poisonous atmosphere is individual laziness. Political discourse between opposing viewpoints has been minimized to forced family gatherings and trolling on the internet. Too often do people sit in their camps and complain about the other camp without a shred of respect for that camp's viewpoints. Why? They are too lazy to take responsibility for their own viewpoints. They are too lazy to truly know what it is that they believe aside from a few God-Terms. Thus, upon confrontation, these sides end up spewing nonsense at each other and no-one is left more knowledgeable. Furthermore, when asked for an example of the Russian decent into the dark and deadly Soviet era being repeated in the West, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said: "... It is considered embarrassing to put forward one's counterarguments, lest one become involved. And so there is a certain abdication of responsibility, which is typical here where there is complete freedom. Let us take the press writers, journalists, who enjoy great freedom and meanwhile lose their sense of responsibility before history, before their own people." Solzhenitsyn confirmed then the cause of this ongoing degradation of political discourse. The only solution to this problem of over offence and fear of causing it is to pursue the truth. In so doing, every opinion becomes valuable and every viewpoint becomes useful. Discussion and debate is no longer about defending a political camp or attacking that which is undesirable. Discourse becomes a vessel through which the agreeable course of the nation is made discover-able. If anything, it will make these idiotic comparisons less common.

There will probably come a person who can viably be compared to Hitler, but until then, please refrain from such useless comparisons. Those who use the comparison seriously are only contributing to their own ill-image.

The Great Wall of Serbia - Dealing With Immigration -

--- European Immigration ---

I just got back from Europe and, having seen the effects of immigration firsthand there, that being hordes of men shouting at crowds to buy things while their peers pry at stragglers' pockets, I am not at all surprised at the headlines of the past couple of days. The Hungarian government is completely fed up with the current state of European Immigration. To completely measure the amount of patience that has been squeezed from the aforementioned government, all one must do is to imagine a 175 km long, 4 meter tall 'fence' which is to be built along Hungary's shared border with Serbia. That is a lot of patience which has found its way in the waste bin. Viktor Orban, Hungary's Prime Minister, said that the EU's current immigrant distribution plan "borders on insanity." Heh 'borders' heh. Anyways, immigration is a massive problem in Europe, but is constructing a cold-war style wall really the answer? I was in Berlin not two weeks ago. I saw Checkpoint Charlie and walked along where the wall stood. Surely we have learned our lesson? Hungary is not the only offender here, as Bulgaria is currently planning on extending its own wall which borders Turkey. So, here we have a real issue here. There are unavoidable waves of immigration heading to Europe. What can be done? What are the consequences? Is there a sensitive, ethical way to say no to immigration? I don't know the answer to any of these questions but I will give them a shot.

Source - BBC World News

To begin with, what is there to be done about immigration? European countries are not like the United States. They do not have the luxury of having immigration from predominately catholic countries with populations of resourceful, motivated dream-seekers. Europe borders the empires of Islam, whose immigrants can sometimes be dangerous. The EU has attempted a quota system which has done nothing to control the levels of immigration from abroad. Obviously, nobody in good conscience can idle about while people in need are drowning in the Mediterranean. The current system of distribution, as Orban has already pointed out, also does nothing. Layers of  bureaucratic nonsense piled upon security checks can reduce the threat from immigrants intending to cause mayhem, but it will, inevitably, create larger masses of people collecting like fat in a blood stream which will eventually cause a clog. Efficiency is key, but so is safety. It is already well established that the European economy cannot handle the unskilled labor force and is unwilling to face the additional security risk, so why must the Europeans even deal with immigrants? They have no choice in the matter. Either the Europeans take them in, or they die afloat on their rafts in the Mediterranean. So efficiency must trump safety, at least for the time being. Then infrequent, isolated events like the Charlie Hebdo attacks happen, and every immigrant everywhere is painted an eternal scapegoat. "Why didn't we care about security?"- the newscasters will shout with their inevitable and irritating tones of surprise. Either all the immigrants are to be taken in, and the occasional isolated event happen, or the EU develops tedious and inefficient security infrastructure and allow the lines of Adriatic rafts to pile up. The administrators in the EU must redirect funding it cannot afford toward dealing with immigration, or it must make the choice and deal with the consequences. This does not even touch upon the additional aspects of immigration which makes the Great Wall of Serbia even remotely morally viable.

An Intact Guard Tower From the Berlin Wall Source - Own Collection

To continue, the consequences of immigration are the creation minorities, plain and simple. Depending on the type of government and the power of said government, minorities can either have no impact on a nation or they can have a massive impact. Imperial Russia, for instance, could very easily keep tabs on its minority groups because of its autocratic nature and its ability to give and take autonomy at the drop of a hat. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, is undermined and made weaker because of the increasing division in society caused by reliance of constituencies in its democratic process. Minority groups are the targets of territorial claims, they are the starting point of dissent, and they are rarely satisfied! Czechoslovakia fell apart because of its German minority. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was brought to its knees by Ukrainian minorities. The Dutch declared independence from Spain because they were an unrepresented minority. Don't even get me started on the Balkans. Even in the United States, we have countless issues caused by the effects of multiculturalism. Unjust racism, riots, idiotic victimization, ghettos, affirmative action, imposed guilt, mistrust, failure to provide equal education, failure to provide equal opportunity. Whichever side one happens to be on, he/she believes in some negative aspect of multiculturalism. The opportunity for monoculturalism, however, is lost in most European countries. These immigrants are fueling a wave of new minorities which will be used by politicians to get their way either as scapegoats or as victims. In many cases, these immigrants will be borderline useless to the countries that receive them. On top of the security and social aspects of their journeys, they will drag down the economies of the nations which are unfortunate to have the closest doormat to whichever failed nation from which the immigrants came. Immigrants from the 'acquired' Eastern European countries come prepared to work, but these immigrants come unprepared to do nothing but be fed by welfare programs. This being said, THESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE HELPED NONETHELESS. The Hungarians are shutting off immigration to their country, but this does not keep them from helping immigrants.

This brings me to the final question- Is there a sensitive, ethical way to say no to immigration? My first thought is to STOP PURPOSEFULLY DESTABILIZING MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRIES. After this country purposefully destabilized both Iraq and Syria, a militant group with a name that you all know, has been spreading its influence across the middle east. The United States does the minimum to contain its spread out of a spoken fear of intervention when the intervention has come and gone already. The time for worrying about the effects of intervention have long past. This is coming from one of the most die-hard non-interventionists that you will ever read from. I think that the United States has everything to gain from a destabilized Syria and Iraq, because it marginalizes Iran's sphere of influence and, naturally, Iran itself. Iran is increasingly allied with Russia and China, against whom, most of our foreign policy is directed against. Europe, on the other hand, wishes no part of this, and should be spearheading the offensive against ISIS/ISIL/IS/ whatever you want to call it. Italy, specifically, is very concerned about the fate of their close oil spewing friend, Libya. Back to the immigrants, Immigration could easily be halted at the re-stabilization of the middle east. How does one re-stabilize an entire failed region of the world? By backing legitimate governments instead of terrorists labeled 'moderate rebels.' Hungary and Bulgaria, for example, could be leading military assaults against the IS/whatever people and investing their wall money on legitimate governments to restore peace in their countries. They may be tyrants and dictators, but order and the rule of law is more important than idealism when the war front is on your front door. More important than their money is their lobbying power. Both Hungary and Bulgaria should appeal to the US and the EU to do something about the crisis from which their immigration problems stem. Not that the US is willing to listen to a country that none of its citizens could find on a map, however. Hungary can only justifiably say no to immigrants with the promises that it will attempt to remedy the situation in their homelands.

With regards to the wall, I cannot blame the Hungarians for attempting to find solutions, even as desperate as this one. I do, however, wish that they had the foresight to strike the problem at its roots, or even lobby to do so. Their resources could be directed in a more useful direction. Instead, their resources are being poured into a project that offers a short-term solution at best. Additionally, once the wall goes up, what is stopping immigrants from going though Romania or Croatia? Serbia's Prime Minister, Aleksandr Vucic said that he was "Surprised and Shocked," and that the wall is "not the solution." I can do nothing but agree with Mr. Vucic while I nod in silent disagreement with the Hungarian decision to erect the Great Wall of Serbia. I cannot say, however, that I do not share their concerns for their country.

On a lighter note, I had an incredible, borderline indescribable time in Germany these past two and a half weeks. I am, however, glad to be back in the states. I didn't get to go anywhere relevant to this blog, but I would definitely recommend that you, given the chance, should visit East Germany.

As always, thank you for reading and feel free to leave a comment.

History and Politics...Why? -The Political Desecration of Remembrance-

***This is not some silly argument about contribution ratios***

So, today is the anniversary of the surrender of Nazi Germany to Comintern forces (Allied Forces made peace the day before). Other than the obvious and self-evident significance of the anniversary, this particular date is being celebrated by some, but politicized by others. Of course, I am referring to Victory Day celebrations in Moscow. Every year, on May 9, a flurry of celebrations take place on Red Square. The flagship event is the military parade. This is a show of the Russian Armed Forces parading through the square as they had done from the very first Victory Day celebration back in 1946. This holiday is the Russian fourth of July. This parade is not just a show of muscle. This is a commemoration that honors those who sacrificed everything, to pay respects to those who were irreversibly damaged by oppressive Soviet policy regarding veterans, and to celebrate those who are still able to take pride in the successful defense of their homes. But this is not only about Russia. This holiday is about the contribution of the former USSR republics, the Allied forces who fought alongside the Comintern forces, and most importantly, peace. Russia has a tradition of inviting figures from western countries to participate in the event. For instance, in 2005, government ministers from the US, Canada, Poland, Italy, Spain, and even Germany were invited to attend. The Americans, French, and British were even able to march alongside the Russians. Today, the very invitation to attend the Victory Day parade was declined by the US, Canada, Ukraine, Germany, Czech Republic, the UK, the Nordic Countries, the Baltic Countries, Bulgaria, and Poland. My question is...why????

Of course, this is Russia's  equivalent of the Fourth of July, but imagine if we invited the Russians to participate in our Fourth of July!


The very fortunate side of this is that the ministers of a few of these countries are celebrating their own parades. Belarus, for example, will be holding its own parade. Alexander Lukashenko was quoted saying that, "We are together and [we] share [Russia's] feelings." Angela Merkel, however, will be visiting on the day after. What is the point? Why would you directly and purposefully miss the largest celebration of the defeat of your country's largest, darkest blot upon its history? Surely a leader as skilled and competent as Chancellor Merkel recognizes the diplomatic advantages of attending? Merkel confirmed plans to meet with Vladimir Putin to commemorate the event in an alternative manner. Her spokesman, however, stated that attending a military parade in light of recent actions would be 'inappropriate.' As stated above, this celebration is much more than that, and Merkel obviously recognizes that. In addition, such an event which is dedicated to the common struggle of Russia and its partners is a perfect starting point for a relations thaw. The value is there, and Merkel sees it. The question, again, is why would she downplay her attendance?. We can begin to see a clearer picture with the Czech President, Milos Zeman, whose situation is somewhat similar to Merkel's. Zeman has been a critic of western foreign policy since the beginning of the Ukraine conflict, and he has repeatedly criticized the boycotting of this event. Moreover, he remained steadfast in the desire to attend the V-day parade. All of this despite drawing criticism from the US and the EU. Zeman was so confident in his decision that he banned US ambassador-- Andrew Schapiro-- from Prague Castle. This is truly a man of convictions. Well, he was. Zeman has cancelled his attendance to the parade, but he is still visiting Moscow on the 9th to celebrate in a low-key, attention-avoiding way. This is incredibly odd. Two high-class EU leaders are acting independently from what seems like the rest of the western world. They appear to want to mend ties with Russia and participate in the holiday, but they aren't committed enough to face the criticism from the EU and the US. This answer begs yet another question- why are issues of diplomatic ties so extremely interwoven into a celebration of mutual perseverance over evil?

The United States and its not-so-subtle sphere of 'unquestioning co-operation' seems intent on making Russia an enemy on every front. Even, rather laughably, on the front of historical fact, opinion, and remembrance.  The unimportant arguments flow between distant, detached opponents as to the contribution ratio of the belligerent nations of Nazi Germany's surrender. US media outlets mock Belorussian WW2 memorials. We have already seen the desertion of the last bastion of co-operation between the US and the Russian neutral sphere. How hard is it to share in the remembrance of a common victory? How hard is it to not only celebrate liberty bought (long-term) by the sacrifices of another nation, but also your very own?  No two individuals would behave like this! The motive behind this is that the US doesn't want to bury the hatchet with Russia. The United States would very much love to marginalize the nation which does all in its power to defend against US interventionism. What better way to marginalize a nation than to isolate it? Unfortunately, Russia will not be quite as isolated as the US would like it to be. The use of the word 'unfortunately' comes with the consequence of Russia not truly being isolated. Russia has been historically divided between the East and West by both geography and ideologically. The United States, NATO, and the EU all belong to the Western Sphere. Who might head the Eastern Sphere? China of course. The silly behavior of the US is only serving to drive the head of an ideologically neutral sphere (Russia, Belarus, Central Asia, Serbia, probably Greece in the future, the separatist states in Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, and the nation of Armenia) into the hands of the enemies that it should really be worried about. But that is enough of that aside. Back to the issue at hand. Merkel and Zeman value their ties with Russia, but they are unwilling to 'diplomatically insult' Washington. They are trying to walk a middle ground made necessary by childish behavior on the part of the US and the nations who went along with it. It is, however, encouraging to see an attempt from these leaders to bridge an ever-expanding rift, despite the fact that greater powers would rather that rift expand out of control. The US is using all of its diplomatic influence to keep Russia from thawing any relations. There has been so much pressure put on European leaders to boycott this event from the US, that it is near impossible for the leaders who need the relations the most to actually recover them. If the US was actually concerned with worldwide well being and peace, then it too would have jumped upon the opportunity to reforge ties through a shared historical struggle. Such an event would, however, loose the US its opportunity to utilize its diplomatic power projection to further isolate its new enemy. The US, as has been previously discussed on this blog, needs a validation for its power. Russia is the wrong target, but a convenient one. I fear that the politicians of my country have an unhealthy jingoist mentality against a country which poses no real threat to them, and, likewise, grovel at the feet of a nation that they should truly fear, China.. For the reasons discussed above, the American attitude toward this parade reflects its attitude toward a nation that doesn't have to be its enemy, but has been pushed and shoved into the uncomfortable role. And so it appears that we have found a possible answer answer to this question, but questions still yet remain.

In addition to the previous questions regarding motives, politics, and other distant topics, this question is far more real. Why does the US spit upon its history, embarrass itself, disrespect all of its veterans, and blatantly step on the effort and the cause of those who did not live to see their profound effect upon the course of the world? This ceremony is not only about Russia! This ceremony is a commemoration of OUR efforts!  I would love to attempt to draw up an answer to this question, but I simply can't. This is inexcusable. It is, however, a consequence of the actions of the lowest of the low who con-volute history by mixing it and its remembrance with politics best left to the present. History has always been and will always be a part of politics, but this is a new low. Especially for our government in the United States.

Despite what anyone has said on your television screen, I hope that you have celebrated victory on May 8th, and I hope that you will celebrate it again today. The Russian V-day parade will undoubtedly be hosted on the RT website and their channel on YouTube. Remember the lessons learned from this years events. Do not pollute or twist history because of modern politics. You will only make a fool of yourself and spit upon the graves of those you dishonor.

And by the way, guess whose army is marching alongside Russia's this time.... China's. This diplomatic disaster can still be prevented, but we must take a painful paradigm shift to vilify one of our largest trading partners. In addition, we must then undo the mess that we have created and drive Russia and its sphere out of China's grasp. This process could begin with a great potential for success next year. We could march alongside the Russians and celebrate our cooperation instead of playing the role of a high school drama queen by creating problems when there are none.

The Greatest Director in the World Would've Been 83 Today

I am going to take a break from geopolitics for today and tell you about my personal favorite director- Andrei Tarkovsky. It should be no surprise, at this point, that my favorite director would be Russian. Therefore, I must point out that my opinion, in this case, is completely uninfluenced by nationality. This being said, I think that Tarkovsky is the best of the best. In the case that you have never heard of him, he was the creative mastermind behind Solaris, Stalker, The Mirror, Anderi Rublev, The Sacrifice, Ivan's Childhood, and many more. These titles probably mean nothing to you, but each film holds an innovative edge that launch them miles above their competitors. This edge was Tarkovsky's cinematography.

If Tarkovsky was known for one thing, it would be his cinematography. This was his incredible talent, his contribution to the world, the revolutionary ability which would hardly be used again. This was his life. Tarkovsky was the most brilliant director of all time because he directed films which became like books. The images were projected, and they were moving. They were, however, open to the imagination. The level of symbolism present and the delicate balance between detail and vagueness in each frame allowed imagination to run at full capacity. It was like watching a book because the words of a book, like the frames of a Tarkovsky film, are there to dictate direction and fact, but beyond that, there is nothing to demand that the reader/audience member interpret anything in one particular way. He, himself, called his film style 'sculpting in time.'  To build upon this incredible technique, the plots of his movies often contained contemplative themes on various topics which were philosophical in nature. These topics ranged from war to faith to loss and far beyond. For example, here is a scene from the film Stalker (Сталкер) which shows a prime example of a standard Tarkovsky monologue.

Of course, such ramblings may come across as just that-- ramblings. The greatness of Tarkovsky and his work can either be accepted or rejected on simple listening skills. As Solzhenitsyn pointed out in The Gulag, "One thing is absolutely definite: not everything that enters our ears penetrates our consciousness. Anything too far out of tune with our attitude is lost, either in the ears themselves or somewhere beyond, but is lost." One must be interested in the subject matter to fully appreciate the content of the films. However, given that the truths of existence and of humanity are often deeply interwoven with the simpler outcroppings called 'exploration' or 'war' or 'science,' everyone with appreciation for the purest wisdom cannot be anything but enthralled by a Tarkovsky film. This being said, it is understandable for many people who watch movies to unwind or to be entertained by senseless, far-fetched, meaningless plots may find Tarkovsky's style to be unappealing. This is where the nationality matters. Tarkovsky would never have succeeded in Hollywood. Where his movies were blockbusters in the Soviet Union, they would never have even been in theaters in the US. Such a difference is an unfortunate reality to me, but I cannot fault the US for having different tastes. Truthfully, Tarkovky's movies were slow. They required one to be patient and thoughtful. Two things which the average American would probably rather not do while watching a movie. To an American, such as myself, Tarkovsky is an acquired taste. However, it took one film for me to be blown away, and only one more to call Tarkovsky my favorite all-time director. Because of this, I would like for American readers to give him a chance before going back to watching hundreds of near-identical Hollywood assembly-line products.

Time to reign this back in. Another of Tarkovsky's incredible feats were his common transitions between black-and-white and color. The crushing reality of this skill was that he only had the budget for limited amounts of color while producing most of his films. Tarkovsky, however, being the brilliant mastermind that he was, used the transitions to symbolize oppression vs freedom, the past vs the present, dreams, and the vibrancy of creation vs the dullness of the everyday. But this brings up another point about Tarkovsky's greatness-- his ability to create his visions without the enormous budgets allotted to modern-day filmmakers. For example, Stalker (my favorite and one of Tarkovsky's favorites) had a budget of 1,000,000 Soviet Rubles which amounts to around $659,000 in modern day USD. With such a small budget, he shot a total masterpiece. This was a science-fiction film which was fully on-location, the original take was accidentally destroyed, there were barely any special effects, and CGI wasn't even a possibility at the time. Stalker was a masterpiece despite all of this.

In addition to his prowess of budgetary control, his choice of cast and production were always spot on. Tarkovsky favored actors, such as Anatoly Solonitsyn and Nikolai Grinko, who performed the perfect balance between drama and realism. They were always sensible as to when a scene needed realistic responses or unnatural ones. Tarkovsky, himself, declared Solonitsyn as his favorite actor, and he intended that Solonitsyn perform a lead role in each of his movies. The evidence of Tarkovsky's optimal picks was easily seen on the television screen. In addition, Tarkovsky favored a little-known composer by the name of Eduard Artemyev, who was a pioneer in synthesized music. The great thing about musicians is that I don't have to sit here and tell you about how great they are, because you can simply listen. Artemyev composed some amazing music and ambiance for Solaris, Stalker, Siberiade, At Home Among Strangers, and his own work. Tarkovsky truly was a director who managed everything so close to his own vision that he was able to project it at an unprecedented level. He did so not by himself, but by thoroughly dictating it to his crew members. His companions were fully inspired by his vision and sought to honor it to the best of their abilities. I would like to end this remembrance of the greatest director of all time with an interview with Artemyev and a quote from Ingmar Bergman.

"Tarkovsky for me is the greatest [of us all], the one who invented a new language, true to the nature of film, as it captures life as a reflection, life as a dream."-Ingmar Bergman. 

(Swedish Director)

RIP ANDREI TARKOVSKY 1932-1986

---Katyń Massacre---

In addition to Tarkovsky's birthday, today is the 75th anniversary of the Katyń Massacre. In case you aren't yet tired of reading, I recommend that you educate yourself on this horrible event. Articles can be found here and here. There was also a movie made, titled simply "Katyń," which was well-produced and drew favorable reviews. The IMDB information can be found here. There is a low quality version available on Youtube if you are interested which can be found here. Lastly, tomorrow is Easter so try to be happy and don't let these remembrances drag you down! Happy Easter everyone! 

Debunking Я Русский Оккупант (I am a Russian Occupant) and the 'Putin's missing' scare

With over 5.5 million views, the russian video titled "Я Русский Оккупант" (Ya Russki Okkupant) has caused quite a stir. Before you continue reading, I recommend that you take a couple of minutes and see this monstrosity for yourself.

The vast majority of non-Russian viewers have (quite rightly) passed this video off as propaganda. Unfortunately, they do so for the wrong reasons. Allow me to explain that there is nothing in this video that is not true. Except, of course, the 'occupant by birthright' segment. Of course, this video could not have risen from the hands of any Kremlin associate. The channel was created by some video editing hot-shot based out of vk (Eastern European social media) who just so happened to think of some interesting (and controversial) ideas for videos. In case you are unfamiliar with youtube, here is a link to this channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCED5DUaqfEGLd6p8PnKoEWw. I will now go through the separate instances of occupations to illustrate that the propaganda aspect of this video is not through what is said, but it seeps through what is not said. 

To begin with, Siberia was, as the video states, occupied in 1581. This was the result of a power struggle in the region between Russia and the Siberian Khanate (Sibir). There was hardly any fighting involved in this power struggle, however. Once Russian explorers and landowners began building forts throughout Siberia, the Siberian Khanate basically dissolved itself. Siberia, today, remains a religiously diverse area. By this, I mean to say that the native Siberians were allowed to keep their religion. In addition, Siberia is the location of the JAO (Jewish Autonomous Oblast). This being said, the Russian occupation of Siberia had a significant net benefit for the indigenous population. Fur trading was booming and the rights of the natives were, for the most part, respected. So the Russian occupation occurred pretty much as the video said. The Siberian area was given new life, oppression wasn't a big issue, and everybody benefited.

In contrast with the Siberian occupation, the occupation of the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) came with far darker tones. The video refers to the Soviet occupation as opposed to the Russian Empire's conquest of those areas from Sweden (who conquered them from Denmark and the Livonian Order) in 1721. To be frank, the video would have gained some credibility in referencing the Russian Empire's occupation over the Soviet occupation, as the Soviet occupation involved mass arrests, a cultural war of 'political religion,' the forced relocation of thousands of Baltic inhabitants, as well as the hand off of Baltic land to Russian workers (All of the Baltic States still have sizable Russian minority groups). Again, nothing said in the video is untrue. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the populations of all of the Baltic nations have fallen dramatically. They have fallen to the point of  domestic crisis, in fact.

As the video correctly states, the majority of Baltic emigrants fill cheap labor positions throughout the EU. The conclusion on this one is a complete toss-up. On one hand, the Soviet Union made the Baltic States livable. On the other, the policies of Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev were unjustifiably wrong when dealing with the Baltic States. The video was partially correct on this one, but it left out very critical information that, if mentioned, voids the fantasy of a justified Soviet occupation. 

Next up on the list are the Central Asian nations. (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan). As with the Baltic States, the video is referring to accomplishments made during the Soviet period. Again, the video does so to the detriment of its argument. The Central Asian Nations were colonized by the Russian Empire and were even a part of the short-lived 1917 Russian Republic. So, they stayed with Russia throughout the most turbulent events of its recent history. The region, however, rebelled against Bolshevik rule and declared autonomy. The new government of the so-called 'Turkestan' was short lived despite its valiant defiance of Soviet rule. After this, the story is very much the same as that of the Baltic Nations. Infrastructure was rapidly constructed and massacres, deportations, and forced migration were commonplace. The end of the story is that the video is, again, only partially correct. Whether or not the average quality of life increase was worth the atrocities is up for debate. Although, you might want to refrain from arguing with the locals, as they know the answer for themselves. 

Now, for the biggest offender-- Ukraine. It is one thing to occupy the provinces of your enemies, wage war with those who constrain your ethnic borders, or colonize the vast stretches of land on your frontiers. But, to commit planned genocide of your nation's brother (Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus were born out of the same nation-- Kievan Rus'), exploit its people for grain profits, and generally label them as 'untrustworthy' cannot be balanced out by tanks, aircraft, or automobiles (as the video would love to attempt). Granted, the Russian people also suffered from the same crimes of their government, but not to the extent of the Ukrainians. If you want a picture painted for you, then look up the Soviet famine of 1932-33. Ukraine is the breadbasket of Eastern Europe. It produced grain. And it did so long before the Russians conquered Ukraine from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1793-95 (The Poles referred to Ukraine and Ukrainians as Ruthenia and Ruthenians, respectively). Stalin (and to a certain extent, his successors) intentionally starved out Ukraine by harvesting its grain and selling it on international markets (mostly to the US and Canada, ironically), which left hardly any grain left for the population. The non-farming populations of the Ukraine would fall, and more grain could be sold internationally. Horribly evil and brutally brilliant. The video's comparison of post-Soviet Ukraine and Soviet Ukraine is undoubtedly its biggest flaw. While the situation in Ukraine improved over the years in the Soviet Union; the crimes that were committed against the Ukrainian people remained equally numerous. I would dare say that this is one instance, in which, it is not arguable that the video was completely wrong. If the video, again, had chosen to examine Imperial Russia, the situation would not be quite as bad. As it stands, however, this is where the propaganda aspect of this video truly shows its ugly head. 

I don't think that I have to comment on the 'occupant by birthright' segment because I think that the narrator was being sarcastic at that point.

As for the rest of the video, I liked the segments about the 'time of troubles (Polish-Lithuanian Invasion & Occupation, failed Livonian War, Succession Crisis, etc.),' the war of 1812, and WW2 which show the resiliency and determination of the Russian nation & people. It was refreshing to get away from the propaganda and actually take a look at why Russia (NOT the Soviet Union) is so awesome (Obviously the Soviet Union fought WW2, but during this time, Stalin loosened his grip on his war against non-Soviet Culture. He even made promises and concessions to reward his citizens if they won the war. The average Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian, etc. could look at the promises made and see everything that they wanted their nation to be. This nation, arguably, was a close depiction of where the Russian Empire would have been, had it not been interrupted. Obviously, it was all a lie). 

As for 'Western Values' and fake 'Democracy,' I will inevitably address those issues in detail later. So I will leave them alone for now.

The last segment, which involved an email to Barack Obama, was very clever. And, on another side note, it it pretty obvious that the animator (ОКеям Нет--OKeyam Nyet) used the Battlefield 3 Russian Soldier model. I, admittedly, giggled for a little bit upon realizing it. 

This video truly is unofficial propaganda, but keep in mind that some of its claims hold some merit. Of course, just about everything, including the nature of this video, is up for debate. 

---The 'Putin's missing' Scare---

Normally, I ignore most misinformed tripe about Putin, Russia, Putin's Russia, The New Cold War, etc. that is thrown out of alarmingly self-obsessed news outlets, but this one really got me thinking. No, not about Putin dying, or getting married, or taking a vacation, or affair this or alien abduction that. No. I was worried about who will become president of Russia once Putin is done. Obviously, with its overwhelming popular support, United Russia will remain in majority. In addition, a UR candidate would likely win any election. This brings up Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, who is hardly known in the west. Imagine Joe Biden, but he speaks Russian. He is a decent administrator but, for the most part, he is the government's public relations guy. Some unfair allegations have arisen that his is Putin's lapdog. The simple fact is that the two politicians are friends. Plain and simple. But back to the point. Medvedev is no Putin. Perhaps he can learn from close observation, but I am skeptical. As for the other options-- unless oligarchs, communists, or incompetent nationalists sound particularly attractive, I would hope that the Russians hunt high and low for another candidate as able and as dedicated to his/her country as Putin has been. I am now legitimately concerned about Russia's future, as no ruler, I fear, can guide Russia to the future that it deserves once Putin is gone. Obviously, by western standards, Putin is a dictator. But that is why he is so brilliant. As I said above with other issues, I will inevitably go into more detail at a later date, but I will go ahead and wrap up. I fear that no other leader can walk the same tightrope between democracy and autocracy. I fear that no other leader can tread between Russia's need to escape the shadow of communism while upholding the accomplishments of that era. And I certainly fear that no other leader has the backbone to set a nation's wealthy few into their place. Before you ask about his foreign policy, I'm afraid that I'll have to put that topic off until later also (But you can check out the book Frontline Ukraine by Richard Sawka if you are itching for information on the subject-- It was written by a Pole so you don't have to worry about untruthful Pro-Russian comments). 

As usual, thanks for reading. And, of course, never take my word as fact. If you're interested, look this stuff up yourself and formulate your own opinion. Chances are such that it will be different than mine.