Thursday, July 26, 2012

About influence

For starters i don't support fraudulent and scandalous behavior as it looks about as stable as a house of cards. Like a saying goes you can deceive some of the people some of the time but not all the people all of the time.

Common stupidity of "strongmen" and empire builders who give people choice of death or awful servitude is that they create such hell on earth living conditions that people wouldn't have much trouble becoming suicidally dedicated to killing that strongman along with other rulers who profited from such hellish government. Even mice and ants bite people if they feel threatened enough and people are no exception.

Many conspiracy theorists seem to live in world similar to movie "V for Vendetta" where bombing government building causes people to rise up against the one getting bombed and join with the cause/goal of bomber although in reality bombers probably don't get treated like that.

Internet has made industrial espionage cheaper than ever. By recording e-mails and phone calls businesses could secretly learn about ideas and inventions, then patent them pretending they invented it and demand global monopoly over the use of this idea or invention. Credit for invention is probably aggressively denied for actual inventor until they die in which case they may get praised as genius who was not appreciated during their lifetime. Such praise is cheaper than paying millions or more in royalties.  

Brutal people seem to have enough caring side that they don't tolerate seeing human side of victims so they order them to be quiet while abused and in case of attacking countries they try to not become aware of suffering.

Many people go along with scariest social movements and that tempts maybe most power grabbers to use threat of suffering on those who refuse to become pawn in their plans, ideology or religion. On other side it creates doubts within and outside of these groups that would those people go along with ideology if they were not threatened and in that sense threats can make ideology look hollow mess which is perpetuated by hellish violence and terror without any other obvious explanation why it has so many followers.

Usually when i listen or read about supremacist ideologies (both patriotic or religious) they leave feeling that they are deliberately designed by overly greedy international organizations that try to control world and use supremacists by privately pretending to serve them by involving divide and conquer mentality on global scale. One thing that unites both is that their in-group lives are which really matter and people in rest of world can suffer or rot if it helps their groups materially or emotionally to feel better. Also attitude "why help far away places when so much is needed to be done in their own country" while supporting robbing other countries with attitude close to "ability to rob with overwhelming weaponry gives right to rob". I've seen these attitudes both in pro-military speeches and also in speeches of anti-military/government conspiracy theorists who mainly care of people in their country while supporting armed up-rises in case global powers want to use paranoid people in their narratives. Like short sighted jingoistic pawns that get used to start international wars by being convinced they are just attacking local small and weak corruption by starting murderous resistance while staying oblivious paws that don't know they are helping international factions so they couldn't know who is the mastermind no matter how much they were tortured. Wars usually serve few groups and businesses partially because they get some monopoly for helping leaders seems "glorious" and also it's mildly easier to keep track of things if 1 company does everything. In return of making leader look historic for helping some god(s), ideology or country seem so great (need for glory may be created by high self esteem and outrage of supremacist very high and violent so they'd demand this emotional greatness plus for their own peace of mind), these business organizations may get high profit margin deals, free help from national or international army, immunity from official laws so atrocities wouldn't hinder business and monopoly of some business sector (mining, plantations) in conquered territory like in colonial times (which has probably been going on in changing forms for 1000+ years). Leaders probably add extra demands on citizens to get money they owe to big businesses and if they can't pay then they may have to lose their land, businesses and homes which could go to parasitic war business. Even nowadays companies headquartered in countries that used to be colonialist like in western Europe or USA seem to be willing to murder those who want higher salary for seriously risky job if those demands are made in poor countries even if HQ are in country where same job could get 10 times higher salary. Probable reason why "curse of resources" makes resource rich countries most unstable is that there is motivation to pay a lot for violent groups to rob region of what is wanted. Conspiracy people who use ideal of armed up-rises probably help agitate conflicts so larger side could remove everyone from region they want to control so conspiracy people can expose almost all they want as long they help with business in some form like desperate hysteria which can be used for exterminating those most likely to get emotional from seemingly being next in line for extermination. Personally i consider myself both internationalist and patriot. No country is as impressive and capable as entire human population on planet (besides every scientific advance is based on many generations of globally spread discoveries) and pragmatics usually don't care of borders so there is helpful co-operation that can be harnessed and these networks have probably been most powerful through history although worst people abuse these opportunities. My patriotism comes mainly from ease of doing things here along with sense this place has less censorship and rules than USA. Also whenever larger countries start ignoring right to exist or self-govern for smaller ethnic groups then it is usually as prelude or cover-up of extreme atrocities against people in this "ignored" region. It's easier to start wars if nothing positive is known about victims and 0 awareness may cause 0 emotions/care towards victims by self obsessed patriots elsewhere. Limiting media coverage to most unpleasant or boring parts can have that effect. Starting to allow countries to be occupied can encourage imperialists to repeat that process on other countries they don't control yet. Then people in other countries start fearing this growing brutal empire and start forming their own alliances or larger countries starting to aggressively involve mostly neutral countries into their own alliances so several parallel empires start growing. Through history large empires have often grown but then receded. People who were involved in growing those empires probably felt like kings or gods who would never be forgotten but by now they are most likely forgotten or unknown with real-life roles that made history writers skip those activities to avoid scandals and anger through generations.

Probably 2 most common obstacles to world peace are rich cartels that benefit from wars (maybe through loans as both richest and poorest countries need fast money from some place when wars start and extra money seems acceptable choice to richest if they worry about death) and military personnel who are willing to start wars for personal income and/or glory. To win they probably pick fights with at least 10 times less populated countries like probably all wars USA has had since WW II.
Expansionism may potentially be perpetuated by murdering politicians who refuse to go along with expansionism. Other times it can be coerced through media by stating that if ruler doesn't do what media wants then he is a cowardly loser who is going to cause anarchy as seemingly country is somehow close to civil war anyway (but apparently needs added conflict). If these leaders give in to demand they get consolidation reward of being great leaders even though this empire may end as Mongolia today. Those who can afford to decide media narrative are probably rich enough to benefit from wars. They may fear that giving away one part of brutally and dishonestly claimed territory would mean all such territories would have to given back but by continuing these hostile takeovers they give worst militarist sense that its their time to shine for personal sense of power and keep committing atrocities at expense of civilians and soldiers. By unfairly demanding territory from neighboring regions with unrealistic prerequisite of never wanting it back (otherwise some terror tactics may be used to coerce smaller side to give up territory) it inevitably creates permanent critical treatment by oppressed neighbors and both sides may be willing to spend extra (maybe with loans) on military and/or invite international armies to help out with conflict which could also lead to more loans. If officials in expansionist country see how cruelly they apparently have to behave they too start to think how to be that monster while still being able to live with themselves. Most likely solution is to live in denial, deliberate ignorance or use lots of drugs which is likely to mess up expansionist country even more as leaders are too incapable of living in reality. This mismanagement can cause poverty and unrest which increase sense of country being at verge of collapse.

One very common attribute of "kingmakers" and "power brokers" who decide who gets to rule is that they are born to rich families. Some were warlords and other were/have been kids of rich families. Seems bit like these old money kids have some inferiority complex as usually they can't keep family business going as well as someone who worked their way from poverty to riches and try to use politics to get monopoly in some state or change rules like reduce taxes on rich or ban competition in their narrow business or just spice up their lives by playing with lives of entire nations. Some may provoke wars to have monopoly over resources of entire countries who like in colonial times exterminated locals who happened to live on resource rich region until there was nobody alive to claim ownership of land. These rich people may bribe/fund some poorer politician who depends on money from the rich. In other cases rich people who inherited money try to become politicians. If i checked politicians whose parent had also been politicians it usually seems that somewhere in the past their ancestor made money but staid out of politics. Then their kids inherited money and started to try to get in politics directly (by becoming candidate) or indirectly (funding puppet candidates) generation after generation. They may preach about ideals of poor needing to work themselves out while they themselves were born to sheltered life of luxury. It is likely they admire some elitist attitude about their supremacy. Sometimes they even seem to attempt to practice some eugenics as they may preach that planet is overpopulated and that their needs to be some mass extinction or maximum of 2 kids in families and yet those same billionaires could likely have way over 2 kids like kids of billionaires pollute less than poor kids. Maybe that attitude comes from being pampered throughout life with way too much praise about their specialness.

Many world events may make more sense if you consider mercantilism is still in power in some countries. In the book "Confessions of an economic hit man" by John Perkins he describes his job working in sort of mercantilist system where US supremacist in government and large businesses use ~500 years old known tactics to spread their power. In summary he tried to make other governments take loans they can't pay back. Actually loans go to US companies to build what loan was for while poor locals have to pay back loan so there is no winning to smaller government except to ruler and few others who get bribed to accept it. Commonly one US company got monopoly over some part of foreign economy like 1 oil company for oil reserves of entire country. As loan takers inevitably can't pay back, companies start demanding very cheap resources and in general slavish behavior towards US by having to vote in UN like US wants. Any locals happening to live on resource rich region then they got killed by some "rebels" or by army after some random recruits were killed by weapons common to tribe living on that land. If ruler refuses to take deal or pay back then they may get hit men sent after them and if they fail US finds some excuse for war and give few US companies monopoly in that country. For example when Panamas leader took control of Panama canal he died in suspicious accident while US media portrayed him as atrocious criminal. Similar US media responses happened whenever ruler decided to nationalize oil or other resources so such leaders became by default criminals according to US media. Dictators that allowed foreign monopolies got much better protection from US army no matter how violent rulers they were. These power and money grabs keep evolving. Targeted countries don't need resources for money grabs. For example banks may give bad loans so they either get loan back with interests or they get whatever loan taker owns like houses they couldn't afford. Banks have enough money to bribe journalist around world for their agendas. They can give people 2 options. They either get bailout (which adds to debt on nation) so banks could get money people owe for loans or locals adapt some austerity policies (which likely happens either way) and forcing austerity can be form of punishing nations that refused to become permanently indebted plus it forces people to work for less as wages and governmental safety nets get reduced so they'd be closer to slaves with fewer protection and salary for same work. Either way banks and other large businesses can get new real estate and other capital for lower cost as majority become poorer and are less likely to pay back their loans so banks get collateral plus money from partially paid loan. Also richest will either way become relatively richer by forcing majority to become poorer in case richest don't get extra money. Whoever could afford such conspiracy seems childish enough old money inheritors to not be most powerful organization in world who can drag down their organizations but they are probably still rich enough for paying for any media stories around the world they want along with attackers of any sort but on bright side such attacks draw attention to which organizations use these tactics. In case they are so confident that such unoriginal globally public tactics work they may be stupidly impulsive enough to give away who they exactly are and what made them so overconfident. They may behave like spoiled kids who think childish insults and movie lessons work well. They may hire journalists to insult targets in childishly petty manner.

Relatively small payments can have serious impact on international politics so even those with less than billion dollars could create global scams. If some company profited from war (maybe weapons manufacturer wanted more revenue or place to test out weapons on people in various environments) then it could spend money on murderers to kill maybe 1 citizen of country with large military inside target country making it look like locals are uncontrollable murderers. Maybe someone agrees with 1000 dollar per murder (and maybe keep money while scaring local into attacking without payments) so 365x1000= 365 000 dollars per year to create sense of "uncontrollable terrorist" organizations within country. Corrupt military agencies could use it to get funds and support for wars. If companies wanted to cut costs they could artificially create "recessions" with stubbornly unexplained or confusing explanations which in reality could be created by spending maybe 0,1-1 million on journalists per country to create sense of some economic downturn that can be solved by large payments to certain businesses. If business cartels decide to defraud 100 wealthiest countries then they could spend on average maybe 1 million per country on media stories to create international sense of money somehow running out for working people then governments and businesses get excuse to lower salary. 1% reduction in salary could mean 10 million in savings for business that uses 1 billion on salaries and economic downturns could reduce salaries easily by over 10%. Almost all nations have workforce with over billion dollars in salaries so it is easy to see how bosses would have incentive to create sense of economic troubles even though rich may be getting richer. Messing with economy of 1 country can affect imports and exports in other countries so it is sort of chain reaction. Maybe most likely start to these economic troubles is to start riots and mass protests where workers would refuse to work so less production reduces amount of products for exports. Even mass protests where people demanded more salaries while refusing to work for long periods can backfire for protesters as later when this escalates into global recession they'd have their wages reduced. In this sense companies could benefit economically by bribing unions of their own employees to coerce or motivate employees to stop working and artificially reduce production, employment rate, international trade, salaries of nonworking protesters and overall confidence in economy of country.  

Digital developments have made wars easier to one side with drones that destroy fuzzy semi-random blobs on screen with anything long that could look like weapon. While it can look convenient it also has huge problem. Almost everyone has access some digital camera and these can record the detailed violent aftermaths of drone attack leaving them to internet for as long internet exists and staining reputation of countries like cameras of 20th century ruined the reputation of countries that had local brutal rulers.

Negative stereotypes about national stupidity and ineptitude can be spread by outright lies and  then be used as excuses for murderous jingoistic plots. Espionage organizations could train their own assassins by sending them to cause some attention grabbing accident for celebrity or politician to make it look that even best pilots and drivers cause deadly accidents for leaders. When i read biographies by former spies they consistently mentioned murderous plots in poor less developed countries that could help their agencies in certain deals (for example armed gangs shooting innocents to secure weapons deals, avoid peace deals for further weapons deals or plain accidents to favor other plane companies). If that is reality then it is vitally important to not play along with these negative stereotypes and to improve public image or otherwise some new accidents could happen that could potentially be caused by violent people. Blame could be on governments that were most eager to blame "accidents" on the stupidity or degeneracy of locals.

In current world public genocides would be easily noticed and scandalous but sort of loophole is to start war, then have many people die by giving easy access to bomb so all possibly violent factions could vent their anger with bombs plus all government agencies around the world that are fucked up enough could kill all they could under cover organizations as sort of hidden genocide where journalist would be killed often enough to scare them away or just ban them from entering country due to security reasons.

Stupidity is way more tolerated than knowingly lying or endangering lives. Almost all frauds i know insist on playing stupid to some extent so they could look naive and innocent. In more dangerous situations some seemingly naive panic monger may insist on attacking certain groups or individuals with untrue or distorted statements. If people believe that dangerous groups are just stupid then they may give up neutralizing them and miss the parts in the speeches that also hint about wanting power and control with threats of violence or suffering to those who disagree.
Stupidity can be covered and reinforced by paranoid hysteria so when someone is groomed to become hysteric and aggressive any time their views are questioned then they could stay dumb longer while those cynical frauds who created this stupidity and know stupidity can be fleeting try to quickly take advantage of it by trying to quickly send them on offensive in large crowds that threaten anyone who might expose weaknesses in their views.

Among many noteworthy things that "Weight of chains" (2011) pointed out was that in 1992 New York Times published excerpts from pentagons plans for 1994-1999: "There are three additional aspects to this objective: First, the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". "Our strategy must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any potential future global competitor". Considering this plan it makes sense why US media keeps portraying other countries as negatively as possible (usually by concentrating on most embarrassing aspects no matter how many in US would have similar or worse attributes) with foreign aid often in form of weapons, loans that need to be paid back or military bases that are at least partially funded by locals. With anything like this plan pentagon tries to attract money For fantasy of being only positive world power pentagon conveniently insinuates it needs all the money it asks for leadership while even kids could understand this is irritating for murderous organization, that pretends its ok to randomly kill people if at least one them was bad, to be so full of itself but creating enemies is what army leaders benefit from most. Also getting enemies from as many countries as possible is probably most likely reason why scared US voters would agree to fund army at expense of medical /social services or any other support system.

Maybe easiest way for powerful people to lose power would be if they accepted some murderously jingoistic and self admiring supremacy culture where they deserve to own world and kill nations to have more room for their own inbreds. Commonly it involves treating others as slaves or cattle. Considering how it is pride based culture they could probably expose themselves after some non-flattering statements like "inbreds" (which is still true if they insist about having some blood purity) but there are infinitely many ways to achieve same exposing effect to make themselves more visible and emotional. If they can't handle mild insults and criticisms then it would be healthier for all to find out about it early on with some stress test before giving them control. They could also expose themselves by only portraying people of certain ethnic group as most sane, smart and sympathetic while other ethnic groups are shown as unpleasant mental wrecks who are unnaturally idiotic.
More violent organizations seem to keep killing to preserve their apparent safety but that causes more insecurities that they may again try to solve with killing and it could help avoid such rulers if people listened how they try to keep themselves safe as early as possible plus see how they behave in practice since start.
This violence can be taken advantage of by providing that nation foreign aid almost entirely in form of weaponry. If receiver needs money they eventually realize that they would have to sell it to someone else so government starts finding where would they spread their stockpiles and replace employees who see too many dangers in that activity making governments overall behavior probably much riskier. Soon it can be followed by paranoia when they start worrying about people resenting getting killed over weapons sold for several factions or criminals in same country or if random acts of violence were used to increase demand for weapons. This also adds to culture of fear (especially in case of smaller countries) among weapons dealers and increases their demand for weapons so provider of free weapons could have more demand for their products.

Considering how easy it is to fake heart attack or suicide with drugs it could be better if anyone exposing corruption would state clearly that they are not suicidal. This way murderers couldn't just use false rumors about depression as cover to murder by paralytic/suffocating nicotine acetylcholine receptor blocking drugs or overdose of insulin (deadly glucose deprivation with diabetic coma) and later hanging body on rope. Even if it should ever look like i committed suicide with suicide letter it was murder. Almost every exposer of corruption could benefit from such public oath. Another common likely cover for murder could be to use media to spread hysteria over the activities of target, then quietly kill target and claim even in media they had nothing to do with it like they were just innocently painting corruption investigators as dangerous world destroyers and they were too busy with other things to check if accusations were truthful.

Ancient problem that probably existed since people started talking has been that everything people say or don't say can be used against them. For example not mentioning that you are not suicidal could leave room for murderers to frame murder as suicide. I wouldn't be surprised if death of Aaron Swartz had some similar coverup (he did create site that tried to track how US politicians get funded). Personally i've strictly avoided talking about powerful living rulers to avoid such risk. I have supported killing in self-defense (like probably almost everyone else) if threats to defenders and attackers are similar (for example gun wielding defender should not to kill if knife wielding attacker is ~5+ meters away but rather wound leg) for at least over 10 years if no other option is usable as even killing in such situation causes many problems and risk of more hostility. I have been against death penalty as this kills caged people who are not risky while spoiling distant people with sense that they can kill someone when mood is right and it can make them lazy and reckless in awful ways. I bet if someone tries to make me look bad for supporting killing in self defense then they themselves support it as well and would expose that if they feel they are in danger. I'm not at all suicidal. Also my relatives have lived past age 70 even though they lived through stressful Soviet and Nazi invasions plus couple of murder attempts which exceptions like some getting disappearing under Soviet terror who's age at death i don't know. At least some of them were obese chain smokers and frequently drunk which both could increase likelihood of cardiovascular death. Therefore it wouldn't make much sense if i got cardiovascular disease before that age. 

Lazy way to track or at least detect predatory power hungry people would be to secretly get media attention (i did it in 2010 january) and then staying relatively passive to create impression that nothing is done for protection. When they feel they can do anything then they expose themselves by getting aggressive or pushy in some way. Personally as deterrent i try to leave them some sense that i'm not doing anything about them while they incriminate themselves in place that is more public that it looks in first glance. When they get in deeper trouble i may publish what they did as warning to others that just because i don't respond quickly doesn't mean that they are getting away with something.

I don't try to be pushy about making people behave in some way and my political system could be summarized as "simplicity rules". Just stating glaring facts can affect behavior and that's about as far as i'm willing to go with affecting peoples behavior.

Sometimes i feel like reducing corruption is like cleaning up shit. Both can cause nasty death and be humiliating while doing it (insults and awful lies can be commonly heard during exposing of corrupt people against honest people). Some may encourage to leave things as they are but leaving corruption in public is like leaving shit in public. Both would be dangerous and humiliating to many in society that enabled it and as time passed amount of either could keep increasing to increasingly dangerous levels.

Criticism seems to be more influential if it tries to list all the problems to all the different personalities that may be making decisions. For example i try to appeal to lovable people but also to those who may only care about selfish need to be on top by trying to convince that what are doing currently causes them problems with income, popularity and influence.

One huge problem with armies is that they try to be perfect while giving deadly weapons to youths who are near childishly self-centered and blind to suffering caused by their selfishness anyway. These organizations (national army or private military contractors) seem to be willing to cover up almost anything their units do including random unjustified murders and rapes. With Vietnamese and Iraq war it is disturbingly easy to find stories about even female US soldiers getting raped by male soldiers of same army with immunity to rapists. This makes it likely that rapists who heard these stories since at least Vietnamese war knew that they could be allowed to rape all they can and later get medals for "their service" plus military pensions. Catholic church is maybe only organization that recently started to stop covering up for rapes but national armies don't seem to have reached that level of oversight so pedophiles and rapists who used to become priests could now get same immunity if they went to army. Most rapists probably like the idea of freedom to rape and have lifetime of monetary support from government that seems ok with coverups.

Sometimes people justify wars as population control but birth rates are high in places where dying is likely like in war zone and fewest people are born in safer and richer regions. Wars displace huge amounts of people from whichever part of world main armies have habit of attacking. Many go to countries that started those wars, change ethnic proportions and carry memories about how this government treated people in their former homeland. As some commentators in Reddit mentioned about war on terror: The people involved war machine know they should never run out of enemies, else their existence and way of life becomes meaningless. They want poor weak enemies, easy to defeat, yet numerous enough to justify new campaigns. Opponents don't have the power to defeat America, just to make it angry enough to do more stupid stuff. Soviet system had probably something similar going on as my distant relatives were working on field in the end of 1940s when some soviet plane randomly shot field they were standing although war was long over and even when last russian troops left in 1994 they dared to rob even border patrols at gunpoint.
Soldiers that get medals and praise may spend their service on streets by yelling loudly to get the fuck there or away or they'll shove their foot or gun up their asses or other orifices which obviously doesn't calm anyone. Sense among military people that they may get killed if they don't avoid violence adds to literal vicious cycle. Sometimes poisoning with carcinogens seems involved. Smedley Butler published book about war being a business at 1935 and died 5 years later from gastrointestinal cancer at age 58. Hugh Thompson jr was US army pilot in Vietnamese war who threatened to kill US soldier who kept killing civilians. He died of cancer at age 62 while the one leading the killing has outlived him. On other hand nobody is immune to carcinogenic growth factors or radioactivity so if words don't help with stopping murders then those war supporters could also become targets of poisonings that show symptoms in years (probably they have been considering which health problems some war profiteers have got in previous decades). Even making billions from war isn't much help if it comes with death within few years and it would be even less appealing to poorer participants who worked as public supporters to seemingly safe war with comfy salaries. This paragraph is meant to be caution to supporters and opponents of wars. Both risk with death and while war businesses are large way more businesses make money from living people and they too could use murderous tactics to keep revenue.

Dishonest people often seem to try to make even the most honest competition look more dishonest or aggressive. During elections this may take form of repeating attacks that are proven lies so the more honest candidate or their employees would feel like dishonesty is only way as "every candidate is like that" or that only dishonest scandalous tactics are what makes a winner. Frauds may further tempt others to reduce standards by saying they don't mind if the other side did those things and leave out the part about rest of population judging them. Giving sense that majority already believes those lies may give such hopelessness that some candidate or their employees feel like they might as well do those unethical things as people already believe it.

Almost every religion has some doomsday version where at least some get nicer afterlife than others and seems like the ones where good go to heaven and bad to hell causes some to try to make world end in some way to fix all problems by having unwanted people go to hell and others enjoy eternity in heaven with themselves as the special helper of god who could probably make it to top 5 in heavens hierarchy for making that happen. Instead of improving society by actually helping they dream of provoking any possible global conflict as that is usually precondition before "prophecy" fulfills. They may think that earthly is too insignificant and unpleasant that just having eternity of heavenly pleasure is way better high for themselves. Many fundamentalist seem to be motivated by preachers who lie about how bad things are to get them hate real material things as much possible and to give them sense of inner hollowness and despair that they wouldn't care about losing lives.

Lazy and fake way to get some admiration and look powerful is to make up huge conspiracies about imaginary organizations trying to control world and kill critics while in actuality authors know they are safe as they made it up along with risks.
With such imaginary empires it is easy to look powerful by pretending these organizations were ended thanks to the decisions of the fraud who made it up.

Brutality of government can depend highly on population. Usually countries with less than 5 million people don't have mass murdering local rulers unless they were set up by foreign governments (like Pol Pot working for pro-communist governments). Larger countries seem to care less about killing millions. If they have 100+ million then rulers may get away with killing few million as part of experimenting with ways to look like great leader. Voters may also feel in large countries that they probably have spare millions of people to lose for hopefully improving something but smaller nations can't afford that so they tend to be relatively peaceful and safe. Common problem to smaller nations is that larger ones try to delete every positive part about their history. Maybe to dehumanize them for populist wars or crimes against them more appealing. One possible related example was that after one school shooting in US. Wikipedia listed foreign governmental responses to it. President of my homeland had good advice that people should find out reasons why it happened and how to avoid it in future but within day it got deleted and as replacements were useless stock responses by governments of larger countries that said it was incomprehensible evil, or that they are sending their prayers or condolences. This obscurity that is kept around small countries probably gives locals in them sort of invisibility to do a lot quite publicly while managing to stay anonymous.

One demographic i've noticed supporting murderous governments are certain environmentalists who don't think logically but whose rhetoric is stubbornly filled with vague hysteric claims that they keep repeating and disputing their statements gets "so what" response. In internet they usually show themselves by sharing links to endlessly hysteric sites that don't like to use numbers and use small cases trying to imply that happens globally. Some hysteric sites seem to use satellite images from spring or autumn when ground was brown or just forged it adding that this is how far deserts have moved. I know people like that who are against every government where people don't have 3rd world living standards while supporting dictators (even nazi and communist dictators get weirdly high amount of support and their crimes get justified by "world having too many people anyway"). It's hard to know if they are just cowards afraid of any government that kills critics or do they really believe that. Sometimes listening to undemocratic leaders they mention common anti-capitalist ideas that people in "west" should rebel until everyone has equal amount of money or until nature isn't threatened which probably happens when locals are dead. These same people have said something like diseases being made up by big pharmaceutical companies that want money and that viruses/bacteria supposedly don't cause diseases. Some people have always starved no matter how low the human population was. Also internet has reduced need to spend fuel on transporting data with cars or planes and people would need to use less calories to stay alive while indoors and sedentary but some probably spin it as added pollution. Partial explanation to their behavior could also be that as they are easily manipulated by only emotional statements (while lacking ability to be neutral investigator) so on one side they go where fear directs them and on other hand they love the high they get when they show themselves as literal savior of planet. Plus feeling of being large social movement regardless how selfish and stupid it actually is. Every depressed mood they get while seeing brutality within group can be described as treacherous weakness that could kill planet so they deserve to die if they don't at least change their behavior. It's not like nature benefits from use of weapons seen in world wars or censorship that denies territories ruled by dictators get significant  pollution.
One lazy and weak strategy i often found in self-help books advised in effect to leadership requires pretending to be powerful or confident. This can backfire if leader is otherwise useless or has harmful beliefs and people usually don't like to work for bosses that don't know what they are doing but pretend to be wise. That's about as convincing as pretending to be sexy or cute while being morbidly obese. Same applies to superficial belief that pretending to laugh or forcing self to laugh would make other laugh from joy.

State security organizations are some of the organizations that have to be cautious about. One thing that tends to be similar between is that they may stupidly start scandalous plots (maybe inspired from naively written movie) they can't cover up and then desperately kill witnesses (including for seeing face of recruiter) or agents that participated with promises of easy money and immunity from most laws or just to cut costs on salary payments. More violent political systems may create "elite" agents that are basically chosen as uncaring murderers who could be tested by sending out to commit unsolvable crimes sometimes in their own country such as murder of women and/or children to test this loyalty and then hire them if they didn't get caught long enough after killing people. Or this agent testing could take place in other country occupied by country that trains these spies and then blame murders on local factions as reason why their army should be there. Especially if crime is committed by means that are too expensive for most criminals. If violent political system banned killing of political opponents then sometimes it looks this killing would be done by unknown criminals supposedly unconnected to government but who may get out of prison suspiciously easily. If country has used such violent tactics in past then espionage organizations from other countries could potentially staged attacks to make it look still violent and dangerous so to isolate it economically and as world power by spreading suspicions. For example politician from country A goes to country B. Country C causes some suspicious event that kills people from A. If investigators in country B find this looks like planned killing then they may cover it up suspiciously. For example by finding explosives that they don't dare to mention to media investigators may think that their own country is maybe still involved in this and try to cover it up with increasing amount of lies. If another country tried to make it happen then they can leak it to media no matter how B tries to hide it. Country C may also cause weird visible trail of suicides and crimes on witnesses who first saw the accident to further make country B look too murderous and unpredictable to deal with. Defense against this could be to be extra cautious of situations that could lead to death make it look like old historic conflicts are coming back.

One way to get ideas how unpleasant people try to control others is to see comments in internet that expose frauds or crimes or political attacks. Almost every time some medical fraud is exposed spammers start to insult everyone who sees it as scam and these spammers attempt to show legal competition as part of global brutal conspiracies. Even comedy shows that sometimes expose frauds and corruption get spammed by people who keep insulting them for being boring, pointless and stupid for not blaming for example unnamed rich people or "West" for unnamed problems that should be only ones endlessly criticized. 
In civil war situations its easy to see public propaganda tactics. In YouTube almost any clip about ongoing war crimes by governments are spammed (sometimes all in caps lock) by apologists that insult anyone who disagrees with violent system and they blame every protesters killed in being dangerous foreign agents or terrorist. Mostly they try to desperately change topic with spamming long texts to hide other comments or just by insulting everyone with every insult they know so they would at least complain about insults. They also spam that anyone who sees problem with governments killing unarmed people are brainwashed idiots that support some aggressive international conspiracy. Not much difference between protectors of war crimes and defenders of small fraudulent businesses and they can easily get inspiration from each other.  
One tactic against them may be to show that they are doing crappy job by exposing their tactics and make them fear their superiors who probably check if they deserve to be paid or rewarded for this. They often comment so often it becomes obvious that they don't care about their own mistakes and double-standards and look incoherent due to writing without much attention to consistency like someone who is tired of spamming all day long.
It doesn't take many people to spam in media. There are maybe tens of globally famous newspapers and it is easy for 1 person to comment on tens of websites every day with maybe tens of comments in each. With extra propaganda workers they could also spam forums and YouTube.

Division in occupied country could be reinforced by making some unpopular local into dictator that is also very violent and stupid in speeches to make entire nation look stupid, violent and primitive. This could make locals fight among each other. In work culture it could work by insisting that bosses should be vague about pointing out faults and instead use useless angering stuff like "that's completely useless with nothing right" which can partially insinuate that whatever worker did right was also not good enough.

Internet in keeping political systems acceptable

New inventions are sometimes good at reducing criminal behavior. DNA testing helped identify people and cameras with free publicity through internet helped to reduce criminal behavior from violent governments. In way dictators that don't bother adapting tolerable systems are somewhat similar to criminal in 21st century that doesn't care about leaving DNA or video evidence and hopes their murderous security can keep things under control. Both can have their past suddenly leaking to internet where it can ruin or end their lives because these types of evidence are harder to deny (especially shooting people in front of camera). Unlike past kings rulers now can send other people out to record how well they actually live. Also commoners see actual situations. As additional help even the worst oppressive agencies become less stable because agents can record atrocities they have to do, escape and introduce world media to how that agency in some state does it's business so even every agent is possible cause for entire organization getting reputation of a murdering business.
This ease of spreading recording weakens any political system from street gangs to dictators that think violence is strength they should admire and praise. 

Possibilities in kleptocracy 

Wikipedia had idea that Ivan Terrible created oppressive oprichnina to create his own personal loyal ruling class who could legally take over much of economy. Although that organization was officially working for 7 years it managed to take over much of the economy agents in that organization were allowed to rob anyone including boyars, monasteries and villagers. They could kill almost anyone that criticized that activity. Similar organizations were formed in soviet union where government took over economy through different state security organizations with similar license to kill anyone who didn't support government activities.

Having this untouchable robber caste is one way to rob several countries under the disguise of searching bad people. Armies rob also and it is easy to find excuses. Some fighter were seen in or near town? Search every house and room. Houses are in way of snipers? Search the house and destroy it. Locals are rich and could add some extra money to army? Previous 2 excuses could help. Crowds don't like treatment? Hire agitator to say violent provocations, then arrest all people and search them along with their homes. Want to destroy or take over anything? Say that taking stuff (from food, furniture and machinery to housing) from people makes it less likely for terrorists to be equipped so any building can be destroyed until people are forced to burrow underground as even tent cities are terrorist camps and homeless crowds standing in wilderness are terrorists plotting a coup. Want to commit quiet genocide faster? Take away food and animals saying it was owned by thieves who made country poor in first place or that is currently needed for war effort. Those who refuse could be killed for being traitors.
Want to rule that country with puppet leader? Find some politician who fears every violent political system and praises those more than any government that doesn't kill the critics by calling these safe democracies atrocious dictatorships. If they look cowards that are willing to make generations suffer under slavery so they would feel powerful then they may be manipulative part of government. Dictators often get praise about their military background and how it supposedly makes them braver but most coup leaders and autocrats from any state security organization is likely to be very paranoid. Leverage against them can be gained by convincing them to kill to terrorize public, then advice witnesses be killed to keep public calmer, then maybe kill again to rule with fear and predictably try to cover it up again until regime ends. Foreign government advising such autocrats can advice them to commit murder and later use knowledge about crimes to blackmail autocrat for further services. Also they can use autocrat to kill whoever the third government avoids by making them commit crimes almost everyone knows and then claim if one of those many who knows about crime is not killed then society would collapse somehow. Forcing puppet rulers to be violent or atrocious is one way of motivating them to be very drunk or high (some substance that blocks thoughts and awareness) so puppet could numb emotions while also becoming more oblivious to events around them so they could be manipulated more easily. 
Weakness of paranoid leaders is that in way they are puppets to conspiracy theories who can be controlled by giving impression that they would die or lose much if they didn't attack first.
Robbing illegal because no untouchable NKVD or oprichnina style organization? Just use untouchable criminal gangs as fronts who extort businesses, kidnap people, sell tons of drugs/weapons and can have even politicians or judges killed with unlimited weaponry.

Outside interference of a country looks easier if it had only 1 dictator, 1 party and 1 or few polticial views among people according to local media that tries to group all people into maybe 2 categories like "left" and "right".

Large countries sometimes treat small countries like cattle to be harvested whenever they have something to take and when they don't fit well with the narrative of larger country being the best at everything good it tries. Luckily internet protects some countries from this treatment and can cause huge problems to those who plan farm humans this way.

Like in all vocations working on high budget projects is one way of making money. Supervising and making a billion dollar project work pays very well and such revenues are common in warfare by trying to have any project going. Even heroin smuggling could be accepted by government if it goes to some country they care less about.

Like in many criminal organizations owners of these organizations can secure their live and income by figuring out how to legally make money with profits and many have tried. At least they should have plenty of money for experimenting with getting some acceptable business to work.

In creating peace

Military interference is about the worst way to get peace in other countries and it's even worse if some commander decides its better to just kill all the potential rebels. Violence creates hatred for generations like Nazi and Soviet governments caused. Also soldiers are awful peace bringers as soldiers are instructed to be confident like their life depended on it but as many recruits are teens or young adults their behavior can look smug and combined with knowledge they do occasionally get caught with murders or rapes causes widespread violence against almost all soldiers in this territory. These risks can be reduced by only fighting with air force but bombs can miss a lot and again death of random locals causes desire to stop these risks as all the locals are in danger. Risks to bystanders could be further reduced by only interfering in the form of air to air combat against gunships and planes that bomb locals so when they leave cities and reach some uninhabited area then they could be shot down with rockets so pilot could get few seconds of warning for ejecting and plane would likely crash far away from people. Worries about bombs falling on civilians may matter less if government or dictator is very hated and also bombs locals for maybe scaring them to stop rebelling. In addition use of weapons destroys living standards for many people, gives weapons to semi-random volunteers who were willing to use them and creates desperate people who don't want to be attacked so they attack first.
Also justification of fighting few rebels in countryside doesn't avoid hatred. For example USA and many other countries have paranoid militants in countryside that talk often wishing to overthrow the government. If any government would kill these people in countryside people would start to protest or riot against it. Especially if outside government ordered these killings no matter how much they try to make those militants look bad. Besides this outside interference can be used by dictators as excuse to kill people in their own countries or in nearby countries with long talks about fighting terrorism that will soon end but go on until unpopular government itself is removed.

Soviet system protected its government workers by giving people different liberties so fast that they didn't want to risk their lives to gain what they saw was already being given to them every year at least since after Gorbachev became official ruler. This method could work if rulers wouldn't be afraid to quickly give people control over their own personal lives and didn't think that not torturing them for wanting different political system would cause some scary civil war or rule of even worse people. Even outside medias that sometimes seem to try to get rebels in civil wars more active may also publish scare stories about how next government could have same attributes as the one that started the civil war. This fast reform solution doesn't probably work if rulers anger locals too much by killing and torturing them for not praising one dictator like some god (especially if dictator want god status in place with violent religious fanatics) and if civil war starts to look encouraging to rebels. Reforms wouldn't probably start before rulers feel confident they know all the required steps to peace. Common problem in dictatorships is that rulers fear civil war whenever they relax rules and people are afraid to publicly support them because they usually know they have to say violently supportive things about present government or risk losing their life or remnants of freedom which can make them look like genuine fanatical supporters to rulers. Some dictatorships are partially puppet states to some larger state that tries to control them and in these reforms could be blocked by people who fear wars starting when they change political system internally. This worries could probably only be reduced if larger state gives some clearer promise about not interfering in politics. If ruler denounces any system where rulers can casually kill people for extra control then they leave some room for current government to arrest those who try to violent uprise or publicly support/demand/praise violent political change which can look like attempted power grab by warlords.

One problem with military occupation is that it may make warlords more dangerous. Even if it certain that outside military will leave they may still spread rumors that they will not leave without getting attacked by locals and even when they leave as promised then warlords may lie that it was all their own work and that even they can beat those powerful armies so people better do what warlord wants.
Like in other areas of life people may deliberately decide to do something dangerous and later say that for taking this risk others should do what they want. Warlords seem to use it in diverse ways. They may force random people to kill for the group and later lie that those who died dedicated their lives to this warlord because he was such a good person. It is somewhat common in civil wars that leaders from both sides may force people to kill in the name of this group.
Angry speakers will probably never risk going to battle themselves but it is easier to tell others to risk their lives and later take credit in the safety of propaganda worker position. Apparent self-sacrifice could be faked by giving someone bag or car with bomb, telling them to be at some place at some time and then remotely detonate the bomb without carrier ever knowing about the plan.
Killing in name of stability can start civil wars when used within same country or "terrorist"attacks if this killing happened in any other country. Soldiers may be told they are doing patriotic things but attempts to show all critics as foreign agents is transparent. During Stalins purges pretty much everyone who got caught with unwanted attitude toward government (or due to agents having to make minimum number of arrest) was forced to sign confession that they were foreign saboteurs who wanted to overthrow government.

A peaceful way of adding stability is to increase living standards to some point where they don't have to worry about civil war destroying their life work or plans. Foreign aid is partly provided for this reason but this help is very narrow. Mostly foreign aid helps with food and medical help but this sort of aid can keep unemployed and homeless for generations. Building materials and electronics (at least phones) are also needed for many reasons but these are rarely given. It's more likely that foreign aid is in form of weapons that are constructive in giving power to some group in exchange of faster material destruction. Among other things that raise living standards would be internet connection and help with building water purification buildings, sewers and sewer treatment plants.

System of giving foreign aid could be somewhat abused by pretending to be very poor even if country is among the wealthiest. For example many southern European countries riot to get money from other countries. Then after getting it some groups start to riot again the same way as before saying it went to wrong people (cancellation of debts between nations is always to large organizations not to cancel debts of individuals). If they get money the 2nd time then again they may complain again and protest destructively without changing tactics and keep on doing it until local get fed up with that cycle of endless complaining while knowing billions of people live in worse conditions and would deserve that money more.
Riot police is expensive and so is looting, robbing, burning of cars and businesses etc. Besides living in tear gas and street fires lowers the quality of life. Almost any robber can abuse such protests by playing some hardcore activist that insists on robbing people and shops due to injustices they can't explain (most likely they'll threaten those who disagree with them).
One way to make such behavior less attractive is to stall with payments or monetary aid so long that all this rioting would not be worth the trouble.

One thing that seems to happen in every country is that rights or rules are taken seriously if local natives win those rights or rules and that seems to apply to every single tiny rule and every time new rule or right is debated many start to complain about dictatorship or end of society if people had these rights.

Much of the apparent dangerous fanaticism seems to be mostly fueled by fear of torture/killing. Communism in first half of 20th century spread partly with threats in addition to lies by agitating preachers. People had to act like passionate communists who all seemed to speak the same slogans while being forced to demand death to anyone who seemed against communism or risk getting killed or deported to Siberia as slave labor themselves. Spread of communism seemed to be enforced by some murder-tsunami type social movement where murderous agitators demanded those closest to critics to kill those critics or be killed along with critics by other people and if they survived first wave of murderers then new waves of apparent fanatics would come after them with no end in sight. Source of this murderous behavior was probably some communist government who paid and threatened people to play idealistic communists while implying that such attacks were spontaneous and unplanned by government. Critics of soviet system outside countries were also occasionally killed to terrorize critics into silence. Several rebel groups formed all over the world during the time soviet union existed but most were coincidentally disbanded after soviet union ended like they lost their funding and motivation. Probably most militaristic rulers have attempted to create that kind of system for conquests or self defense. On much more benign level businesses may create endless scare stories about their competition that people may rehear until that rumor making business ends.

Simplicity in quitting drugs

Personally i learned to overcome psychological addictions (codeine, cannabis and alprazolam) with thoughts that involved maybe less than 20 words so few words can influence a lot. At some point with cannabis i thought what if i didn't celebrate moment of dosing and withing seconds i felt craving for re-dosing fading away. With alcohol and cannabis it is obvious in several movies involving parties how they glamorize or celebrate binge drinking and smoking. Second thought was that everyone has though lives but withdrawals always manage to make things worse.
Even if it worked on other addicts i doubt media would dare to accept it much. Rehab clinics seem very clingy about hiding how they reduce addictions like all the rehab shows i checked showed (addictions are supposedly too hard to overcome alone and rehab fixes it but skips showing parts what happened in rehab). There is huge potential in rehab clinics and prisons to use drug users as slave labor who lost much of their human rights and certain awful people like to profit from them. Their industries and way of life depends on people believing that such organizations are only solutions plus drug cartels may prefer people to not be able to overcome it but if their product seemed easier to quit then public may not be so hostile against drug salespeople so they may benefit in different ways both from uncontrollable addictions and also from clients that don't behave like slaves to drugs which could increase people curiosity toward drugs. Prison systems have problem of taking away people rights, easily killing them, using them as almost unpaid slaves and stating that solution would be to allow prisoners even less rights. Also prisons are organized centers for many criminal gangs that prison official conveniently can't end while allowing prison owner to say that see all the scary gangs they have as evidence they need more money.


One thing people like in other people is how much they help others. Usefulness also determines how much are people willing to follow the advice of other person. Most rarely care about boasting and flattery. Actual help being way more certain way of getting respect or admiration and feeling of togetherness with the helper. I personally feel best about people that helped me in some way even if that was with getting some interesting data about psychology, biology, chemistry or physics.

Usefulness can be seen in businesses. Violent people may kill to control part of street and would still have to hide most they have. Compared to them even toilet paper manufacturers would be rich as they provide something useful and they could have global influence without having to hide from police and they could publicly show their wealth around and how they got it.They can publicly become richer than many countries without having to hide what they do. It's like being emperors in their very narrow areas with plenty of room for millions of other people to feel special in other areas. It's much more tempting for self-fulfillment than living in society where people are forced to praise single ruler who gets the credit while most have to live as nameless pawns for leaders plans.

Update of 21.10.2013

Slavery and brutal occupations are usually justified by calling others too primitive, not self sufficient or undeveloped. Similar logic applies when 1 country tries to rule much of world economy and politics like with USA which somehow just has to "lead" others although it tries to instill pride in not knowing about regions they support occupying. They may write long self admiring stories while hiding positive about other countries unless this positive are resources for taking. Obliviousness about other countries is kept on minimum to avoid humanizing them "too much" like murderers and rapist may prefer to do by not knowing about their victims and concentrating on what they could gain for themselves. These controlling countries are likely to behave like USA nowadays (meaning providing cover to old big businesses that don't want competition or to adjust) and claim they are leading science developer for world while actually being more like corrupt idea stealing patent troll for planet where even courts allow companies to claim global monopoly over simple things like rectangular smartphones (Apple case) although all people involved knew well that these shapes are old and known from sci-fi movies and art for decades before.
Abusive foreign politics makes countries along with people in them more reluctant to go along with international movements, business deals and general unification. Mercantilistic behavior is more likely to make people avoid anything international including UN for not trusting it as something able to help all and which is also probably serving one country at the expense of all others.

Update of 9. Dec. 2013

One of the most intense example of how religious texts can contribute to stability of region is in middle-east where Jewish prophecies require destruction of surrounding countries that ever attacked Israel before Judgement Day can come and dead can finally come to life and bad could go to hell and good to heaven.

Book of Ezekiel prophecies basically that nations that attacked Israel have to be destroyed. For example against Egypt it states in part 29 9 : "And the land of Egypt shall be desolate and waste; and they shall know that I am the Lord: because he hath said, The river is mine, and I have made it.
10 Behold, therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia.
11 No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years.
12 And I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate, and her cities among the cities that are laid waste shall be desolate forty years: and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and will disperse them through the countries.
In part 25 it mentions what to do with Ammonites in present day Jordania and Edom on present day Jordanian/Egyptian territory: " 10 Unto the men of the east with the Ammonites, and will give them in possession, that the Ammonites may not be remembered among the nations.
13 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; I will also stretch out mine hand upon Edom, and will cut off man and beast from it; and I will make it desolate from Teman; and they of Dedan shall fall by the sword."
Prophet Isaiah wrote:
17:1 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.
18:7 In that time shall the present be brought unto the LORD of hosts of a people scattered and peeled, and from a people terrible from their beginning hitherto; a nation meted out and trodden under foot, whose land the rivers have spoiled, to the place of the name of the LORD of hosts, the mount Zion. 19:1 The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it. 19:2 And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians: and they shall fight every one against his brother, and every one against his neighbour; city against city, and kingdom against kingdom. 19:3 And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards. 19:4 And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts. 19:5 And the waters shall fail from the sea, and the river shall be wasted and dried up. 19:6 And they shall turn the rivers far away; and the brooks of defense shall be emptied and dried up: the reeds and flags shall wither. 19:7 The paper reeds by the brooks, by the mouth of the brooks, and every thing sown by the brooks, shall wither, be driven away, and be no more.
Similar hostility is shown towards Libya and pretty much all other Semitic nations around Israel but also against Israel for not being Judaistic enough. These destructive events are mentioned as something happening before Judgement Day. Both Ezekiel and Isaiah lived over 2500 years ago and since then there have probably been many attempts to sabotage all these countries. Both are figures in Judaism, Christianity and Islam but they seem more major figures in those first two religions.

For fundamentalists outraged with reality it can be very tempting to end suffering for good people and give them joy while separating them from worse who go to hell. Probably everyone no matter the religion is outraged about how many abuse others but if only solution seems creating some kingdom of god then they'd probably try it. By now there are at 0,25 billion people living in this region which is obviously huge amount of people to murder and so far the chronic wars and civil wars drive up birth rates as sort of rebellion against attempts to be exterminated. These prophecies have and probably will remain mainly useful for weapons makers and dealers who have lot to gain from selling weapons and ammunition to kill that many people and to turn all that area completely desolate. 

Those countries and nations designated for destruction were soon overtaken by Islam that has serious problems getting along with non-Islamic people both ways. Islamists and nonislamists sides have their supremacy attitudes and some internal rules that allow murder of nonbelievers so both side tend to keep things mostly hostile.
Also Islam spread to other ethnic groups that white racists don't care for much like in Africa and South-Asia.

It doesn't help people in Islamic countries that their own Judgement Day and reanimation of dead seems to require that before it can happen all Islamic believers have to die and everyone else should forget what Islam is. This way any invading force no matter their religion can claim they are helping Islamic prophecies come true.

15.Dec.2013 update: Propaganda war may be used to get support for this prophecy war in middle-east. On one side are Islamist that already turned many against themselves but Jews themselves could also be made to look worse. It is hard to create new stereotypes but relatively cheap to bribe or convince some selfish repulsive Jews to create dangerous propaganda against themselves. Year 2000 seemed to have much importance among many cults and religions. Soon after that Islamists got even worse reputation after 9/11 attacks and later Jewish owned (or with Jewish CEO's that become face to public image of bank) banks started causing financial troubles, extorting governments for bailouts and who soon after getting bailed out by taxpayers started to pay each other bonuses while most workers had to somehow give up salary or pay more for same things and occasionally these banks expelled people for unpaid mortgages, who had no debts towards this bank but being decent doesn't help with starting wars so bankers. It costs maybe less than 10 million to bribe greedy business leader from any ethnic group. With behavior like that on both sides, all the rest could easily feel worst from both sides may try to take all they have so why care for either side.

7.02.2014 update. While it seems reassuring that small countries may be protected by international organization or some big country that hasn't invaded those small countries it is still likely that politicians of these bigger factions are looking out for their own good and are likely to treat other countries with proud blindness. This can easily be cover to hide worse fact that they are working for bribes from governments to get for example piece of other country with provision that smaller one should never ask for it back or force them to make language of invaders into official language with some stretched logic that it unites nations and helps with creating easier to plan world but what good could can come from planner that try to eliminate complexities or inevitable diversity of living creatures by trying to eliminating these diversities with proud obliviousness? These jingoists and business leaders may as well be dead and be closer to their ideal of not knowing about outsiders. Most likely they'll side with greediest one where companies could profit more easily so those companies too could bribe politicians to enable expansionism with less obvious wars. Global media blackout of these small countries probably helps encourage them with sense they could get away with such corruption and preserve false facade that they are protecting those who don't make expansionism and militarism main priority. There may not be any trustworthy world police force and it may never come if bribes and  possible"silver and lead" type deals make politicians decisions that majority doesn't accept in favor of few militarist countries. These organizations would have to prove they are actively trying to get rid of such corruption like their goal of world power depended on it.

10.02.2014 In power it is good to have restraint and that includes not using rules on humans that only work on robots with remote controlled behavior.

Minimum wage critics keep skipping the part that with crappy business model there is always possible to not earn enough to pay anyones salary. If business model is doomed to fail anyway then no amount of minimum wage reduction will not help. Some business plans may fail even if employees paid all they had to "employer". Weak profit margin businesses are always worse off than companies with higher profit margins and these margins are mainly what determine if business prospers or not. Big companies also often evade taxes by using loopholes or headquarters in places where these taxes are not required so small companies are anyway at huge disadvantage with their low funds, experience, higher taxes and minimum wage reduction is not solution to that. Most poorest countries have very low salary and very high unemployment like Haiti where worker may make 3 dollars in day in country with ~70% unemployment. Other poor countries are similar except communist or some others dictatorships where unemployment is avoided by forced labor and expenses are held down in soviet type system where workers starve to death on jobs after what they had was robbed by state for breaking some easy to break law (to have constant supply of slaves). Corporations can still buy up what these slave drivers export so in way communism is more extreme pro-corporate (at least in effect) rule by billionaires. And escapees risk getting killed for escaping and telling world how workers are exploited.

Big companies have easy time with their propaganda that keeps all countries enslaved as long libertarianism is widespread enough.  Even i used to be libertarian and now i realize my views had HUGE problem for not considering human behavior and that exploiting is going on even with threats of prisons. No way are they all gonna cuddle their employees if last laws against protecting and supporting employees have to go. For example one problem some claim US could improve in libertarian or anarcho capitalist system may be huge medical costs. But if judges (in whichever form they stay), insurance companies, medical companies and hospitals all could secretly collude by letting some patient claim huge amount of money so every other patient had to pay more. And when masses get restless over rising bill then just let any of these companies pay someone another huge sum while informing all news outlets it happens. This way medicare system could continue, like today, taking away savings and inheritance of those who go to hospital for even heart attack.

Related problem is university education. If it costs as much as nice house then few qualify and everyone else who can't afford it would have to skip it. Then when they get employed bosses could say they'd have it easier if they went to college (although even then they may end up as janitors and fast food workers with extra benefit of paying back student loans). By not paying bonuses for relatively better work bosses could save little money, claim that nobody qualified for bonus (unless they were brown-nosing) and by showing critics their depressed jaded workers who gave up hope for bonuses they could ask "and these are the types who we should be paying more?".

Many psycho business people treat business as god for which it's ok to sacrifice the health and well
being of minimum wage employees and when they sacrifice health they may be fired for not being
productive. And while lower ranking employees are treated as disposable robots no matter how much
profits they generate the bosses (most expensive and wasteful employees) waste huge amount of profits on personal luxury. If they genuinely treated businesses as highest good where salaries are skimped on for better profits and more money to handle recessions then they'd skimp on paying themselves so their wastefulness wouldn't wreck the company.

Business interests are supposedly highest good that employees have to work hard as slaves who should be happy to sacrifice themselves. But bosses are somewhere above this "god of business" and they take those sacrifices to party much of it away. Or buy palaces and pile of houses which need huge amount of resources to maintain.
Corporations are like just another made up gods who always need more sacrifice and dedication without ever giving anything back and owners are the usual lying prophets who take the sacrifices supposedly meant for good of many for personal enjoyment. That's part of bigger picture of having a hell on earth type governance and this hellish old world order has been quite similar for thousands of years. Few exploiting many to feel special, robbing most to keep family dynasty comfy and when idiot kids, who inherited money and were immune for most laws, can't figure out how to make much honestly then criminal tactics start. Maybe wars for profits or corrupting governments so people actually earn money to government that forwards to front groups of few inbred families (who look like sisterwives and brotherhusbands married for long time and different generations look kinda like same couples at different ages) that think this is the most acceptable system.

In several religions being greedy could get someone to hell while suffering gets to heaven and sometimes i can read or hear about being ok with suffering as part of going to heaven. But why should good people serve those who go to hell? Don't they risk their own afterlife by serving hellish organizations? Maybe they get to live in hellish slave conditions and after death go to hell for helping forces of satan? Many of those "religious" pro business people are likely just greedy servants to other greedy parasites.

Some could argue that businesses are not parasitic because they give something back but their behavior could be compared to that of parasitic worms. They find their way deep inside host, use their hooks or suction parts and start exploiting it from within without any impressive nervous system needed to want more and more. Both slowly damage surrounding so host (like employees) don't die and may feel almost ok for years. Greedy behavior doesn't take a brain of wolf or lion although these predatory assholes probably like to compare themselves to more majestic lifeforms. Also like very one-sided businesses parasitic worms sometimes give back. When in intestines it is likely that when those worms shit, this crap could contain nutrients for intestines to absorb and also when worms die digestive tract could absorb nutrients from them.

5.3.2014 update
While according to media minimum wage is overpaying the reality is that it is paid even if employee helps company make many times more money and loopholes are abused to create excuses for not paying worker for what they saved. Bit like piracy where whatever lower class produced gets stolen by parasitic bosses who rather spend profits on shills to comment on internet like workers are too overpaid etc. Probably all countries have laws that allow foreign companies to evade taxes. In Estonian this loophole happens to work in the form of "loans" by daughter company to parent  company and all big foreign companies "borrow" their profits to parent company which never pays it back and if daughter company needs money then it has to be loaned from banks and employees can't get bonuses because there is "no spare money" and company has to pay the bank loans etc. At least it creates glaring papertrail of who are scamming the system. I used to work in Estonian subsidiary of G4S. Salary was close to absolute wage (2,1 euros) and only bonus was ~1,6 euros for catching thieves, who were usually in groups, so if someone dared to fight them and catch them and testify against them in court, then they could make that extra 1,6 euros. Also no transportation and only compensations for bodily harm according to boss was to die or become officially crippled. When i seemed unhappy with low salaries (also when i requested another place i got offered worse place) then bosses respond was "do i want job where i don't have to do anything?". Of course he knew there are many intermediary working conditions between not doing anything and risking life on minimum wage where only compensation over 2 euros was to die or become crippled but he still tried to guilt me by playing dumb. Soon after getting job i switched to becoming janitor (still on same job at the writing of this update and i don't mind if this text gets me fired) in same place and noticed familiar attitudes from bosses of other companies. The work is located in mall, owned by RIMI Baltic (makes hundreds of millions euros of profit from 1,3 million people according to its site from Estonia)  which is subsidiary of Swedish group ICA which makes billions every year (2 billion in quarter). What's extra amazing is how stingy they are with any improvement in working environment. Sometimes i had to clean up broken glass and managers often came complaining that why am i wasting few squares of paper to soak fluid and brush all that to dustpan when i could use old dirty floor rag and twist it drier with my hands like they wanted all cleaners to be suicidal to squeeze shards through filthy rag with possible tetanus and hepatitis infection or any other infection that survives in body. Janitor boss said that maybe i'm on wrong job also and that employees were supposedly weirded out by my reluctance to pick up glass with hands (gloves are uselessly thin) and introducing infections from rags through glass cuts. This job also gave me occasional nosebleeds and employees occasionally mentioned eye and nose problems. I suspected exposed glass wool on insulating pipes and that cheap ductape could fix and contain those open glass wool spots better than cardboard and tinfoil covering they had so far. Shop boss started going with typical play of innocence with stuff like "i didn't get what is the problem? are you on wrong job? nobody else is having that problem etc.". She is working for company making billions and proposal to spend few euros so employees wouldn't inhale glass wool was bigger expense they were willing to take. But it is publicly know that these companies send their profits and unused funds to parent companies to Swedish psycho bosses who rather exploit employees than spend anything over legal minimum so instead they create working culture where employees have to sacrifice themselves for no benefit for themselves. Such companies are wrong places to all workers if they have to be ok with breathing glass wool dust and sacrificing their health so thankless bosses could save cents etc. There seemed to be some dark hierarchy among minimum wage employees (janitors, security and those who dealt with clients so basically ~90% of workers) that if someone showed signs of not wanting to risk health for thankless bosses then they were to be humiliated, lied about (refusal to take risk became rumor worker refused to work at all) and treated angrily while those who were more suicidal behaved like some unofficial bosses who bossed others around and tried to impose their own rules even if they conflicted with official rules. This exploitation of workers makes it close to impossible to not be critical of these abuses and i never saw any low salary worker who seemed overpaid. Bosses make rules to employees how they should dishonestly praise the products to clients and leave it to minimum wage workers to lie hundreds of times per day about greatness of products. Maybe bosses feel bad about lying but so do minimum wage workers who have to do it every workday with no bonus if they did it 0 or 1000 times per day. They would have to face the critical attacks of clients who don't tolerate bullshitting for no benefit to themselves and when they skip lying then brown-nosers may complain to bosses to give stern critical speeches how they are bad etc. Main tactic was to stress them to be obedient and when they seemed happy then attacks would be more common. I started avoiding smiling close to these frowning psychos which seemed to calm their sadism. This kind of environment is most tolerable to those who don't mind lying over and over for no benefit and also who are willing to make minimum wage workers work in dangerous conditions and play friendly dumb when hearing about risks who just can't understand what is the problem so basically place to find minimum wage psychopaths.

One huge lessons local companies have given me is that all those "Nordic socialist" systems are still run by typical "exploit the foreigners and pretend our wisdom caused profits" business tactics and not by some business smarts. Swedish, Finnish and Norwegian companies all smuggle out their profits and leave minimal wages to workers while outgoing money pays local income taxes in countries which didn't have producing workers. These countries also happen to own almost all the local media companies which usually support removal of income tax or support progressive income tax (foreign companies still evading paying taxes but local companies are fucked over even worse as they have to give away more of their profits so again twisting system to service foreign cartel) or publish opinions how minimum wage is overpaid and workers are not worth that. Of course similar problems are global as workers are mostly getting close to local minimum even if they sacrifice their lifespan and profits tend to go to mystery places outside local national economy while media tends to support those who claim workers are having too easy life but nothing said about bosses having too easy life.

No comments: