First some news blips. As if Putin's desperate gambles (supported by fellow autocracies) weren't enough: "Russia is ramping up malign disinformation campaigns against France, French President Emmanuel Macron, and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), aiming to disrupt or discredit this summer’s Olympic Games in Paris."
As for President Biden's semi clamp-down at the U.S. border: he should accompany this with a warning to the leaders of Nicaragua, Guatemala, Venezuela etc.
"You are waging war against your own people, making them refugees and hurling them at us. You assume that crime will then turn us into paranoid fascists. The experiment worked a bit, when Putin did it to Eastern Europe. And it's already worked on some U.S. citizens. So here's the deal. We must clamp down a bit on our deep American nature of welcoming kindness... just a bit and for a while. Only meanwhile, YOU cruel tyrants had better watch it. Waging war on your own people, you are also waging war on us."
(BTW any leftists raging against this ought to go talk to U.S. Latino & Latina citizens, who have wanted this border action for a long time. Then talk to liberals in Poland, Hungary etc. about the success Putin had with this tactic, transforming European politics. If you want good things (continuing the massive progress of the 2021-22 Pelosi bills) then you need power. And that entails prioritizing.)
This and much else can be found in Polemical Judo.
== How to win ==
Alas, four years after I published it, to help in the 2020 election, there's not a single chapter or page of my book about political tactics that is obsolete. Roughly 100 proposed methods that would likely be useful right now, at this critical time...
...and not one of those proposed tactics has been taken up or used. Not by any blue politicians or leaders. Not one of the 'generals' on the blue, Union side in this desperate phase of the recurring, 240 year US Civil War. As appalling as the confederate side's treasonous madness is the blue/union/democracy side's utter ineptitude at polemics... and dullard refusal to consider any fresh ideas.
I'll offer my book again, online. I can promise it'll be entertaining and eye-opening! Take a look at... Polemical Judo: Memes for Our Political Knife-fight.
== One potential disaster … averted? ==
Remember in May when Earth got slammed by a Solar Coronal Mass Ejection… or sun-storm of ions hurled our way, in one of the largest such events recorded? Millions got to see aurorae as far south as Florida or as far north as Brisbane. And yet, there appeared to be none of the predicted fizzling and popping of power systems and fried computers. Oh, we’re not completely out of the woods… and this is no guarantee that a sharply pulsed and localized EMP event, triggered by some desperate Earthly foe, won’t knock us back on our heels. But it does seem – tentatively – that desperate tyrants have to write off one of their ‘mad-gamble-weapons’. Which brings up a longstanding topic of mine…
A fundamental trait of any society is resilience: Never was it more relevant to discuss what we should have done by now... and can still do... to help our nations, civilization and families be more robust against the batterings of fate. Especially in a year when desperate foes might EMP us, or AI hallucinations run wild, or electricity nets fail, or...
In this "interview I recently did on resiliency", come see where I dissect a dozen areas we should be doing more, while prepper lords build refuge redoubts to ride out some coming 'Event.'
== More mundane… and terrifying political crises ==
Ever more, it seems that the United States Supreme Court has been (the majority) suborned into an instrument of enemies of the Republic.
Justice Breyer Says SCOTUS Risks Creating “A Constitution That No One Wants.”
(* Just as Roger Taney's top job was to protect the Fugitive Slave Act. History will rank them together.)
It seems like no week passes without more evidence of rabid partisanship or outright corruption by at least four of the six blatant right wingers on this court.
But time passes. And they know that the 2024 election may affect even them. And as far as the oligarchy is concerned, keeping copntrol over the Supreme Court is even more important than Congress or the Presidency.
I wrote the preceeding paragraphs before the RNC and the choice as running mate - by ol' Two Scoops - of JD Vance, who is now self-immolating almost every day. And certainly we must gird ourselves for when/if Trump tells Kant Dance to ease himself out, on any excuse...
...and/or when/if the oligarchs say the same thing to Donald Trump.
Which is why I am daring to offer wagers (of course I must be given odds) that Donald Trump will no longer be the GOP nominee, by November. Amid his brownshirt/MAGA ravings, some of them (the few with actual knowledge) can recall how the Prussian aristocracy lost control of their Nazi tools, in 1934. They are desperate to set up a Bush-type tool and Nikki Haley is the Bush-in-waiting. But that means she must suck up to MAGA now, in calibrated ways.
This Great White Hope is why the Romney wing has made no move quite yet, risking all our lives, in this scheme to set up Bush III. Though I will mention one more name you haven't heard in a while, because the Crown Prince of Bushism has been biding his time.
Paul Ryan. Look for either of these names to come up, if JD (kant dance) Vance continues to self-immolate.
Of course, never forget that we got Bush II because the fripper-flakes on the left flounced off to Kremlin agent Nader ... and then they flounced to the KGB's Jill Stein and gave us Trump. In both cases, their betrayal of the only coalition that can save civilization, was indefensible. But now?
Well, Kamala appears to have staunched that self-destructive lefty-flake reflex, as Obama did. Still, you freepers be on notice. Do it again and we will remember you. This time, we won’t forget.
== Is body shaming a legit tactic? No… but PARENTAL failures are! ==
Why fall for the trap of body shaming? Late-night comics are always making personal appearance cheap shots. (The fact that Donald Trump turns himself into a glowing pumpkin is what's important, not any of the fat jokes. Didn't make-up-wearing males used to draw ridivule from macho-ists?)
Anyway, there's something far more devastating based on the biblical passage "By their fruits you shall know them." And sure, economic outcomes are always better from Democratic administrations, and they get <1% as many indicted appointees. (I do not exaggerate. Step up with wager stakes!)
But no, I mean something closer to that passage.
Why does no one tabulate the lives of the children of those who lecture to us about family values? From Palin to Boebert to Green to Trump to so many others, GOP officials and lawmakers' 'fruits' appear to average as stunning examples of failed parenting.
Is that why they so frantically attack poor Hunter? Without ever even naming a crime? Sure, a black sheep. Though when your brother was a spectacularly great American like Beau Biden, the average 'fruit' quality was still pretty damn high... Anyway I'd compare HB's entire life to any random month of any of the Trump boys.
And anyway... that part... the Hunter part... is over now.
Never mind that. Let's just see a statistical outcomes comparison of fruits! And wager me what'll be the outcome? Like rates that GOP pols' kids have trouble with the law or out-of-wedlock children. Or the fact that blue state sex education inarguably results in lower rates of STDs, teen pregnancy and abortion... and even rates of teen sex... than the puritanical finger-wag "sex ed" offered in red states!
Red States (except Utah) where rates of nearly every turpitude average higher than the averages in Blue States!
(Bets? First, look up the word 'turpitudes.' And include net tax-parasitism on the rest of the nation. Then recite aloud the Seven Deadly Sins... and TRY not to think of Donald Trump in every case?)
Our delusional neighbors use assertions as fact-canceling incantations. But I find that one phrase - "Let's bet $$!" - often rocks them back. They blink, suddenly remembering that facts and assertions are very different things. And - despite their macho - they run.
== Again, it’s TACTICS, stupid ==
Referring to testimony by former Trump confidant and lawyer Michael Cohen, Jim Wright on his Stonekettle posting says: "You know, I've had bad days. But it was never sitting in court listening as they read your name into the historical record forever as "Vonshitzinpants" bad."
Go ahead and giggle. But while giggling, alas, no one seems capable of using such things tactically!
The best thing The Lincoln Project could do is not just list all the former Trumpists who now denounce him. Sure, it numbers over a hundred. But next tabulate them… and finally punch it with:
"Trump has been 'betrayed' by more appointees who he formerly called "great guys!!" than all other U.S. presidents... combined. You can make up stories about that all you like, but one fact is indisputable.
"Donald Trump is a crappy judge of character."
That’s the sort of jiu-jitsu tactic that I offer in Polemical Judo.
Moreover, if you can get anyone on any Democratic campaign - even the assistant staffer on a race for city council - to ask me, I'll send a PDF for free. But I'll not put in the same kind of effort as I did in 2019 and 2020. The book is utterly pertinent as ever. I do have more to add...
...but why should I bother?
== Finally... ==
Finally, might this be your most-influential political act?
Right now Democratic Party mavens are measuring how many new, individual donors each of the VP front runners are bringing in. Thus you can influence Kamala Harris's choice, simply by being a $5 New Donor for any of the top candidates.
Just sayin'
254 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 254 of 254Nice, Dave. So now in addition to poo and my mother, you've brought rape into the picture. All for daring to suggest the shocking, shocking! possibility that the proven liars who lied us into all manner of atrocity could've possibly done so yet another time. You're really showing the world that you are a class act whose reputation for fearless following the truth wherever it may lead with utmost intellectual honesty is very well-earned.
Nothing I have asserted here is contrary to verifiable fact. It really strains my credulity that the hypothesis that I'm some sort of paid operative is still seriously being considered, but I guess I'm a hopeless optimist in human reasonability.
Alright, so what's next on the agenda? Does anybody want to call me a kiddie fiddler?
"...only thing I could think of involves ensuring they all get laid. Often. Very often...."
"Sir, our tests show you have exceeded 2.5 on the Levenson Self-Report. Congratulations! Your very own Marilyn Monrobot will be shipped to you as soon as you provide the specifications...."
Pappenheimer
Oh, I see our fearless leader has been deleting my comments as well. Rather anodyne and lighthearted ones, at that. Sad. Alright, if that's how this is gonna go then I'll stop wasting my time on you deadenders. Just try to put up a bit more of a stink as we are hornswoggled into marching unblinkingly into WWIII, eh?
Him: Ukraine never wanted this war.
Me: I heard Zelenskyy refuse the offer of asylum and instead ask for the means to fight back.
Him: See? That shows I was right. It's all America's fault.
Me: ? That reminds me of something...
* * *
From the 1986 "Dark Knight" revival of the Batman mythos:
"Yes, Merv. I am convinced of Harvey's innocence. However, I won't go so far as to say I'm sure he didn't commit the crime.
"I know that sounds confusing. These things often do to the layman. But I'll try to explain without getting overly technical. You see, it all gets down to this Batman fellow.
"Batman's psychotic/sublimative/psych-erotic behavior pattern is like a net. Weak-egoed neurotics like Harvey are drawn into corresponding, intersticing patterns.
"You might say Batman commits the crimes using his so-called villains as narcissistic proxies."
Heh. Don't anyone tell him about the new comments page after 200.
Him: Ukraine never wanted this war.
Me: I heard Zelenskyy refuse the offer of asylum and instead ask for the means to fight back.
Him: See? That shows I was right. It's all America's fault.
Me: ? That reminds me of something...
* * *
From the 1986 "Dark Knight" revival of the Batman mythos:
"Yes, Merv. I am convinced of Harvey's innocence. However, I won't go so far as to say I'm sure he didn't commit the crime.
"I know that sounds confusing. These things often do to the layman. But I'll try to explain without getting overly technical. You see, it all gets down to this Batman fellow.
"Batman's psychotic/sublimative/psych-erotic behavior pattern is like a net. Weak-egoed neurotics like Harvey are drawn into corresponding, intersticing patterns.
"You might say Batman commits the crimes using his so-called villains as narcissistic proxies."
Him: Ukraine never wanted this war.
Me: I heard Zelenskyy refuse the offer of asylum and instead ask for the means to fight back.
Him: See? That shows I was right. It's all America's fault.
Me: ? That reminds me of something...
From the 1986 "Dark Knight" revival of the Batman mythos:
"Yes, Merv. I am convinced of Harvey's innocence. However, I won't go so far as to say I'm sure he didn't commit the crime.
"I know that sounds confusing. These things often do to the layman. But I'll try to explain without getting overly technical. You see, it all gets down to this Batman fellow.
"Batman's psychotic/sublimative/psych-erotic behavior pattern is like a net. Weak-egoed neurotics like Harvey are drawn into corresponding, intersticing patterns.
"You might say Batman commits the crimes using his so-called villains as narcissistic proxies."
And for some reason, Blogger won't let me post the "Dark Knight" excerpt it reminds me of.
Oh, well. The punchline was: "You might say Batman commits the crimes using his so-called villains as narcissistic proxies."
I suspect some of his posts that he blames our host for deleting are also vanishing into the Blogger ether.
Ah, thank you Larry for alerting me to page 2. If dear leader tells us he didn't delete my comment praising Alan's funny KGB pun then I'll believe him, but it's my going assumption for now.
You’re almost certainly not competent enough to be a paid operative.
Curses! Foiled again.
If he deleted your comment, it would say "This comment has been removed by the blog administrator." However, if blogger just disappears it for its own particular reason, then it vanishes without a trace.
Vance is weird. Trump is weird. Conservatives are weird. Masculine men are weird. Whites are weird. Heterosexuals are weird. And Christians are weird.
Weird (adj)
1. An alternative belief system, suggestive of or relating to the supernatural;
2. Odd, eerie, strange, bizarre, queer, deviant, aberrant and abnormal;
3. Archaic, associated with & related to the idea of fate or destiny.
Weird is the word of the day.
This term works (first) as a defamatory slur to indicate deviancy, aberrancy, minority & out-group status, (second) as an Orwellian subterfuge which attempts to redefine the statistically accurate NORM of a western white, christian, masculine & heterosexual majority as its opposite and (fourthly) as a most telling form of self-ownership (aka 'psychological projection') by an increasingly fractious, queer, deviant & bizarre coalition of progressive minority interests.
For we the *Whites* *Masculine* *Heterosexuals* *Christians*, WE REMAIN THE CLEAR MAJORITY IN THE WEST, at least for now, in spite and perhaps because of all of your Orwellian lies & disparagements.
We are the WEIRD by definition (as in 'Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich & Democratic') and we stand for everything that your increasingly queer, deviant, bizarre & unnatural coalition does not.
We THE MAJORITY will now stand against you, in accordance with the lesson of the Fasces, and we will win because it is our 'fate' (or, our 'weird', if you'd rather), and we have you progressives to thank because you've unified us by playing your hand of 'divide & conquer' way too soon.
Best
______
Grab some popcorn, folks, and watch the progressive coalition tear itself to pieces over the next few months. In both the EU & US -- Soon, Soon, Out go the lights -- as presaged by the recent outage in Paris.
"You’re almost certainly not competent enough to be a paid operative."
Haha. Thanks Alan. But idk, from the way you guys talk about them Rooskies, they sound like a bunch of bumbling incompetents. I would've thought our hapless leaders' failed predictions of counteroffensives and roubles in rubble would've disabused you of such things, but hey, what do I know? Victory is just around the corner, surely! Pay no attention to the fact that Russia is outproducing all of NATO combined and is turning its laughably overpriced Wunderwaffen into scrap with trivial ease. But hey, it's all just more dead Slavs and bloated profit for our noble piggies at the trough, so it's all good.
Thank you for the clarification re deleted comments, Larry. I've managed to find the deleted comment in my email. I guess it really did go into the ether due to digital gremlins. My apologies to Dave for the assumption of intentionality. Here is the comment:
"but then you need not be taken seriously" - Look, I don't want to be rude here, but the issue here is not whether you have verifiable proof of my real-world identity, but the number your propaganda bubble has done on your perceptions. You were more willing to take seriously the idea that I'm an LLM (lol!) than the idea that the people who lied you into Iraq and all the rest, lied you into yet another one. This is ridiculous, to put it mildly.
"Yet not a Cagey Bee" - Heh. Nicely done, sir. Fine, I'll come out and say it. I'm actually a dog. Haven't you heard that on the internet, nobody can tell if you are one?
Locumranch,
While I consider myself a progressive and do not relate to your reactionary vibe, I can see where you're coming from and cannot disagree with what you point out, how the so-called progressive agenda has been cynically weaponized and subverted to serve not-so-progressive ends. And you're right, storm's a'comin'. You point to the rottenness of the framing device that has cognitively captured libs like our gracious host, who only seem able to react to the narrowly-defined bogeyman Other Side, not realizing that the sum total of this two-step is a ratcheting ever-rightward. We have to see this thing for what it is and stop dignifying its phony, lobotomized logic.
Also, very nicely done "weird" pun there :)
Jeepers, thanks a lot, Larry! ;-)
Never mind. If it becme more than a mosquito irritant I will ban. But if I could learn to skim-ignore locum I guess we can all do the same with this poo-head. In fact, it has long amazed me how little of this shit we've gotten, in this era. There are theories as to why. Meanwhile...
...bzzzzzzzt... = zzzzzzzz
Ever the class act, Dave. Maybe I'll start going with Davie, to reflect your, shall we say, neotenous fascination with the fecal.
Don't worry, you can learn this daunting new skill, I believe in you!
Shades of Papa Lazarou?
@David: I knew about how the Korean UN resolution was passed thanks to Sov/Rus "boycott", but I didn't know about the Congo one. Thanks!
EVERY satrapy that’s been dominated by Moscow slips away and then hurries toward protective alliances, as soon as they can. And that's no one's fault but Russia's. They're terrible neighbors and worse overlords. But as long as the Kremlin mindset persists, Moscow won't notice, because they can't. Not "they don't wish to" -- can't. To comprehend that their neighbors despise them for cause, they'd have to comprehend that neighboring populations actually have agency and independent thought. But in the Kremlin mindset, ordinary people never, ever have agency; only power centers -- rulers, nobles, wealthy people, organizations, conspiracies -- can formulate actions.
Putinist incantations never speak of popular opinion, polls, votes, plebiscites, citizen rights, self-determination, or social movements because the Kremlin mindset is utterly certain that every-- EVERY-- report and result claiming "group X says/wants/believes/intends Y" is a Potemkin dumbshow. Actual distributed observation and decision-making isn't just against their worldview; they sincerely believe it cannot exist. Any efforts to show them reality are disregarded as enemy acts of propaganda before the first bit of data arrives. Any Russians who actually stop and pay attention are therefore fools who have been captured by the sinister anti-Russian forces who produce such propaganda.
(Is this sounding familiar to anyone?)
And Putin thus fears the encroaching NATO -- not because it will invade; as you say, he knows we'll never pre-emptively strike -- but because, as a Kremlin-mind, he can only see an empire expanding its sphere-of-influence at Russia's expense. And Ukraine standing up for itself pains him most of all because it explodes the notions of Pan-Slavism, Kievan-Russian fraternity, and Eurasianism that have been vital memetic tools for Moscow -- in some cases, since the Czars.
He cannot see an alliance of free peoples-- only an American Empire. It must be an empire, for in the Kremlin mindset, the only alternative is anarchy. It is stable, so it must be an empire. Thus it must ultimately be under Washington's influence and/or control, and anything seemingly to the contrary must be false. Thus if an action is taken that is against Moscow's will and that aligns resources with NATO, it must be due to the actions of someone in Washington. Therefore, in order to secure control over Ukraine, Putin believes he must disrupt the "source" of Ukrainian resistance: the US government.
At every step, Ukraine has been the highest priority in Moscow's meddling. Manafort was a point person for their "influenced" people in Kiev, then became Trump's campaign manager. Before anyone was really thinking about it, his top platform change for the GOP in 2016 was getting rid of support for Ukraine. It was an attempt to blackmail the Ukraine government that got Trump impeached the first time. And all the meddling through the last year -- even holding up aid to Israel! -- just to keep materiel from moving to the Ukrainian front.
Catfish 'n Cod,
Or could it be that Putin has a legitimate security concern in not wanting to be within striking range of missiles from an empire on a permanent war footing that sees no problem in throwing puppet state Slavs into the meat grinder it cries crocodile tears for from a safe distance? An empire that has shown itself to be "agreement incapable" in his apt words, as born out by its repeated failure to adhere to its own stated red lines because its permanent war footing has no off switch? America expects others to accept things it never would.
Insightful, Catfish. (Sorry I called you Craig.) I do disagree with "At every step, Ukraine has been the highest priority in Moscow's meddling." Well, it's viewed as an appetizer for correcting what Putin called 'history's worst tragedy -- the end of the Soviet Warsaw Pact empire. And Of Vlad's intent to push beyond to the Atlantic Ocean.
And beyond.
@Tony Fisk,
Or the Monty Python bit with "Let's have a ding dong"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GH7pfVvCII
Putin calling USSR's fall the greatest tragedy does not imply he wants to do something so foolish as expand across the Atlantic. Such imperial overstretch is America's style, and its undoing. He says what he means and vice versa, which is desiring territorial security for Russia. Sometimes that involves swatting neighbours that have suffered America's brand of "spreading democracy" and attendant belligerence.
Lol at the tankie troll "peacemaker" saying that sometimes Putin is allowed to swat at his neighbors iof they want self-determination.
This idiot cannot even keep his RT-inspired bullshit lines straight for 3 days.
I still maintain that this is yet another sock puppet from an old acquaintance. The idiocy is too on the nose and familiar.
Trump is just a school yard bully operating in the adult world.
And every school yard bully has a toady who eggs him on (like Butch and Worm in the Little Rascals, or those two kids that Ralphie beats up in a Christmas Story)
Trumps followers are "Worm" to his "Butch".
They egg him on because they like hurting people they hate (gays, trans, migrants, blacks, the educated, uppity women, etc.)
And trump's toxic narcissism feeds off that in a never ending feedback loop.
But when a school yard bully gets punched in the nose he always goes crying home to mama.
Which is what trump has been doing with his Truth Social posts the past few weeks as Harris kicks his arse.
Now I am still not happy with Joe being off the ticket.
But the chance to see Trump get the crap beat out of him by a black woman kinda makes it all worthwhile.
Heard on the Stephanie Miller radio show:
J.D. Vance is Vladimir Futon.
"I did not have sectional relations with that couch."
I love this little excerpt from Arthur Clarke's Imperial Earth:
For the last century, almost all top appointments on Terra had been made by random computer selection from the pool of individuals who had the necessary qualifications. It had taken the human race several thousand years to realize that there were some jobs that should never be given to the people who volunteered for them, especially if they showed too much enthusiasm. As one shrewd political commentator had remarked, "We want a president who has to be carried screaming and kicking into the White House--but then will do the best job he possibly can, so that he'll get time off for good behavior."
And on that note onward
I appreciate the effort you’ve put into dissecting Western hypocrisy, but let’s not confuse skepticism with rewriting history to fit a pre-determined worldview. Your argument repeatedly brushes over key historical contexts and real-world complexities, opting for a narrative that casts Russia as a perpetual victim while positioning the West as the sole aggressor. This kind of reductionism ignores the real agency of nations like Ukraine and simplifies a complex geopolitical landscape into an oversimplified “good guy vs bad guy” scenario. History isn’t that neat.
Yes, Ukraine has faced significant challenges, but what you conveniently leave out is that Ukraine is in a war for survival. Sure, wartime restrictions like party bans and land ownership laws are harsh, but you’re mistaking wartime necessities for a permanent state of affairs. As Der Oger pointed out, this isn’t about Western intervention imposing chaos—it’s about Ukraine fighting for its very existence. Without that fight, they would return to the vassal status Putin clearly desires.
Surreal? Perhaps, but let’s deal in facts here. Your cynicism toward Western sanctions is misplaced. Sanctions were never designed to topple Russia overnight—they’re a long-term strategy to weaken the economic foundations that sustain Russian aggression. David Brin pointed out, and rightly so, that sanctions aren’t magical, but they are having an impact. Russian GDP is shrinking, its military is running out of equipment, and, contrary to your claim, the ruble has lost considerable value. You may mock the idea of sanctions, but pretending they’ve had no effect is simply ignoring the evidence.
Ukraine voted the "wrong way"? No, they voted against corruption and a Russian-backed president who wanted to drag them back into Moscow's orbit. You dismiss the 2014 Revolution as Western manipulation, but that’s ignoring the agency of the Ukrainian people themselves. They wanted closer ties to Europe, not because NATO twisted their arms, but because they wanted independence from Russian influence. As another comment aptly put it, "Democracy doesn’t mean living in perpetual servitude to Moscow."
You keep hammering the idea that the 2014 Revolution in Ukraine was a U.S.-orchestrated "coup," but let’s get real for a moment. Where is the actual evidence for this claim? What happened in Ukraine wasn't a covert Western plot; it was a legitimate uprising by a population fed up with a corrupt, Russian-backed president who turned his back on an EU deal that most Ukrainians wanted. The protests that followed were a clear rejection of Yanukovych’s decision to align with Moscow instead of Brussels. These were people in the streets, freezing in the dead of winter, not because they were being puppeteered, but because they wanted a future aligned with Europe, free from Russian influence.
Why do you constantly downplay the agency of the Ukrainian people? You talk as if Ukraine is merely a pawn on a Western chessboard, but Ukrainians didn’t need Washington to tell them they didn’t want to live in a kleptocratic, Moscow-dominated state. That kind of reductionism ignores their very real struggle for self-determination. As Catfish 'n Cod noted, the protests were driven by a desire for self-determination and a rejection of Putin's puppet regime, not some manufactured scheme by the West.
You continuously erase the role of the Ukrainian people in this narrative to make it fit your “West bad, Russia victim” storyline, but the reality is much more complex. Ukrainians were fed up with a president who represented Moscow’s interests over their own. Is it really that hard to grasp that a sovereign nation might want to chart its own course without being Russia’s vassal?
You’re eager to call out NATO, but let’s get real about the Budapest Memorandum. In 1994, Ukraine gave up one of the world’s largest nuclear arsenals in exchange for security guarantees—chiefly from Russia. What happened next? Russia steamrolled those promises, annexing Crimea and lighting the fuse in Donbas. Yet, here you are, pointing fingers at NATO while conveniently ignoring Russia's blatant betrayal of international law. So, where’s that righteous indignation for Russia’s backstabbing?
You keep hammering on NATO’s supposed provocations, but let’s ask the obvious: was Ukraine supposed to just sit there and take it, watching Russia tear up agreements left and right? Was the logical next step for Ukraine to just shrug, allow Moscow to gut its sovereignty, and hope for the best? Come on. The only reason Ukraine is in this mess is because Russia trashed the very treaty that was supposed to protect them.
And let’s not pretend this violation is just a footnote. The Budapest Memorandum wasn’t some fluffy, vague agreement. It was an explicit promise of security—one that Ukraine upheld by giving up its strongest defense, its nuclear weapons. But you’ve completely sidestepped that part of the story. Russia didn’t just violate a deal—it shattered any trust that international agreements like this could hold water. So, if Moscow can bulldoze through these commitments, what’s to stop them from doing it again? Do international promises mean nothing to you if it’s Russia breaking them?
You seem to gloss over the broader impact here. Russia’s actions set a dangerous precedent. If they can casually toss aside a treaty, why wouldn’t other nations follow suit? What kind of global order do you think that leads to? It’s no surprise Ukraine ran to NATO—what else were they supposed to do after Russia tore up every promise on the table?
You laugh at the idea that NATO’s involvement is anything but predatory, but let’s deal with some historical reality. These nations didn't join NATO because they were beguiled by U.S. promises of gold and glory; they joined because they had first-hand experience with Russian boots crushing their sovereignty. NATO wasn’t the bully—Moscow was. The fear of seeing Russian tanks rolling through their streets again is what sent these nations scrambling for NATO’s protection.
Poland, the Baltics, Finland—all these countries weren’t fooled into NATO's embrace by some clever PR. They joined because history had already taught them what Moscow’s “protection” looks like. Prague 1968? Hungary 1956? Or let’s go back to Stalin’s iron fist clenching over Eastern Europe post-WWII. You can scoff, but these were real events that shaped decades of fear and mistrust. So, when the opportunity to join NATO came knocking after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they didn't hesitate because they remembered very clearly what Moscow had done.
Now you want to paint NATO as the aggressor? Did NATO annex Crimea? Did NATO violate international law by invading Georgia in 2008? It was Russia, not NATO, that has been on the offensive for years, tearing up treaties like the Budapest Memorandum. You keep dodging this part of the discussion—Russia promised Ukraine security when they gave up their nukes in 1994, and then steamrolled that promise when it suited them. Yet, somehow, you conveniently sidestep that violation and keep pointing fingers at NATO.
You call it "preposterous" that anyone would see NATO as a defensive alliance, but where’s the actual invasion of Russia by NATO? Spoiler: it doesn’t exist. The only times NATO has acted militarily were in defense of its members or in response to acts of aggression like after 9/11. But hey, let’s ignore that because it doesn’t fit your narrative.
And let’s be clear about sanctions. You can mock the West for believing sanctions would bring Russia to its knees overnight, but that’s never been the goal. Sanctions are a long-term strategy to weaken the economic backbone of Russian aggression. You act as if sanctions are some magic button that should have fixed everything instantly—sorry, that’s not how real-world geopolitics work. The ruble is in freefall, Russian GDP is shrinking, and their military is being forced to use outdated equipment. The strategy is working whether you like it or not.
And this “peacenik” stance you claim to hold? Come on. If you were really about peace, you’d be calling for accountability, not excusing Russia’s imperialist antics as just “self-defense” against NATO. You’re not promoting peace—you’re advocating for appeasement. And history has shown us time and again that appeasement of aggressive, authoritarian regimes only emboldens them to take more.
So, what’s your solution? Should Ukraine have just rolled over, given Moscow everything it wanted, and hoped for mercy? If that's your version of peace, it’s not peace—it’s submission. What you're advocating for isn’t some noble cause for de-escalation; it’s a roadmap for Russian dominance over Eastern Europe, unchecked by international norms or agreements.
If you want to talk about reality, then let’s talk about what actually happened. NATO didn’t start this war—Russia did. And until you're ready to admit that, your whole argument is little more than Kremlin-friendly noise.
The irony is palpable here. You rail against Western “propaganda” while completely glossing over the textbook definition of Orwellian doublespeak coming out of Russia. Orwell wasn’t just some guy wagging his finger at the West—his greatest fear was regimes that suffocate truth, manipulate reality, and rewrite history in real-time. You draw parallels to Iraq? Fine, but let’s talk about Russia’s so-called “special military operation” in Ukraine. That’s not just propaganda, it’s full-blown Newspeak—an outright invasion rebranded as a “protective measure.” And somehow, you’re cool with that?
You throw Iraq on the table like it’s some get-out-of-jail-free card, but to conflate the Iraq debacle with what’s happening in Putin’s Russia is either lazy or disingenuous. Yes, Iraq was a clusterfuck, but is that your excuse to ignore the way Putin’s Russia is operating now? A state that disappears its own journalists, poisons opposition figures like Navalny, and sells the imperialist invasion of Ukraine as some benevolent crusade for ethnic Russians? That’s not Orwellian enough for you?
Your crack about being mistaken for an LLM? Hilarious, but let’s get real for a second: the true manipulation is unfolding in Russia. Putin’s regime is a masterclass in Orwellian control—far beyond any so-called “Western bubble” you keep railing against. This isn’t just a historical footnote we’re debating here—it’s an authoritarian regime actively rewriting reality to hold onto power. You ramble about Iraq, but you seem completely blind to the real Orwellian dystopia happening right now in Russia.
So let’s cut the bullshit. You can deflect all you want with Iraq, but are you seriously going to sit there and pretend that what’s happening in Russia doesn’t scream Orwellian from top to bottom? Or is that just another inconvenient truth for you to sidestep?
What do people here think of Phillip Hallam-Baker's hypothesis that the Kremlin hacked into the Fox News email server back in 2014?
They used this hack to manipulate Roger Ailes into stopping the hush-money payments to the women he was accused of harassing: the resulting sex scandal removed Ailes and O'Reilly and allowed Putin stooges Hannity and Carlson to become the channel's leading anchors.
They also used it to help Trump win the 2016 GOP primary by providing him with inside information about his rivals' campaigns.
@George Carty,
That’s an intriguing theory, George, and certainly aligns with Russia's broader approach to undermining U.S. institutions. The removal of Ailes and O'Reilly could have shifted Fox’s tone significantly, creating a vacuum for pro-Putin figures like Hannity and Carlson to rise to the forefront. Russian cyber interference is well-documented, especially after 2014, and using information from a Fox News hack to manipulate internal dynamics would be strategic genius.
However, beyond the circumstantial timing, it’s important to ask whether any concrete evidence exists linking these alleged hacks directly to Kremlin manipulation. If the Kremlin did hack into Fox's systems, it would represent a sophisticated method of using media influence to impact U.S. public opinion and politics. Hacking the GOP rivals during the 2016 primary to aid Trump would also line up with Russia’s broader goals of destabilizing U.S. democracy.
I'd be curious to see what further corroboration or sources are available for these claims, as it's a theory that demands scrutiny, but it does underscore the lengths foreign adversaries may go to in reshaping media landscapes and electoral outcomes. What do you think?
@Shagggz, I’ve joined the discussion a little late but I’ve already taken on a few of your points, especially around NATO and your Orwellian angle. You’re putting effort into pushing back on the standard narrative, but your argument feels like a rehash of the ‘West bad, Russia as victim’ trope. Can we move past that and engage with the specifics I’ve raised? I’d genuinely like to hear your rebuttal to what’s been put forward.
@Shagggz, @George Carty, @Der Oger, and anyone else who’s following this thread, I’d love to hear your thoughts on the points I’ve raised as well. Let’s expand this discussion and really dig into the nuances that haven’t been fully addressed.
@PixelNomad,
I'm genuinely impressed by your commitment to good faith dialogue, but it's been made clear to me after much wasted effort that the community here is toxic despite you and a small handful of exceptions proving the rule. The nested format doesn't help either. Rather than repeat points I've made or respond to some genuine blind spots you've identified, I'll make a couple umbrella points and refer you to sources.
The USSR (though responding to genuinely existential threats) is not Russia, as evidenced by Russia's naive attempt in the '90s to follow Western "leadership" and all the fallout therefrom. I don't deny the aspect of Maidan that was genuinely bottom-up, but rather focus on the Western intelligence black ops that tipped it over from that into a subversion of popular will (and subsequent Western interventions and statements amounting to "let's you and him fight"). It's America that refuses to talk to Russia, not the other way around. We almost got nuked last weekend.
For written sources I'd point you to Naked Capitalism and Wikispooks. For audio, Scott Ritter and Aaron Good. Good luck.
@Shagggz,
Thanks for engaging, and I appreciate your commitment to this discussion—genuinely. I respect that you're clearly well-read and have spent time questioning the prevailing narratives, but let’s push this further. There’s a lot to unpack here, so I’ll go through the points you raised one by one.
@Shagggz,
I do think this deserves a more in-depth discussion—especially given the seriousness of the issues at hand.
Russia and the 1990s "Naivety",
I get what you're saying about Russia’s "naive" attempt to follow Western leadership in the 1990s, and I won’t argue that the economic fallout of that era wasn't devastating for ordinary Russians. But let’s be real: the failures of that time were as much about Russia’s own internal mismanagement as they were about Western shock therapy. The rise of oligarchs, hyperinflation, and the complete collapse of social services under Yeltsin wasn’t something purely orchestrated by the West—it was also the result of corruption, cronyism, and internal power struggles. Joseph Stiglitz himself has pointed out the critical mistakes made by the IMF during that period, but Yeltsin’s government also shares the blame for the massive privatization that created an oligarchic class. Russia wasn’t just a passive victim in this; it was actively complicit in its own downfall.
@Shagggz,
Russia and the USSR
You’re right in distinguishing between the USSR and modern Russia. The Soviet Union was responding to a different set of geopolitical challenges than Russia faces today. However, the idea that post-Soviet Russia has acted as a naive player, victimized by the West in the 1990s, oversimplifies what was going on internally. Sure, the West pushed neoliberal policies on Russia that were disastrous in many ways—shock therapy in particular, as advocated by the IMF and other Western institutions, is a classic example of economic malpractice that caused severe suffering.
But what about Russia's internal failures during that time? The rise of the oligarchs wasn’t just a consequence of Western advice; it was also a result of Russia’s own decisions. If anything, the economic chaos of the 1990s was a shared failure—both the West and Russian leadership bear responsibility. The brutal oligarchic capitalism that arose in Russia wasn't some inevitable consequence of following Western leadership; it was the outcome of failed domestic and international policy choices.
And if we’re going to talk about imperialism and subversion of democracy, Putin's own rise to power came at the expense of Russian democracy. Since then, we've seen Russia embark on aggressive, imperialist foreign policy, much like the USSR before it.
@Shagggz,
Maidan: Genuine Revolution or Co-opted Uprising?
You admit Maidan had bottom-up elements but insist Western intelligence “tipped it over.” Let’s be clear—there’s a difference between saying Western interests existed (they clearly did) and saying the entire movement was an intelligence operation. Where’s the evidence that Western intelligence turned Maidan from a popular uprising into a coup? The narrative that you’re pushing makes it sound like Ukrainians had no agency in rejecting a corrupt, Russian-backed president who had already lost popular support by aligning himself with Moscow rather than Brussels.
Let’s also not forget that Yanukovych fled the country not because the CIA whispered in his ear, but because he brutally cracked down on his own people, igniting further unrest. Your framing ignores the fact that Ukraine has been yearning for self-determination for decades—whether it’s during Soviet times or now under Russian pressure. And while intelligence agencies may always be at play in global politics, it’s a stretch to say the revolution was “tipped over” solely because of Western involvement.
Do Ukrainians not have agency in determining their future?
@Shagggz,
NATO and Russia’s Refusal to Talk
You argue it’s America that refuses to talk to Russia, but can we be real for a second? Russia has repeatedly broken agreements, starting with the Budapest Memorandum in 1994. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for promises of territorial integrity from Russia, the U.S., and the UK. Where was Russia’s diplomacy when it annexed Crimea in 2014, violating not only the Memorandum but also international law? And let’s not forget Donbas—armed separatists backed by Russia weren’t some organic uprising, but rather a blatant act of aggression. So, who’s really been avoiding dialogue?
Also, you talk as if NATO has been the aggressor. But NATO is a defensive alliance—the only time Article 5 was invoked was after 9/11. NATO hasn’t invaded Russia, nor has it encroached upon Russian borders with offensive intent. It’s Russia that has been on the offensive: Georgia in 2008, Ukraine in 2014, and let’s not forget its continued threats to the Baltics. You argue that NATO’s eastward expansion provoked Russia, but countries like Finland and Sweden are now joining NATO voluntarily, precisely because they see what happens to nations left unprotected from Russian aggression.
And what about Russia’s constant invocation of nuclear threats? You mention nearly getting nuked last weekend, but it’s Russia’s rhetoric around nuclear weapons that has kept the world on edge.
@ Shagggz,
Engaging with Your Sources
Let’s dive into the sources you shared—Naked Capitalism and Wikispooks. I’m familiar with both, but here’s my concern: while they offer an alternative narrative, they tend to cherry-pick facts to fit a certain worldview. Naked Capitalism, for example, has some valid critiques of Western imperialism, but it often ignores the broader context of Russian actions in places like Ukraine. Scott Ritter is a well-known voice on U.S. military affairs, and while I respect his insights, he also has a history of minimizing Russian aggression in favor of a more anti-NATO narrative. I’m all for challenging mainstream views, but shouldn’t we look at all the facts, not just those that support a particular angle?
Aaron Good brings in important critiques about U.S. foreign policy, and I’d agree with some of his points. However, to frame this conflict as purely a product of Western intervention is to ignore Russia’s own imperialistic tendencies. While it’s easy to criticize Western mistakes—of which there are plenty—it’s crucial not to let that cloud our ability to see Russia’s role in destabilizing the region.
@shagggz,
So my friend, what’s the actual endgame here? Do you believe that Ukraine should have passively accepted Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its meddling in Donbas? Let’s not forget: Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, pledging to respect Ukraine’s borders in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal. Ukraine upheld its side of the deal; Russia did not. So what’s your solution—should Ukraine have simply rolled over while Russia violated international agreements?
Appeasement historically doesn’t work, and Chamberlain’s failed strategy before WWII is a textbook example. Appeasing authoritarian regimes has one common result: it emboldens them. Putin’s Russia, just like other regimes, understands concessions as signs of weakness. Had Ukraine surrendered its autonomy to Russia’s demands in 2014, what would have stopped Russia from pushing further into Eastern Europe?
The alternative you're suggesting seems like a “peace at all costs” mentality, but let’s not pretend that’s the moral high ground. A forced peace, where smaller nations are left to fend for themselves against a more powerful aggressor, isn’t real peace—it’s submission. History has shown time and time again that allowing authoritarianism to fester doesn’t lead to stability, it leads to more aggression and instability.
So, smiley, I’m genuinely curious—what do you propose as the actual way forward? Do you see appeasement as the solution, or is there room to acknowledge that defending Ukraine’s sovereignty is necessary to maintain any semblance of international law and stability? Does any of this change your perspective?
Der Oger, your observation about the pressure on the Attorney General highlights the thin line between political interference and legal integrity. Historically, political pressure on the judiciary is a recurring theme when governments feel cornered. One can compare this situation to the Saturday Night Massacre during Nixon’s Watergate scandal, but it also echoes FDR’s 1937 court-packing plan, where Roosevelt tried to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court after facing resistance to his New Deal legislation. Both examples illustrate how political leaders attempt to influence or overpower judicial authority during crises.
However, it’s worth exploring why these interferences tend to backfire. In Nixon’s case, the backlash against political interference intensified public calls for accountability, ultimately leading to his resignation. Similarly, in FDR’s instance, while he didn’t violate any laws, the public and Congress recognized the danger of politicizing the court and rejected the plan. Both cases demonstrate that interfering with the judiciary—whether through dismissals or policy manipulations—undermines public trust in governance.
Your example might signal a worrying trend if political meddling is indeed becoming normalized. The larger question becomes: How does this play out for the long-term health of democratic institutions? When the judiciary loses its independence, the effects ripple outward, often leading to more authoritarian control, as seen in Hungary’s erosion of judicial checks under Viktor Orbán.
Thoughts? This post has me keep coming back for more...
DP, your analogy is apt in many ways, especially when considering the psychological traits of authoritarian leadership and follower behavior. However, we can deepen this comparison by introducing more concrete data about Trump’s base and the dynamics that underpin their unwavering support.
The phenomenon you're describing is well documented in political psychology under the framework of authoritarian followership. Research by scholars such as Karen Stenner and Bob Altemeyer shows that authoritarian followers are drawn to leaders who promise order, decisiveness, and strength. They are also more likely to overlook or even support aggressive behaviors in their leaders because they view them as necessary to protect societal order. Studies during the Trump presidency, such as those published by The Journal of Social and Political Psychology, found that these authoritarian traits were particularly prominent among Trump’s base.
The "toady" behavior you describe can also be linked to in-group loyalty, which in the context of Trumpism, means that his supporters view any attack on him as an attack on themselves and their way of life. This tribal loyalty goes a long way in explaining why even blatant scandals, such as the handling of the Charlottesville protests or January 6th insurrection, failed to alienate large swaths of his base. It also mirrors the type of “strongman” behavior seen in history with figures like Mussolini, where authoritarianism and charisma led to deep, emotionally charged loyalty, no matter the leader's missteps.
To add to the metaphor, we can also see how the role of the "Worm" is amplified in today's media landscape. Fox News and right-wing outlets often act as the "Worms," encouraging the more toxic elements of Trump’s rhetoric, further feeding his ego and fanning the flames of division. Social media platforms, designed for engagement and sensationalism, also serve as echo chambers where followers are insulated from opposing viewpoints, creating a feedback loop that amplifies bullying behavior.
Gerald Posner's Case Closed provides one of the most thorough defenses of the lone gunman theory, using forensic evidence to challenge many of the popular conspiracy theories surrounding the JFK assassination. His work particularly focuses on deconstructing the "magic bullet" theory and the notion that agencies like the CIA or the Mafia were involved in the assassination. Posner’s reliance on ballistic data and eyewitness testimony makes his case strong for Oswald acting alone.
While Posner’s arguments are compelling, other authors present alternative perspectives, especially when it comes to broader geopolitical dynamics. For example, David Talbot’s The Devil’s Chessboard explores the role of the CIA during the Cold War, proposing that the agency’s covert operations and anti-communist stance might have influenced or even facilitated an environment conducive to Kennedy's assassination. Talbot's perspective doesn't contradict Posner's forensic evidence directly but adds layers of complexity regarding intelligence community dynamics during the era.
Similarly, James W. Douglass’s JFK and the Unspeakable argues that Kennedy’s attempts to de-escalate Cold War tensions—such as working toward nuclear disarmament and seeking less confrontational policies with Cuba—might have made him a target of powerful interests opposed to his peace-driven initiatives. Douglass’s analysis is not focused on refuting forensic data but on examining political motives that could have spurred various entities to seek JFK’s removal.
Vincent Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History supports Posner’s conclusions and offers another forensic deep dive. Bugliosi, however, also addresses why conspiracy theories persist, highlighting the psychological need to assign large, complex explanations to such a pivotal event. He suggests that many find it difficult to accept that a single individual could drastically alter history.
In addition, some sociological perspectives, like those from Peter Knight, explain that the persistence of JFK conspiracy theories is driven by the public’s discomfort with simple explanations for world-altering events. Knight’s research suggests that the scale of JFK’s assassination leads people to expect equally large-scale, complex causes.
In summary, Posner's Case Closed provides clarity on the forensic aspects of the case, but other authors like Talbot and Douglass provide valuable context regarding the political and intelligence communities of the time. While their works do not directly challenge the forensic conclusions, they encourage a broader understanding of the potential motivations and influences behind the assassination.
Does anyone want to talk to me about this?
PixelNomad: "The "toady" behavior you describe can also be linked to in-group loyalty, which in the context of Trumpism, means that his supporters view any attack on him as an attack on themselves and their way of life."
I also suspect that most of Trump's rural and exurban supporters have a lifestyle particularly heavy (and proud: think of the "rolling coal" phenomenon) in its use of fossil fuels, believe this lifestyle is under attack from climate-concerned environmentalists, and see Russia (as a petrostate) as a natural ally against these environmentalists.
As James Howard Kunstler put it back in 2005: "Americans will vote for cornpone Nazis before they will give up their entitlement to a McHouse and a McCar."
Post a Comment