среда, 12 января 2022 г.


I live in Russia and do not know much about the western countries and their customs, so, I excuse for any awkwardness in my blog and for bad English.
The aim of my blog is to promote the ideas of internet democracy. I believe that these ideas could really make the world better, if they are implemented.
Most impotant posts:

About democracy

Bitcoins and Freedom

Internet democracy

Self-curing society

Criticism of the book "Cloud democracy"

Personal responsibility of power

My blog in Russian:


Comments to old posts are appreciated.

Previously this blog contained an article about Russia and Ukraine, but I decided to delete it, because it has become dangerous to live in Russia and write about politics.

вторник, 25 мая 2021 г.

About democracy

 I live in Russia, and many people around me call themselves opponents of democracy. Their logic is simple - we can live pretty well without democracy. I will prove that there are holes in this logic.

Currently in the world there are quite prosperous monarchical countries - Jordan, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, etc. But these monarchies are very different from the ancient monarchies - Eastern despotism. This is explained by the fact that in modern monarchies, which are adjacent to democracies, the authorities must be good, otherwise they will be overthrown. In civilizations that did not know what democracy in general was, there was such an oppression of the upper classes to the lower classes that it is scary for the reader.

When an authoritarian (for example, a monarchy) state is in the neighborhood of democracy, the authorities in it are afraid of revolution and therefore cannot afford to exploit the population too much. They understand that if the population lives worse than in the neighboring democracy, it will arrange a revolution and change the government to a democratic one. In other words, democracies exert an “ennobling” effect on neighboring authoritarian ones. Despite this impact, these authoritarian countries often pose a military threat to them.

Ancient Macedonia was more civilized than ancient Persia, despite the fact that both of these states were monarchies. This is explained by the fact that Macedonia bordered on Greece with its democratic traditions.

Another example from history is Germany in the first half of the 20th century. Germany was an authoritarian country in the neighborhood of democratic France and England, and these countries exerted an “ennobling” influence on it; thanks to the English and French revolutions, in 20th century Germany there was no serfdom and other vestiges of the Middle Ages. And despite this influence, Germany posed a military threat to England and France.

One more example is the confrontation between medieval Muscovy and the Novgorod Republic. When the Novgorod Republic existed, the peasants both in it and in the Muscovy were relatively free. But after the conquest of Novgorod by Moscow, a gradual enslavement of the peasants began, which reached its peak under Peter the Great.

If democracy in the world is discredited, then the world will slide into the second Middle Ages, and this possibility frightens me very much now. The likelihood of such a scenario will be higher if in current confrontation between Russia and Ukraine the latter is defeated.

среда, 7 апреля 2021 г.

Why people do not change their views

 Each person, when he/she is engaged in self-education, selects for himself such sources of information, which contain information that fits into his/her worldview. If he/she is an atheist, he/she reads books about evolution; if he/she is a believer, he/she reads books about Christian wonders; if he/she is for the Democrats, he/she visits the media of the Democrats, if for the Republicans - the media of the Republicans, respectively. The information that does not fit into his/her worldview causes unpleasant feelings for him/her - cognitive dissonance; and to avoid these unpleasant feelings, he/she usually denies this information - declares it a fake, “photoshop”, or he forgets it.

I believe that education makes a person more dogmatic, because the modern education system only provides knowledge that fits into the overall picture (at least I see such a situation in Russia).

We can conditionally say that the worldview is formed by the books that were accidentally read in the first place (or other sources of information).

There is an observation that believers are less likely to read the Bible than atheists. This is due to the fact that atheists consider the Bible to be a set of fairy tales, and accordingly reading it does not cause cognitive dissonance in them; believers find facts in the Bible that do not fit into their picture of the world, this causes them cognitive dissonance and they stop reading.

It seems that this phenomenon has been intensified in the past few years. Roughly speaking, previously a person used to watch the news to get new information, but now he watches the news to get the confirmation of his point of view.

It can be said that a smart person is the one who is not afraid of cognitive dissonance, or, more precisely, is ready to endure it until a new understanding comes (at a deeper level of knowledge).

вторник, 22 октября 2019 г.

How to overcome North Korea with their nuclear missiles

  Attempts to negotiate with the DPRK authorities by diplomacy methods, in my opinion, are doomed to failure, since the DPRK authorities, in fact, deliberately use their nuclear missile program as an instrument of blackmailing the Western countries. The goal of the DPRK authorities is to use blackmail, “carrot and stick” methods to weaken economic sanctions and possibly receive humanitarian aid for North Korea.
  I see one way to stop this activity of Kim Jong-un: an active information policy, delivering truthful information to the people of the DPRK. To do this, autonomous drones with loudspeakers can be used, which will spread anti-government counter-propaganda in a fairly large territory of this country.
  In modern international law, the attitude to the "information war" is not defined. It can be assumed that international standards do not prohibit such a war. This can be illustrated by the example of another authoritarian country whose authorities act irresponsibly: Venezuela. Obviously, international standards prohibit the bombing of Venezuela by US aircraft; however, no one forbids “bombing” the Venezuela with humanitarian aid boxes along with leaflets, or for example gadgets that pick up satellite Internet.
  The Achilles heel of authoritarian regimes, such as the DPRK, is that anti-government counter-propaganda may relatively easily lead to a popular uprising against the government, since official propaganda by the authorities misleads the population. North Koreans live in an “artificial reality” in which US residents receive food on food cards. A significant part of the Venezuelan population also lives in a world of illusions, for example, it believes that the World Bank is to blame for inflation in this country. Counter-propaganda should destroy such illusions with arguments.
   My words may seem shocking, but it’s important for me to convey this point of view to the reader: I believe that if the government of Kim Jong-un in the DPRK begins to lose power as a result of counter-propaganda, and it will launch a nuclear strike on South Korea or Japan in attempts to maintain power - this will prove to be useful  for humanity in the long run, since humanity in this outcome will receive an important lesson and will be aware of the global danger of irresponsible authoritarian regimes. Nuclear weapons might get replaced with something even more dangerous, and if humanity does not become more responsible in general, it will destroy itself.
  Currently mankind is like a small child, who cannot comprehend that he can’t touch the hot iron - only by touching and burning himself once, he will draw this conclusion. It is hoped that over time the humanity will become more mature.

пятница, 30 марта 2018 г.

Bitcoins and Freedom

  Currently in most countries, including formally democratic ones, the freedom of speech is violated: main mass media (TV) manipulate the social consciousness.
  It seems quite convincing for me that independent mass media are in principle impossible. Such mass media must criticize the power, but it is impossible to criticize the power without being punished by it. At the same time, democracy can be real only when the mass media in country criticize the authority.
  I think that a kind of salvation for this problem can be as follows: the owner of any popular mass media should get the legislative immunity. If a blogger gets more than a million followers, he should become immune to any prosecution. If such rule is implemented, it will become important to break the legislative immunity of a blogger by posting “dislikes” to him. Once again: there must be a website where any citizen can post a like or dislike to any other person, and a person who gets a million likes less than half a million of dislikes would automatically get the legislative immunity.
  I am sure that the disadvantages of such rule – the possibility for mass media owners to do some crimes – are mostly unimportant in comparison with its main advantage – better freedom of speech for the country.
  I believe that a more well-grounded salvation of the problem of absence of freedom of speech is as follows: independent mass media, which can criticize the power of a country, should be located in another country. More precisely, in each country there should be placed the mass media which will be able to criticize the power of another country.
  A very important point is that all these mass media must have the possibility to earn by direct payments of their viewers of readers.
  The US foreign policy widely uses the democratic peace theory: according to this theory, democratic countries usually do not engage wars with each other:

  This politics could become much more efficient, if US imposed a kind of an agreement of a “common informational space” with each country. This means, for example, that US mass media will have the possibility to show their content to Russian people (and earn by direct payments), while Russian mass media will have the same possibility to show their content to American people (and earn by direct payments). This could be the best possibility to achieve the freedom of speech for both countries.
  Many people do not still realize that the control of mass media gives a ruler the possibility to form any social consciousness he wants. Some apologists of health promotion say that “we are what we eat”; I don’t strongly support this thesis, but I believe that the thesis “we are what information we get” is mostly true. When a dictator controls the mass media in his country, he easily persuades his nation that the “enemies” of his country are the main reason of all problems in the country.
  The propaganda does not rely on fake news; the fake news is rather a “symptom” of the propaganda. The main way of propaganda is passing over the silence and pulling the information out the context. The reality is arranged in such a way that showing a part of a reality to a viewer gives a way to persuade him in anything.
  This means that a person who views a propaganda from two opposite sources is able to remain unbiased. For example, those Americans who watch Russia Today together with American TV channels are more sober-minded than those who watch American channels only (while RT, of course, is a propagandistic channel).
  The freedom of speech can be reached some day, if the Internet beats the television. In this case the whole world would experience a mass sobering, and people will realize that a new society should be built.
  The rise of cryptocurrencies helps to reach this situation, because the cryptocurrencies would make the Internet commercial, and correspondingly it will become more powerful.
  At the moment there are some independent mass media, which criticize the powers of big countries and earn via bitcoins. In particular, the Wikileaks project is such a mass media. When Wikileaks started publishing the information which discredited the US authorities, these authorities blocked the flow of the crowdfunding donations which supported it. The banks refused to send money to the Wikiliaks owner, web money like Paypal blocked them too. The only way for the Wilikeaks to survive was switching to bitcoin crowdfunding.
  A similar situation exists in Russia. Currently there are opposition projects which earn via the bitcoins: “Fund of struggle with the corruption” of Alexey Navalniy, Wiki-project lurkmore.to similar to the American Encyclopedia Dramatica, some Ukrainian channels on Youtube, etc.
  So, it seems for me that the Internet and the cryptocurrencies will save the freedom in the world.

суббота, 24 марта 2018 г.

Consumer society and the bitcoins

  Currently in the whole word (except probably North Korea) the consumer society is dominating. This is shown, for example, by the fact, that most people are anxious very much about their revenue and prosperity. As far as I know, there was not such anxiety in 19th century. The realities of our century, for example, are that during the wars people often suffer from economical sanctions more, than from the military operations themselves.
  Some people are trying to find out why such a situation has appeared. I have heard such interpretation from some people in Russia: “previously they wanted us to become communist builders, and now they want us to become consumers”. 
  I think that in reality the reason for emergence of the consumer society is unexpectedly banal: such mass media, as TV channels and radio stations, are obliged to put a lot of advertisement in their content, because they do not have other sources of revenue. And the excess of advertisement forms the consumer society itself.
  The first mass media were newspapers, which earned on direct sales. When radio and television appeared, these mass media appeared to have no such possibility of earnings – you can not directly pay for viewing a TV program. Because of that, TV and radio had to earn by the advertisements only. This problem in principle could be solved organizationally, in governments instituted a TV tax, calculated the ratings of TV channels and paid the channels a part of this tax, proportional to the channel’s rating. But this task proved too difficult for the politicians.
  The same problem persists for the mass media in the web. Despite there are such web money as Paypal, currently they can’t be used for paying for viewing a content in the web. It’s a pity that we can’t pay Google for cutting of the advertisement at Youtube. I suppose, the possibility to pay for Youtube is not available because of some bureaucratic obstacles: maybe, the US laws do not include such source of revenue, correspondingly Google can’t pay taxes for it, and without the taxes the revenue becomes illegal. In Russia in 75% cases we can’t purchase new films, music, audiobooks in the web, and have to download them from torrents – I suppose the reasons are similar.
   I expect, that if the bitcoins (or, more precisely, the cryptocurrencies) will become the approved money, all these problems will be solved automatically. The Web will become commercial, and correspondingly its quality will become higher. People will pay with the bitcoins for any content instead of watching the obtrusive ads, and the “power of advertisement” will be overthrown.
  A good video concerning the subject: "history of stuff":


  In this video it is said, that the consumer society appeared mainly  in 1950th. This was the time when television became popular, so this video confirms the idea of the connection between the consumer society and TV ads.
  Update 2020: the paid subscription has appeared at youtube, and this seem to be a great blessing. I suppose, when the humanity transfers from TV to paid youtube, the "power of advertisment" will end. However I see that youtube bloggers place ads in their video, so I hope a next step will be made - direct payments to the authors of the videos on youtube (or transfering from youtube to Vimeo).

вторник, 12 декабря 2017 г.

About Brexit

  Today I hope greatly that the Brexit will succeed and England will become independent of the EU, at least to significant extent. If so, possibly England will become the only country for me into which I will be able to emigrate from Russia.
  Previously I thought that Ukraine could become such a country, but after getting more information I became very disappointed in Ukraine. I think, Ukrainian people are almost like Russians, with similar mental problems and irrationality, though they probably have a more right ideology. One of the visible cases of Ukrainian irrationality is their attitude to pro-democratic opposition in Russia: it seems that many of the Ukrainians do not distinguish between people like me and “bad” Russians, which are responsible for the sufferings of Ukrainian people. There are many other evidences of the Ukrainian irrationality, and nevertheless I hope that a kind of “mass sobering” will eventually take place in Ukraine. Maybe some day this “mass sobering” will happen in Russia too.
  I am sure that the whole world is degrading more and more. Many people in Russia believe that the Europe is quickly degrading and going to fall, like the Roman empire 1500 years before. And if Britain succeeds leaving EU, it will possibly become the place of birth of a new, healthy society.
  Muslim migration is an evident problem of the Europe. People from Muslim countries settle in Europe and are not being assimilated into the European ethnic majority; otherwise, the Muslims assimilate European people instead. The Muslim minority have a greatly higher birth rate than the indigenous Europeans.
  Not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslims. I am afraid that the Islam can insensibly come to power into Europe, because the European politicians will be afraid of doing things which are not approved by the Muslims.
  Some European politicians say that the Europeans should make some concessions to Muslime, otherwise their actions can provoke terrorism. From the point of view of the Muslims, this looks like that: “we settle in your countries and you should fulfill our wishes, otherwise we will kill your politicians”.
  From the point of view of the Russians, another big problem of the Europe is the “homophilic” politics. I am not a homophobe, but I think that gay parades, where gays are publicly kissing and dancing naked, are big violence for heterosexual people. People in Russia call Europe “Gayrope”. I think that both sides in this dispute are not right – the “propaganda of homosexuality” in the West and the “Homophobic propaganda” in Russia.
  It is difficult for me to ground logically my opinion, that the trend to give the gays the right to publicly exhibit their orientation is a mine for the whole Europe. However, I am sure that this trend was one of the reasons of the civil war in Eastern Ukraine. The results of the Eurovision contest in 2014 greatly discredited the democracy for Russian people, and people in Donbass region got strongly anti-european political views. In our web, this picture was often shown:

  I think that there are many other timebombs which can blast Europe and the entire Western civilization some time later. The most fundamental problem is the following: all nations in history, who lived in richness and comfort, became weak and were eventually conquered by less rich nations. I hope that the humanity will finally realize this problem and find ways to solve it. Some Russian bloggers, respected by me, call the salvation of this problem as “moderalism ideology”.