Translated from Russian original by Joanna Dobson

Despite the fact that the great empires such as the Roman, Mongolian and Ottoman Empires were created with fire and sword, they still turned out to be fairly durable and long-lived. Why?

These empires lasted because they expanded the scope of freedom of choice among their conquered peoples. The new leaders provided their subjects with protection from external attack, granted them equal civil rights, access to better education, entrepreneurship and free trade. They ensured their inhabitants safe freedom of movement throughout the empire’s lands and preserved their right to religious freedom. When the development of technology and with it, the entire economy demanded further and continuous growth in freedom of choice, the existing rigid vertical power structure began to conflict with the force for change and this lead eventually to the  break-up of the empires. In any social structure, there will always be strata that benefit from low levels of freedom of choice among other segments of the group, and it is these strata that exert resistance to the force for change and growth of freedom of choice, although in the longer term, over the course of history, their efforts will be proven ill-fated. As we can see, empires rise and fall according to the ‘Law of Humandynamics’.

With regard to the colonial systems which were also created with fire and sword, the conquered peoples were assigned the role of second-class citizens with low levels of institutionalisation of freedom of choice in comparison to citizens in the metropolis. This doomed the colonial systems to collapse and accounts for them being relatively short-lived. Even formal equality in civil rights established for example in the case of the indigenous population of Algeria has not deterred their struggle for independence from France. The Algerians see and understand that the level of Freedom of Choice which they enjoy is significantly lower than that of the French population in France.

When the uniting of different peoples is conducted in such a way that Freedom of Choice grows at the same rate for all citizens, regardless of any one group’s size and power, this type of union is called globalisation and only this type of unification has any true development potential. This is why streams of thousands of refugees risking death from bullet and shipwreck are leaving their own countries where they have zero Freedom of Choice and seeking shelter in the countries of the European Union. This too is in accordance with the ‘Law of Humandynamics’.

So why did Brexit happen? Are levels of Freedom of Choice increasing or decreasing in post Brexit Britain? The answer to this question lies in the statistics of the voting age. The younger generation sensed instinctively the imminent decrease in their Freedom of Choice, which will be followed by a fall in Freedom of Choice for the entire country in the near future. Even the opportunity to choose one’s own spouse will be decreased, to say nothing of all the other areas of life affected. That sector of the population won, which fears the growth of Freedom of Choice in the country most, and which stands to lose as a class if levels of Freedom of Choice are increased. A certain fluctuation has occurred which is quite permissible within the context of the ‘Law of Humandynamics’.

But Britain is not North Korea, either in size, or in its isolation from the outside world. It will not be possible for the current state of fluctuation to be maintained for long. Very soon, in just a few years time, we will be sure to see ‘Brentrance’.

Similarly, in accordance with the ‘Law Humandynamics’, in the gruelling fight in the Ukraine between class sectors for and against the growth of Freedom of Choice, the former will inevitably win, albeit suffering local and temporary losses.

The same battle is taking place in Turkey and the result of this struggle is no harder to predict.