#days ago opposed to like 2014

[fizz-pop-thwip]

I still jump with shock when I see stucky fan content that was made recently, like you guys are still out there..? Thank god.

[mariacallous]

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump announced on Wednesday that he’s chosen Tulsi Gabbard, a former U.S. Representative from Hawaii, as his nominee for the country’s next director of national intelligence. Gabbard, who’s been an outspoken critic of U.S. military support for Ukraine for years, would be the first Hindu and the first person of color to serve in the role if confirmed by Congress. She would also be the first presidential cabinet member whose name appears on Myrotvorets, an unofficial Ukrainian online database of people accused of colluding with Russia or participating in pro-Russian separatist movements. Meduza explains the controversy surrounding this site and what likely landed Gabbard on the list.

What is Myrotvorets?

According to The Times, The Myrotvorets database was created in 2014 by Ukrainian politician Heorhiy Tuka and a former State Security Service (SBU) officer using the pseudonym Roman Zaitsev, the latter of whom still runs the site today. With a name that translates to “Peacemaker,” the project purports to track “enemies of the Ukrainian state.” However, it’s faced frequent criticism — and even criminal investigations — for “doxxing” journalists and activists over alleged anti-Ukrainian statements, posting their names and personal information on the site alongside those of occupation officials, mercenaries, and war criminals.

Myrotvorets is not officially affiliated with the Ukrainian government. Despite Zaitsev’s past SBU experience, he has maintained that the website is not controlled by the agency and does not receive state funding. In January 2022, he told The Times that Myrotvorets was created to solve the problem of “ex-police, ex-military and some political figures, whose beliefs remain pro-Russian”:

As time goes on the mission has changed and in the last three years the number of people getting placed on Myrotvorets for political reasons has increased. Now it lists those who protect the narrative of Russia.

The Times also reported that as of early 2022, Myrotvorets was “widely used to screen individuals at government checkpoints, supplementing official database systems.” Bloomberg has noted that people who have died after being added to the list, such as former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, pro-war propagandist Daria Dugina, and Italian journalist Andrey Rocchelli, are labeled as “liquidated.”

While conspiracy theorists have referred to the database as a hit list, this is not accurate. According to Emily Channell-Justice, the director of the Temerty Contemporary Ukraine Program at Harvard University’s Ukrainian Research Institute, Myrotvorets does not advocate any specific actions but simply “identifies people who are potentially dangerous to the Ukrainian state and its ability to exist.” At the same time, Human Rights Watch Senior Researcher Yulia Gorbunova told The Times in early 2022 that the list was “very dangerous” and had “serious” implications for press freedom.

Former United States Representative Tulsi Gabbard has been included in the Myrotvorets database since at least 2022. Myrotvorets describes Gabbard as a “victim of psychological violence from Russian-terrorist propaganda” and accuses her of “distributing Russian propaganda” and “attacking Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” among other things. It also claims that she’s “likely an agent of Russian intelligence services.”

A longtime isolationist

Unlike many Republicans who initially supported U.S. aid to Ukraine but have soured on the cause as the full-scale war has dragged on, Gabbard — who joined the Republican party less than a month ago — has opposed Washington’s intervention since the invasion’s first day, blaming the Biden administration for the conflict and expressing sympathy for Russia’s position:

Days later, on February 27, 2022, Gabbard posted a video in which she called on U.S. President Joe Biden, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and Russian President Vladimir Putin to “embrace the spirit of aloha” by agreeing on Ukraine’s military neutrality:

Eight months later, in October 2022, Gabbard announced she was leaving the Democratic party, saying it had come under the control of an “elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness.” While it would be two more years before she announced she was joining the Republican party, she endorsed Republican U.S. Senatorial candidate (and future Trump vice presidential pick) J.D. Vance, another early critic of Ukraine aid, within weeks of her departure from the Democrats.

In early 2024, Gabbard met with then-presidential nominee Donald Trump to discuss foreign policy, and was later included on his shortlist for running mates. While campaigning for Donald Trump later this year, Gabbard said she was confident that Trump’s “first task will be to do the work to walk us back from the brink of war.”

Is Trump on the Myrotvorets list?

In the days following the U.S. presidential election, rumors began to circulate that Donald Trump had previously been included in the Myrotvorets database but was removed after his victory. This claim, sometimes accompanied by purported screenshots of Trump’s profile, was amplified by Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova, multiple Russian state media outlets, and even Oleksii Arestovych, a former advisor to the Ukrainian President's Office.

According to Provereno Media, which specializes in debunking fake news, there is no evidence that Trump was ever included on Myrotvorets. The project notes that Myrotvorets director Roman Zaitsev published a post on the site on November 8 naming various figures who are not included in the database but have appeared in fake screenshots. In addition to Trump, Zaitsev’s list of fake entries includes another one of the president-elect’s cabinet nominees, Elon Musk, as well as Polish President Andrzej Duda, Queen Elizabeth II, Pope Francis, and U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Arthur Delaney, Paul Blumenthal, and Jonathan Nicholson at HuffPost:

WASHINGTON — The mood in Congress among Republicans following Donald Trump’s announcement of former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) as his pick for attorney general was best summed up by Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho): “Are you shittin’ me?” Several Republicans on Wednesday said they were “shocked” and skeptical that the Senate would approve Gaetz next year — but there are rumblings on Capitol Hill and among conservatives that Trump is not “shittin’” them and would exercise unprecedented powers to go around the Senate and install his controversial pick anyway. The Constitution gives the president limited authority to make appointments when Congress is not in session, and it also gives him the power to adjourn the House and Senate, though no president has ever done so in order to staff his administration.

Trump threatened to adjourn Congress to make appointments toward the end of his first term, and some fear he will actually follow through on the scheme in his second term. And he has already called for the Senate to let him make recess appointments so Democrats can’t slow down the confirmation process. “This is what they did four years ago, and we cannot let it happen again,” Trump wrote Monday on Truth Social. “We need positions filled IMMEDIATELY!” There’s some indication the Senate won’t cooperate with Trump’s demands that Congress get out of his way. Asked about recess appointments on Wednesday, incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), who had just beaten out Trump’s choice of Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) for the position, didn’t outright say whether he would support or oppose Trump sidestepping the Senate, but suggested he’d prefer the chamber to maintain its role in confirming appointments.

[...] So Trump’s recess appointment plot would need to be deployed against Senate Republicans if he thinks they would be unwilling to approve his nominees. How would it work? First of all, it’s possible the mere threat will cause Senate Republicans to buckle and back Gaetz. Plenty of them already do.

[...] Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution states that “in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, [the president] may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper.” The president could, therefore, exercise this power to adjourn both chambers of Congress if one chamber votes to recess while the other does not. While no president has done it before, there is Supreme Court precedent stating that this power does, in fact, exist. In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in NLRB v. Canning that presidents do have the power to make recess appointments, but that they cannot do so during short Senate breaks or when the Senate holds pro forma sessions. The majority opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer and joined by the liberal justices and Justice Anthony Kennedy included one line addressing this very scenario: “The Constitution also gives the President (if he has enough allies in Congress) a way to force a recess.” The line included a citation to the constitutional provision above.

[...] Let’s say the Senate does not want to give up its advice and consent powers to confirm executive branch nominees, as seems likely. House Republicans could, theoretically, vote to adjourn the chamber on a set date and for a set time. When Senate Republicans decline to do this, Trump could, again, theoretically, resolve the conflict by adjourning both the House and the Senate. Temporarily dissolving Congress in order to bypass Senate opposition to his nominees and make recess appointments would theoretically give Trump unchecked power to staff the entire executive branch. It would be a step toward fulfilling his desire to be a “dictator on Day 1.” This sounds nuts because it is nuts. No president has ever exercised this power before. It also would not be easy, or maybe even smart, to pull off. First, it would require a majority of House Republicans to vote for a resolution to adjourn the chamber. With a likely majority of 221 Republicans to 214 Democrats, they would need to hold all but four members of their conference. If this maneuver is being deployed to slip Gaetz past the Senate, will the seemingly large number of House Republicans who hate his guts go along with this?

Second, going around Senate Republicans would likely anger them. Does Trump want to begin his presidency by humiliating Senate Republicans? Knowing his history of enjoying humiliating supplicants and the fact that he sent a mob to attack Congress, maybe he does. Third, the scheme would immediately wind up in the courts. As has happened throughout Trump’s political reign, the courts would need to address a constitutional provision that has been effectively silent for over 200 years. The only word on this is from Breyer’s opinion in NLRB v. Canning. But the Supreme Court’s newer conservative members may not agree with that opinion.

The Orange Fascist’s plan to bypass Congress in forcing recess appointments sets a bad precedent.

[pressplay-if]

Hi, you mentioned that two of the big inspirations for this IF were Daisy Jones and the Six (set in the 70s) & Fleetwood Mac (mostly big in the 70s & 80s?), so I was curious why you wanted to set the band’s past in modern day (well 2014, which is only 10 years ago) as opposed to a historical settings like the 60s/70s/80s/90s? And does that mean the present interview scenes are actually set in our future?

Several reasons. Historical settings are insanely hard (in my opinion) because there's way more research being involved, and in the end, people are still gonna point out flaws and whatnot. I wanted to take the easier road. Plus, I didn't want to write a copy of Daisy Jones so I figured I'd use a setting I'm more familiar with. Besides many ppl (including me and big parts of my social circle) are nostalgic for that older music anyhow, so I thought, plot-wise, it'd be nice if there was a modern band that played into that niche. So I wanted to write about that kind of band instead of one that was part of the times itself.

And yes, they are :)

[bitter69uk]

“This was the first time I had ever traveled with Ultra Violet. She was still a big mystery; nobody knew what her scene was – she kept her life very secret (as opposed to everybody else we knew who were always telling you the most intimate things about themselves). I’d met her one day in ’65 when she walked into the Factory in a pink Chanel suit and bought a big Flowers painting that was still wet for five hundred dollars. Her name was Isabelle Collin Dufresne then and she hadn’t dyed her hair purple yet. She had expensive clothes and a penthouse on Fifth Avenue, and she drove a Lincoln that was the same as the presidential one. She was past a certain age, but she was still beautiful; she looked a lot like Vivien Leigh. Ultra would do almost anything for publicity. She’d go on talk shows “representing the underground” and it was hilarious because she was as big a mystery to us as she was to everybody else … she’d tell journalists “I collect art and love.” But really what she collected were press clippings. Gradually we pieced together that she was from a rich family of glove manufacturers in Grenoble, France, that she’d come to America as a young girl to visit the painter John Graham (coincidentally in the same building where the Castelli Gallery was), who introduced her around the New York Art world, and then when he died she met Dali, and then she met me, and then she became Ultra Violet. She was popular with the press because she had a freak name, purple hair, an incredibly long tongue and a mini-rap about the intellectual meaning of underground movies.”

/ From POPism: The Warhol Sixties (1980) by Andy Warhol and Pat Hackett /

In memoriam: Warhol Superstar Ultra Violet (née Isabelle Collin Dufresne, 6 September 1935 – 14 June 2014) died on this day ten years ago. Pictured: portrait of Ultra Violet by Jack Mitchell, 1971.  

[statementlou]

Hey,

I kind of had something to add to what you said yesterday (or a few days ago) about comrade Louis. I can't find the specific tweet but in either 2014 or 2016 louis tweeted regarding the song Iron Sky by Paolo Nutini. Someone we have seen him mention alot more recently with his recent album Last Night at the Bittersweet. Both Louis and Harry have said it was a favorite, Louis mentioned most recently before parmaggedon.

What's interesting about the song, Iron Sky is it both symbolizes many of the struggled Louis and Harry had as part of 1d and discusses things like united workers. This includes having the ability to overcome this force. Louis was how I found the song and I've liked it on Spotify since at least 2016.

In the song, paolo discusses rising up against an opposing force, one that is meant to crush all those who go up against it, something I always viewed as relating to the boys. It also has part of speech by Charlie Chaplin in on of his only times speaking in a movie. The movie was the Great Dictator which was meant to make fun of Hitler, turning all the Nazis into buffoons and deregulating their power.

Chaplin himself was known to favor communist rhetoric so his speech fit. I always found the speech just as powerful the song. I always took Louis mentioning it as part of a plan to rise up against this force. That might be wishful thinking but I liked it.

The following is one tweet he mentioned it but not first:

https://twitter.com/Louis_Tomlinson/status/1225519146600992770

The Speech in full:

https://youtu.be/J7GY1Xg6X20?si=OH5c3oKoObQ9QH0L

I thought you might find this interesting,

Sam

I do find it interesting!! I think his impressive vocals and great songwriting are also a factor of course- all of the 1D boys seem to be big fans (Zayn has posted himself covering one of his songs and Niall has posted about his music before as well). Also of note: Nutini made headlines in 2014 defending the band, and zouis specifically, during the weedgate scandal! But I love Louis' tendency to multitask and have layers of meaning when it comes to public declarations, so I wouldn't ever take a bet on anything being just one thing or another; and it certainly does track that Louis would love someone who has all that going for them AND is writing about overcoming obstacles, SUCH a Louis core theme! Love that ❤

[deepautumncolors]

💅🏻 ~Manicure Monday~ 💅🏻

Hi everyone! I promised I wouldn’t be gone for long. I already reviewed this polish the last time I wore it two years ago, but this time I’m wearing a topcoat with it for the Fourth of July. I’ve been waiting almost a year to try this combination!

Sunlight:

Shade:

The name of the color is Deutsch You Want Me Baby? from OPI’s Germany Collection that came out in the fall of 2012. It’s a gorgeous metallic reddish orange that shimmers in the sunlight. Every time I wear this polish, I’m in awe of how stunning it is. The color is so saturated and the pigment is very rich. July is the only month I’ve ever worn it in – I love to wear it for Independence Day even though it leans towards orange. I think warm reds are better for the summer and cool reds are better for Christmas and Valentine’s Day. This one could also be worn in the autumn, since technically it did come from a collection for fall and winter. The first coat was very sheer, and I usually only wear two coats of this polish but I still had a few visible nail lines, so this time I added a third one.

The topcoat is called Beach Ball from Sally Hansen Xtreme Wear’s Passport to Rio collection that came out in Summer 2014. It has red, white, and blue confetti glitter. The flakes are matte as opposed to shiny. Last year I wore it on top of white, but the base has a tinge of red to it so it turned my nails light pink. This year I tried wearing it on top of a darker color so it wouldn’t be as noticeable, which was definitely a good solution because it blended in with the red underneath it. I placed the sparkles where I wanted them by dabbing the brush on my nails and moving them around. I only wanted the blue and white ones because I knew the red ones wouldn’t show up on top of red, so I left them out intentionally.

I only put them on two accent nails because the formula is difficult to apply. The polish is still goopy like it was last year, but it was a little easier to work with this time because I knew what to expect. And it still has a lot of tiny bubbles like it did before, but I can only see them when I look at my nails very closely. I was pleased with how my ring fingernails came out, but now they don’t look as good as they did a few hours ago and one of them got messed up in the shower so I’m glad I took the pictures as soon as I was done. I should have waited until Thursday to put the glitter on, and I guess I’ll be redoing them in a few days. If I use this topper again next year, I’ll know to wait until the actual holiday instead of doing them too early ahead of time.

I hope you all have a safe and happy Fourth of July! ❤️🤍💙

[alightineverydarkness]

in Moskau geboren, lebt in Leipzig

Russian artists have now turned into “Russia-born” artists, without home or citizenship. How do you think this makes Ukrainians feel?

It is a conversation I want to have: why it is important to me that Russians are either not seen, or seen only as Russians, which they are. There have been many, many times, when a retweet or a collaboration brings a Russian-sounding name into my field, presents their work to me, and it is only up to me to wonder about the all-too-typical sound of their name. And these people are all the same: they have familiarly empty profile descriptions, no location – or somewhere in Germany, possibly some allusion to being a “citizen of the world”; no identification except for everything temporary, everything shamefully ambiguous. I always scroll down to the start of the full-scale invasion, February 24th 2022, and there is often a break in posts, but rarely even the most tacit acknowledgement. (It’s not just me, by the way: most Ukrainians, finding one’s eyes aimed at the horror of a Russian’s Instagram, scroll down to the day of the invasion – it’s a good test; you should try this as well). And we all know that by April 2022 most Russians in Europe live it up again like nothing’s happened. For them, nothing really did at all – as opposed to for Ukrainians that escaped the carnage to Europe. For them, each day is only slightly less of a nightmare that it is for Ukrainians at home.

On the profile of a mysterious artist with a Russian-sounding name it remains only for me to scroll further still, into before they ran from home, to see a picture from a Moscow art gallery, a hipster venue (rarely tagged, of course). I now have a habit of zooming into old images, looking for street signs, license plates, store fronts, which is usually what gives these people away. Often these incriminating objects can be found right by the edge of a frame, and we all know why: because even years ago the Russian sensed how shameful it was to be there and do nothing. How embarrassing to accidentally reveal the festering cyst of your provenance to the world! No matter what these furtive, sycophant émigrés tell you now: most of them, from the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and invasion into East of Ukraine, secretly sensed they were no longer on the right side of history, feared they would have to answer for it, and today will do everything to get off scot-free. They didn’t do anything, I expect, is the argument: tellingly, it is as much an excuse as it is an admission of guilt, of having done nothing under fascism. Of having benefitted from the imperial, fascist state’s power and mystique, and fleeing the moment it became inconvenient to be there. Now a Russian artist can limit their responsibility to the one-time error of being “Moscow-born”: then, for 30 years, they existed in a vacuum. For people like them, the full-scale war, the massive slaughter, has probably been a blessing: it served to better illustrate how fascist Russia is, and how clueless and child-like these people chose to be. The genocide makes it that much easier for Russians to ask for help: they just have to say they’re no longer Russian. People in Europe are generally too polite to ask a grown fucking man why he did nothing.

The profiles of many Russian artists are now very minimal; often a bland mood board of anonymous “aesthetic” pictures, with no locations, no identifying signs, all life drained. From there, I go into the “tagged” tab, or, if listed, their website. Today, though, the “about” section of the website contains a simple photo of the artist and a self-deprecating joke, instead of a factual bio. More suspicious, I go on into the “blog” section, and there it is, in a YouTube thumbnail of some interview, tiny text in German, “in Moskau geboren, lebt in Leipzig”. Well, good on me for knowing some German. I google: a Russian website lists him as “Russian artist, living in Germany” – because of course, one can be honest in a language the rest of the world won’t read. Good on me for knowing this language too. I can assemble a truth piece by piece.

Why do they hide their provenance? Either because they know they are culpable, or they like the genocide and think the issue is russophobia – which, in reality, is just the world telling them they are guilty. The latter crowd haven’t realized their guilt yet, but they will.

The only Russians that would call themselves that, are the ones who are honest: either about believing I should be dead, or, in incomparably smaller numbers, driving home the rare opposing view together with the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

No serious Ukrainian artist works after February 24th, 2022 as if nothing happened. I know many who Russians killed, and I know many who are fighting in the military, like me. I know some, whose art irreversibly changed or stopped even earlier, after Russia’s invasion into the East of Ukraine in 2014. Wouldn’t it at least be somewhat fair to not give Russians a platform they themselves took from people they are currently killing? Not fully fair, because nothing can compare to what they did to us, but… Maybe at least not until they stop killing?

I’ll let you in on an open secret: every single one of these artists would cease to be “Moscow-born” and revert to “Russian” the moment it was convenient, beneficial to their image, the moment it was again Russian Empire, best known for the fucking Dostoyevsky and Chekhov, and not the endless murder. This is just crisis management. And these phrases have nothing to do with whatever it is in their hearts, both stand for the same moral bankruptcy. But we already knew that from their work, where war and responsibility are absent, didn’t we?

An example! Before the war I routinely engaged in self-destructive conversation with what I considered to be a Russian friend. I, of course, was conscious of how shameful this was – but it was strange: we met on Twitter, after following the same “dirtbag left” American podcasters and reading the same list of “difficult” white male authors: Pynchon, Foster Wallace, McCarthy, the postmodernist lit bro shit. Over the years, we only met once and it was depressing; we texted exclusively in English (my few attempts at being less pretentious by switching to Russian were met with ridicule and increasing annoyance). Our main conversation topics were song lyric-based puns, “male depression”, and writing. The one time I asked him about whether he voted in the then-contemporary Russian election (I use the world loosely), he told me he obviously ignored it and bullied me for even suggesting he might stoop so low as to give two shits about the politics of the country he lived in. Later yet, when I would mention that hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers have gathered at the Ukrainian borders – which was all the talk here in the winter of 2021 – he made fun of me again, first in a maddeningly dismissive manner, and upon further anxiety, flatly telling me to relax, nothing was going to happen, it obviously could only be for show, only not real. By New Year 2022 we had a falling out based on the fact that I was no longer “fun” to talk to for a left-wing Russian, and he erased the entirety of our conversation. I heard from him again in early March, as a soldier, when he asked “are you like alive over there”. He now lives in Armenia, for “no reason”, and is annoyed by Armenians addressing him in Armenian. I checked: on Twitter, he is yet to acknowledge anything resembling a war taking place. A paragon of Russian left-wing intellectual thought, folks. I assume this illustrates why, and often, how, a Russian that spent adult life in Russia past the point of, say, the bloody, horrific invasion into Georgia in 2008, is responsible for allowing the fascists to stay in power today. Meanwhile, I was at one revolution in Ukraine when I was 18, before I even knew him.

Making art is a choice, a privilege and a blessing – it is not a survival necessity. But winning this war is, for us. When you choose to give voice to a Russian, you prolong the war, you continue the muddling of clear waters started by the Russian government itself: as if it weren’t simple, as if there were two sides to Russia, to this conflict, to a soldier who entered a sovereign nation and killed. As if the Russians that didn’t vote, that drank Club Mate in Mutabor and left for Georgia, are somehow deserving of pity and support, as if they were somehow not guilty, as if it was not all Russians. It creates ambiguity, and if the universal opinion of Russians is ambiguous at a gallery show in Leipzig, it can be just as ambiguous of a Russian soldier in Mariupol. He could’ve been a painter too, maybe? He just made a few missteps? As if your goal was to prove that the net result of these people walking the earth was not murder, bloodshed and pain. Sure, some of the kids who didn’t enlist may have recorded some lame techno and made a few paintings, but that didn’t bring back the Ukrainian children their classmates slaughtered; the kids that did enlist, left a forever wound on the world.

Ask yourself: is any, any art at all, worth a murdered Ukrainian? Is there a Russian artist you know, whose work is so unique and irreplaceable at your festival or your Instagram feed, that somewhere in a village in the South of Ukraine, a woman must be tortured to death in the attic of her house? Or maybe you could hold off on putting these pathetic “Russia-born” cowards in my social media feeds for the duration of the genocide? I am sick of this bullshit, I am calling it now. Make a decision here. It’s the era of picking sides. This is a history book now: all will be remembered.

If a commission falls through and a Russian artist goes hungry for a week, and that is the only price they pay for completely ignoring the politics of their own country their whole life, or, better yet, knowingly being a fascist – I’d think they should thank the Lord. They should consider that the actual price for their willful helplessness is being paid right now by incomparably more brave, dignified people – Ukrainians – in blood. It happens every fucking day. Any Russian that is embarrassed enough to identify as one, knows – we are doing their work, and they made it as hard as possible.

A point to consider: Russians (“good” ones included) have proven themselves time and time again to lack any sense of morality. I am raising this issue not simply because I am tired of seeing Russians in my feed, but more because I want the war to end, and I know well that any appeal to logic, ethics, or the idea of collective responsibility will have a negligible effect on Russians. The only way to make a Russian a political actor of any kind is to make apolitical, ignorant existence impossible to maintain. Which is where the “let’s not book a Russia-born artist” approach comes in.

A further point, in case you still haven’t made the same logical conclusion. Our victory is the only hope for the Russian people to be allowed in civil society again someday. Think about it – there is no future, no acceptance, no peace if they achieve their goal and kill a country. Neither if the war is frozen with 20% of Ukraine occupied – these regions will remain a crime scene, Russia will continue the ethnic cleansing. This far into a well-documented genocide, the only way out for them is to lose the war, admit it all, and ask for forgiveness. I will not forgive them, but someone else may. I am no longer hopeful of a revolution in Russia like I was in the early days of the war. I did not think they would swallow this down, but they did. It seems like the mysterious Russian soul was merely slightly inconvenienced by the absence of McDonald’s, found a way to import Apple devices again and the general dissatisfaction with murder – gruesome, violent murder every day – seems fairly low from where I’m sitting. Thousands of them have recently attended a rally in the Moscow’s Red Square, celebrating the shaky-legged, blood-soaked occupation of four more regions of my home. A cheerful crowd of thousands stretched as far as the eye could see, and the only revolution they ever had, the one engraved in the collective consciousness as “the [archetypal] revolution”, has been, looking back, merely a replacement of a Tsar with the Party (no, that wasn’t communism). The current Tsar is now of the Party (Putin is an ex-KGB officer). The modern rulers of Russia present themselves as logical ancestors of the Party, but also of the tsars – officially honoring both – thus, erasing the dichotomy, making a revolution seem impossible. To an outside observer like me, it just seems to imply that Russians will swallow anything you shit in their mouths.

Here’s a thought I carried around for 1.5 years and never found any flaw in: any Russian that opposes genocide should be at the front lines, fighting on our side. It makes absolute sense to me; I even think that any such Russian should feel massive guilt that their own fight with their own fascism crossed our borders and touched us at all! The consequences of Russians’ wrong choices, in a just world, should’ve only been their own to face. Well, oh, but it’s all so complicated, the world doesn’t work like that. I’m sure someone will inevitably try to explain this to me, but I won’t get it. All in all, I do not believe that Russian cities will ever be hit with as many missiles, shells, mines, bombs and drones as Ukrainian cities have been. It will never be “an eye for an eye”, the simplest principle of all. I’ve learned to expect this thought to be widely controversial, but… having carried this idea for a long time – at war with these people – I still believe this. I still can’t see why it is our job and not theirs. As it became in February of 2022, a historic time: a Ukrainian artist picks up a rifle, a Russian artist edits their Instagram bio.

And I know, having picked up that rifle, that doing the right thing is hard. It’s scary! A revolutionary knows that the pain is inevitable: one can either take the whole of it at once, or have it spread upon a cursed remnant of a hollow life. Dissected by this question alone, the difference between the heart of a Russian and the heart of Ukrainian is anatomically displayed.

Ask your “Russia-born” friend today why they never did anything, why they aren’t doing anything now. They will probably tell you they were either too young, or too old, or they are donating money to a charity to pay off their conscience. Or maybe, they all had a doctor’s appointment on the day of the revolution, so nobody came.

[xrdxbmx]

Need to get something off my mind.

*enters Wendy's*

I've recently been struck with a bit of nostalgia for Steven Universe, which led me to a bit of online diving into posts and blogs from the heyday of the show. Oh boy.

Back during 2014-2016, before I even had any interest in shipping, when I was busy drawing my Gemsona and playing the ''Steven Universe RP ''Roblox game, the community was busy indulging itself in unprecedented levels of toxicity. This was during a time when artists would be bullied and sent death threats for drawing a character wrong (we all know what I'm talking about) and a time when cross-site wars were happening (4chan-Tumblr wars). Bullying, trolling, drama, you name it, it all used to be so much worse.

And don't even get me started on the shipping community at that time. Which what this post will focus on;

Long ago in a distant time, before dinosaurs roamed the Earth, before the continents resembled what they are today and before opposable thumbs, there existed a ship called ''Pewey.''

Pewey was one of the earliest controversial and likely the most undeservingly hated ship in the show's history. People are allowed to hate ships, any ships, for any reason. That does not make it okay to stigmatize the very real people who like and post those ships. I'm appalled by the treatment people who shipped Pewey received and I'm glad that sort of behavior died down as the show matured.

This got me thinking about the simple yet genius approach the Crewniverse have towards shipping. As everyone knows, shipping is an integral part of any fandom and people put ungodly amounts of effort into producing material relating to their favorite fictional couples, canon or not. Due to this, the creators and creative teams of fictional media have a huge burden to carry. You do not wanna piss off and cause division within your own fanbase. The way the Crewniverse approach this is that they have a policy of ''ship everything and ship as much as possible!''

Some of you may know exactly what I'm talking about but I'll go further into it anyway because I'm in the mood to write today for some reason;

The scene above is the Crewniverse's animated response to shipping. It's the in-universe equivalent to what Rebecca Sugar and Ian JQ have been saying for years.

The best way to achieve peace and prevent shipping wars, is to give every ship fuel and regard every ship (except p3d0 ones of course) as valid and a net-positive for the community and its creative output.

Look deeper at the dialogue and the relationships between characters and you will notice how vague and complicated pretty much every relationship in the show is. This is by design. Every relationship is purposely suspended in this ''purgatory'' between friendship, platonicity and romantic potential. Barring couple dynamics necessary for the plot like Garnet, Connverse, Rose and Greg, Rose and Pearl etc, every relationship between characters that could be considered potentially ''shippable'' is just vague enough that it neither canonizes nor outright rejects shipping validity.

A recent example of this is in Bismuth Casual. Bismuth is shown having a crush on Pearl, much like Dewey did back in the day. Yet Bismuth herself states that, because Pearl is happy with whatever she has going on now, and because Bismuth wants Pearl to be happy, she won't (yet) approach Pearl with any romantic intent. This gives the ship between them (Bispearl) enough fuel to satisfy shippers, give a character (Bismuth) some sort of closure as a sendoff yet does not establish them as a canon couple, leaving other Pearl shippers satisfied and not feel left in the dust. Due to this, people can put their own spins on what happens next, if anything.

I really hope, that if by some miracle, or when the planets align and Steven Universe as an animated IP makes a comeback, in whatever capacity or form, that the Crewniverse continue on with this philosophy towards shipping. At least for the sake of our collective sanity.

If you've reached the end, thank you for reading through this and please, leave comments and opinions. We all miss this show so the least we can do is have discussions like these to keep the fans inside of us satisfied.

''Sir, this is a Wendy's.''

[ponderlyunbiasednews]

Are Democrats or Republicans more responsible for polarization in America?

Fact Box

‘Polarization’ is defined as “a sharp division, as of a population or group, into opposing factions.”

A 2014 Pew Research study on polarization in America found that the typical (or median) “Republican is now more conservative than 94% of Democrats, compared with 70% twenty years ago. And the median Democrat is more liberal than 92% of Republicans, up from 64%.” 

Gallup reports that since 2003, political polarization has increased the most over these issues: federal government power, climate change, education, abortion, foreign trade, immigration, gun laws, government-funded healthcare, and income tax fairness.

Some studies look at social media as helping shape American polarization “through the following social, cognitive, and technological processes: partisan selection, message content, and platform design and algorithms.”

Andrew (Reps)

Former President and convicted felon Donald Trump, along with his Republican colleagues, have seemingly embraced white nationalism, far-right ideologies (such as the Great Replacement theory), and violent rhetoric (like “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”). Rather than an aberration, this latest iteration of Republican hate-mongering is simply accelerating the trend of conservatives in America moving distinctly to the political right. The Republican party has moved so far to the right that compromise, even with centrist Democrats, is virtually impossible. As far back as 2010, many Republican lawmakers declared they would never compromise with the opposition. We have also seen more recent versions of this, such as when Republicans killed the bipartisan border security bill so that Donald Trump could use the issue in his election campaign. 

While many issues divide the nation, the Republican position of allowing virtually unlimited access to weapons of war and refusing even to consider sensible gun control has caused deep divisions in our nation. Guns kill tens of thousands of people in America each year, causing real pain, yet Republicans insist on maintaining the status quo.

Republicans are directly responsible for the conversations that many millions of Americans dread each year at Thanksgiving: QAnon and other conspiracy theories. Donald Trump’s tenuous grasp of basic facts, as well as the inability to admit defeat in the 2020 election, have created deep divisions and polarizations so severe it has become difficult for families to enjoy a holiday meal together. Unfortunately, ever since the days of the Tea Party, Republicans have allowed their anger and irrationality to separate them from others in society.

Luis (Dems)

Republicans and Democrats have become more separated by their conservative and liberal beliefs over the years. Yet, the Democratic party is mainly responsible for increasing this polarization. Their racially divisive and dangerous rhetoric towards their political counterparts does nothing to 'lower the temperature.' Conservative Republicans have been regularly demonized as Democratic leaders use denigrating and offensive rhetoric against anyone who disagrees with the liberal agenda. 

Biden himself did this in 2022, declaring Trump, MAGA supporters, and the Republican agenda at large assaults 'equality and democracy.' In 2015, Hilary Clinton called Trump supporters 'deplorables.' In 2012, Biden said to Black voters that voting for Romney would “put y’all back in chains.” Over his two terms, Obama is directly responsible for polarization, even promoting the lie in 2014 that racism is ‘deeply rooted’ in America.

Most concerningly is how Democrat officials prosecute their political opponents, exasperating polarization and distrust in the government. Obama did it when he directed the IRS to go after conservative groups and more recently during Biden-Harris's term when Trump was unprecedently targeted by politically-driven indictments and lawsuits coming from a Democrat DOJ, prosecutors, and judges.

Democrats have ridiculed conservatives for decades, imposing a biased narrative onto public opinion, echoed by Hollywood and the mainstream media, both run by liberals. This is why media pundits often repeat Democrat talking points, which are polarizing by themselves. 

The Democratic Party has radicalized to extreme positions, showing its ugliest semblance after Trump's 2016 presidential victory. Liberals invented the lie that he stole the election through “Russian collusion.” Democrats have also embraced identity politics, accompanied by woke ideology, which has only further deteriorated race relations in the US and resulted in dangerous policies like police defunding. Republicans aren’t perfect, but no one has contributed more to today’s polarization than Democrats.

[atwaofficial]

A Message from Captain Paul Watson inside Nuuk Prison

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied

Written by Captain Paul Watson inside Nuuk Prison

October 2, 2024

Today is my 73rd day of incarceration in Nuuk prison and it was my 4th appearance in the Greenland court. It was what I expected, the judge refused documentation and arguments from my defense team and ordered me detained for an additional 28 days. That means 91 days on a bogus accusation on a very minor offense from 14 years ago for something I did not participate in.

It’s a classic case of “Justice delayed is Justice denied.”

The court has all the evidence, they have all the information needed to make a decision. It is clearly quite political.

The judge sat the bench like a stone

Evidence he denied to be shown

The prosecutor scowled

With contempt for the crowd

Her bias reflected in her tone

And so my friends it’s back to my cell with a view, where I can see the icebergs in the fjord and the occasional breach of a humpback whale to remind me why I am here.

I can endure the time for however long it takes. My only concern, my only regret is separation from my wife and our two little boys. I am not here because I am a criminal. I am here for opposing a criminal enterprise with the most deadly of weapons – a camera.

With our cameras we exposed the crimes of the Japanese whaling industry and in so doing, we embarrassed the proud nation of Japan, bringing their unlawful activities into the living rooms of millions of people around the world with our Animal Planet television show “Whale Wars.”

Japanese whaling is not a criminal enterprise because I say so. It is a criminal operation for violating the 1986 International Whaling Commission’s Global Moratorium on Commercial Whaling. Japan’s argument of it being a research effort and non-commercial was shut down in 2014 by the world’s highest court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague. This ruled that slaughtering whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary was not research. It is commercial.

The whalers went to sea you see,

To see how many whales to kill, you see

We caught them in the act

An indisputable fact

And drove them from the sea, you see

In addition, the Japanese whalers deliberately rammed and destroyed a two million (US) dollar catamaran, broke the rib of an Animal Planet cameraman, pitching 6 crewmembers into the frigid waters of the Southern Ocean, refusing to rescue them. In the face of the documented violence, the whalers suffered no consequences. When the Greenlandic prosecutor claims that a single Japanese whaler suffered a blister on his cheek, from the chemical pepper spray from his own crew, something she describes as a crime of severity, it illustrates the almost comical absurdity of the charges.

What she claims is trespassing is captured on film showing Pete Bethune politely knocking on the wheelhouse door of the Shonan Maru, the door opens, he hands the Japanese captain a letter of complaint and a request for compensation for the ship they deliberately destroyed. The Japanese response was to kidnap Captain Bethune and to transport him to Japan to charge him with trespassing, obstruction of business, and assault. He was interrogated daily until he confessed to the charges although he refused to confess to assault.

It was only after a coerced confession that he was brought before a judge where a deal was made. A suspended sentence in exchange for a statement that I ordered him to take these actions. He was then released and allowed to return home and a warrant was issued against me for conspiracy.

After his release, Pete Bethune signed an affidavit stating he lied in exchange for the suspended sentence. His accusation was the sole evidence that Japan used against me, but despite the retraction by Captain Bethune, the Japanese prosecutor refused to drop the charges against me.

The whalers sliced his boat in two

Our cameras have proved this true

Pete Bethune was kidnapped

The evidence was scrapped

By the criminal whaling crew

What makes my incarceration bearable is the tremendous worldwide support I am receiving. Hundreds of thousands of names signing petitions for my release. So many demonstrations in hundreds of places around the globe, thousands of calls to the Danish Embassies and Consulates, the support of world leaders like President Macron of France and President Lula of Brazil, numerous celebrities, concerts held on my behalf. Such an incredible outpouring of love and support all brought together by our collective love and respect for whales and dolphins, diversity and interdependence of all life in the sea and on land.

The enemy has been clearly identified

Five thousand people from many a state

Protesting with actions, petitions and art

All united in opposing cetacide

It’s compassion we seek to instigate

Fired by courage born deep in the heart.

I am so very grateful for the 2,300 letters I have received in prison from over 30 countries. I am especially grateful and very much touched by the hundreds of letters from children, many accompanied with drawings of whales or poems.

Every poem, every drawing of a whale

Sent by children from around the Ocean

Delivered here behind this prison wall

Provides a storm of hope to fill my soul

Unleashing a tsunami of emotion

From across the blue shroud I hear them call.

I am in this prison cell for another four weeks, so please continue to raise your voices. It means a great deal and it is effective. Please continue to contact Danish Embassies and Consulates. And please continue to send me your letters, drawings, and poems. The prison guards tell me they have never seen anyone receive so much mail and your letters very much reflect the level of support. It also keeps me busy because I read every piece of mail. I try to answer as many as I can although it has been difficult because I am still recovering from the handcuff injury to my writing hand (my left hand). However, when I am released, I will answer every letter with a certificate of appreciation for your support. You all give me strength.

My Nordic jail cell has an amazing view,

Of the wild wide fjord that lies before me

Studded with jagged bergy bits of ice

Where great whales breach upon the Ocean blue

Happy and free in the Greenlandic sea

A wondrous site worthy of sacrifice.

Captain Paul Watson

Nuuk Prison, Greenland

To send letters to Paul in prison, please address them to:

Anstalten Prison

c/o Paul Watson

Nuuk, Greenland

DK-3900

[mariacallous]

Donald Trump’s decision to skip Wednesday’s Republican presidential debate on Fox News seems natural in one sense — overwhelming front runners often resist lifting up their rivals — and astonishing in another.

Astonishing because Fox has been key to Trump’s rise and has created the conservative media bubble that is so vital to Trump’s political well-being. It’s not just that Fox has been awfully good to Trump (The Washington Post’s Philip Bump reports that Fox has mentioned Trump 109 more times a day than his competitors combined). There is also this: Fox News Republicans are distinct from other members of their party, and far more likely to see the world as Trump does.

Understanding the power of Fox and conservative media outlets that have risen up more recently is crucial to grasping many other realities of our politics. It helps explain the decline of moderate Republicanism and the ideological ferocity of today’s GOP. The faith so many Republicans place in Fox is a major reason why so many in the party are prepared to believe Trump’s version of recent events against so much evidence to the contrary.

And the growing polarization of American politics owes in part to the particular loyalty conservatives have to one news outlet. Liberals are much more dispersed in their media preferences.

The Fox effect is not new. Indeed, its long-term influence may have paved the way for the power of Trumpism. Even before Trump became a presidential candidate, Republicans who declared Fox their most trusted news outlet were ready to rebel against more middle-of-the road versions of their party’s creed.

Two surveys — one from nine years ago, the other from earlier this month — tell the same story about the Fox effect. Viewed together, they describe the trajectory of conservative politics.

The 2014 survey, part of the ongoing polling partnership between Brookings and PRRI involving my colleague Bill Galston and me, asked respondents which television news source they trusted most. Republicans overwhelmingly chose Fox. Democrats were far more divided.

Specifically, 53% of Republicans said they trusted Fox most for accurate information about politics and current events. No other television outlet came close. By contrast, there was no dominant trusted news source among Democrats, for whom four different sources posted double digits: the traditional networks at 31%, CNN at 26%, public television at 14% and MSNBC at 10%. Jon Stewart’s then popular Daily Show was listed by 9% of Democrats.

The Fox difference among Republicans was visible across a broad range of other issues. Among Fox News Republicans, 60% said reducing the budget deficit should be among the highest priorities, compared with 46% of other Republicans. Fox News Republicans were far more forceful in their opposition to same-sex marriage: 76% were opposed to same-sex marriage, including 47% who said they were strongly opposed. Among non-Fox Republicans, only 57% opposed same-sex marriage, and only 31% strongly opposed it. One of the starkest differences between the two Republican groups came on the issue of minimum wage. Fox News Republicans opposed increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour by a margin of 64% to 33%. But non-Fox Republicans favor the wage increase, 56% to 41%.

Not surprisingly, there were also stark differences between the two groups on immigration, one of Trump’s signature issues. Only 42% of Republicans who most trusted Fox News supported a path to citizenship for immigrants living in the country illegally, compared with 60% of other Republicans. The rightward tilt of Fox Republicans was also clear on another question: 35% of Republicans who trusted Fox considered themselves part of the Tea Party movement, compared with 15% of non-Fox Republicans. Since the Tea Party served as a gateway to the Trump movement, this finding is especially significant.

Jump forward to this summer: The Fox influence is alive and well. A New York Times/Sienna College survey in July also asked respondents about the media they trusted. The New York Times/Sienna survey’s question on media consumption was different from the one posed in the PRRI/Brookings survey. The recent survey’s question was not specifically focused on television sources, and also gave respondents the opportunity to pick other conservative media, given the rise of alternatives on the right to Fox. Thus, the Fox share of Republicans is lower. But the impact of Fox and other conservative media remains clear.

Only 5% of Fox Republicans said they thought Trump had committed “serious crimes”; 38% of Republican mainstream media viewers said this. In light of the investigations into Trump, 85% of Fox News Republicans and 83% of consumers of other Republican media said, “Republicans need to stand behind Trump.” Among mainstream media consumers, just 49% held this view. Only 12% of Fox News Republicans and 8% of consumers of other conservative media said Trump’s actions after the 2020 election “threatened American democracy.” Among mainstream media consumers, 37% said this.

And the ideological tilt of Fox Republicans was clear. Asked if they would be inclined to support a “more moderate” or “more conservative” candidate in the Republican presidential primary, Fox Republicans split 69% to 28%. Consumers of other conservative media were actually to the right of Fox devotees, splitting 81% to 19% in favor of the conservative. But Republicans who were mainstream media consumers leaned toward a moderate, 51% to 46%.

As Bill Galston and I noted nine years ago, these sorts of numbers can be viewed from different directions. It can be said that those with very conservative views are already attracted to Fox and right-wing alternatives. It can also be said that Fox and other right-wing outlets harden the conservatism of their consumers and perhaps make at least some converts. What is undeniable is the differential role of media on the Republican and Democratic sides of politics, with conservatives and Republicans showing a far greater degree of solidarity in their media habits. This, we wrote nine years ago, “could have important implications for future battles over Republican nominations and arguments over the party’s philosophical identity.” We are living with those implications today.

[taratarotgreene]

Cancer Super Moon, feed on this, Astrology from Tara Greene

Cancer Super Moon Astrology from Tara Greene

It feels like a 2-day Full Moon as the Approach to the Cancer Super Full Moon on Jan 15  at 25+ degrees will feel the intense weight/stress of the Planetary signature of 2014- those Grand Cardinal Crosses. Cancer Moon squares Uranus in Aries and opposes Pluto on Jan 14th then conjuncts JUPITER still Retrograde at night PST. I started to write this article two days ago. My email got hacked, yadda…

[tayfabe75]

Since she's been single, Swift has been acquiring girlfriends with the fervor she once devoted to landing guys. (For instance: Two years ago she told Vogue she wanted to be friends with Kloss; now they're going to the gym together and taking road trips to Big Sur.) Swift says this is another byproduct of being single. "When your number-one priority is getting a boyfriend, you're more inclined to see a beautiful girl and think, 'Oh, she's gonna get that hot guy I wish I was dating,'" she says. "But when you're not boyfriend-shopping, you're able to step back and see other girls who are killing it and think, 'God, I want to be around her.'" As an example, she cites her pal Lorde, whom she calls Ella. "It's like this blazing bonfire," Swift says. "You can either be afraid of it because it's so powerful and strong, or you can go stand near it, because it's fun and it makes you brighter." Earlier in her career, Swift deflected questions about feminism because she didn't want to alienate male fans. But these days, she's proud to identify herself as a feminist. To her, all feminism means is wanting women to have the same opportunities as men. "I don't see how you could oppose that." Dunham says Swift has always been a feminist whether she called herself one or not: "She runs her own company, she's creating music that connects to other women instead of creating a sexual persona for the male gaze, and no one is in control of her. If that's not feminism, what is?"

September 8, 2014: Taylor describes how being single changed her perspective on other women and why she now proudly embraces feminism. (source 1, 2)

[thisismenow3]

Online leftists suck at being leftists, part a million

As with most things I post, just shouting into the void so I waste less time on this bs. So many people have no nuance to their thinking I wanna ask “how the fuck you think we can unfuck our situation then?” Cause if a military or country that’s done any horrible shot equals “anything they do must be wrong and the opposing side supported no matter what” then we are all fucked and no betterment for minorities of faith, ethnicity, no betterment for labor, children, etc is possible. Y’all can’t even see how supporting Ukraine is the first step to fighting fascism here in the US? If y’all think their 2014 election weren’t fair, why did Russia do an ACTUAL FALSE FLAG before giving up the pretense and taking over Donbas and crimea immediately afterward? After all these different countries and groups that oversee elections approved it?

And the Azob thing has me steamed about peoples’ lack of comprehension skills being used to make fucking chumps of them. If a right wing militia using nazi regalia existing means a country is deserving of its civilians being curb stomped literally and it’s children who survive being trafficked for sex or adoption than fuck you. That means you think it should happen here dipshit. And if you’re saying “well the neo nazis wanted the impeachment and a new president!” Then I say “And did they actually do anything forcing this?” “No”

Look into the details jack ass. If you’re a leftist you have to know thy enemy. Right wing militias can often support things you wouldn’t expect because they’re in “long game” mode. Hell, right wing anything can do that. Neo nazis in Cali supported gun control back in the day. If I was like y’all online leftists without media literacy I’d think “oh so gun control bad and the neo nazis forced that in Cali.” Instead, you read up just a little and you realize “oh, they’d rather make a tactical retreat as Governor Reagan and the FBI break up and assassinate the Panthers even though they want to have more guns, kinds of guns, types of armaments period.” Why do you think Azov, to the extent they are doing anything, would like about impeaching a Russian stooge who fled a popular uprising? That their country is sticking it to Russia!!!!!!! They’re cool with democracy now cause in many ways they are much further from taking over and then getting rid of democracy in their country than the right wing in the US is towards the USA. This is why people who actually know anything about the politics and situation of Ukraine and ain’t right wing think online leftists calling for capitulation are the biggest idiots. Cause y’all are.

So it shouldn’t be surprising these same bumble fucks parrot China’s talking points. Should China get to take over other weaker nation’s territory? Fuck no. Should the USA be the world policeman? In a just world (not even a perfect one) fuck no. Is the UN capable of doing this job for the world? Hahahaha that’s a good one! Oh, you’re serious. The UN is to world betterment and adjudication what US courts are to renter’s rights and empowerment. Which is to say it’s not impossible but we all know they’re dead weight at best and it’s something way more powerful using them whenever they’re at all a part of something good. And usually, they ain’t.

The other big issue is that real leftism is about more democracy, you know; messy, long term politicking with lots of moving parts. But online leftism (derogatory) is all about big, crude imposed actions! In short online leftism (derogatory) is still stuck in the mistakes of communist thought from a century ago. No dictatorship willingly or cleanly gives way to democracy, full stop. The unpopular opinion amongst people who want leftist change is that centrists, neo liberal Econ folks, liberals (derogatory), whatever label you want to use are correct to a point; they say all of the communist thought that ain’t about describing the system as it is is wrong. And in reality they’re very close to right. The proletariat is more disparate and multifaceted than any communist thinker gives credence to and at best actually centrist on average politically. So there can’t be a magnificent revolution just like a dictatorship that ends itself is an obvious idiocy. But online leftism (derogatory) doesn’t want to hear that or similar critiques about things like anarchism, etc. Combine that with conservative purposeful mismanagement of literacy programs (not just being able to read at a high level, but being able to read a source and still glean things from it despite bias and even, gasp, be able to use many sources to find reality through this process!) and you have people who you can’t tell if they’re being intellectually lazy because it allows them to do nothing but post (America always bad, therefore America should just do less or do things that it can’t because I’ve forgotten about how bureaucratic systems work) or just not literate enough to realize they’re getting played. With the online left (derogatory), porque no los dos?

This is going all over the place but it’s really just coming from a place of seeing how people who actually do want to make the world better are indistinguishable from people who are actually selfish lazy nihilists pretending to be something else the same way libertarians are conservatives with no real agenda other than simplistic ideas about how power should be distributed. And this sucks cause there’s real hope that if we build now we can succeed long term even if movements don’t coalesce right now to better our society and save our world. Online leftism (derogatory) doesn’t talk in any real way about unions except as power fantasy. Because unions, like military aid to democracies, is way to messy and yet necessary. So just like military aid is seen as always bad by them, unions are only thought about as strikers. That’s one fucking aspect y’all! There’s many moves before the strike is even threatened! Do you know how t use existing unions to help create ones for a union less industry or company? Do you know how unions and their members can be called upon to help fight for environmental justice? How about school boards? Who’s up for doing with school boards in America what the right wing has been doing for decades? Who’s up for joking the Democratic Party as an actual member and trying to politics you way into the back rooms of power at the state level? Then when there’s enough of us there, flipping the radicalism switch? Who’s for brokering deals with democrats in states they rarely get much local and no state power to mutually support each other when democratic socialist independents or independent communists or whatever else get a sizeable local base of support? Online leftism is derogatory as a term in the same way these people and others use liberal; cause they ain’t doing anything to build up the good shit they say they wanna build up. They just wanna claim and then go back to whatever socializing makes up the rest of their mom work time. For those of y’all that ain’t online left (derogatory), or for whom the label don’t fully fit, I got one question… y’all organizing offline? Cause it’s seems like online is poison for leftism up until the point it’s got enough steam to whether a bunch of blows from all sides.

Rant over. Gonna continue to try to see how I can protect/unfuck my city IRL

[lady-nightmare]

Google translation:

Unbelievable what the Russian asked the Pole on TV

The razing of Berlin, a nuclear strike on London or the seizure of Warsaw - these are some of the few absurd threats that have recently been made in the Russian state media. Robert Pszczel told Wirtualna Polska about what the "Kremlin's media industry" looks like from the inside. The diplomat took part in in the broadcasts of Vladimir Soloviev. Years ago, Robert Pszczel appeared in the Russian state media, including in Solovyov's programs.

Propaganda and Russian media have been considered synonymous for years. Moscow's invasion of Ukraine has only reinforced the intensity and absurdity of the accusations that Kremlin propagandists produce every day.

Robert Pszczel, former head of the NATO Information Office in Moscow (2010-2015) and an expert of the Pulaski Foundation, had the opportunity to observe closely how the news of the day is prepared, how the most famous programs are created and what is the operating pattern of their creators. The Pole performed years ago, among others in with the greatest propagandists of the regime, such as Soloviev or Skabaev, which, as he himself admits, was not easy.

There was always a dilemma, although less than with friends from the Russian opposition. Faustian dilemma, because if you don't go, you have no chance of reaching 20 million people. Because of my job, I thought that if you can get through with the facts about NATO, it's worth doing. It wasn't a pleasant experience, he said.

It impressed me. I even sought medical advice on how to endure it, because it's a lot of stress. But the main thing is to be aware of what you are participating in. If I went to programs with the feeling that I could change Russia, I would be an extremely naive person. However, with the understanding that it is difficult, one should not be a defeatist that these Russians cannot be reached at all, said the diplomat in the Wirtualna Polska "Newsroom" program.

Pszczel emphasized that the invitations he received were not accidental. The authors wanted a representative of NATO to appear in the studio, and by the way of Poland, who could be attacked intensively. - NATO has always been a ball that is good to kick. But the depiction of the Alliance has always been a derivative of the state of relations with the West. And Poland was a bone in the throat for historical reasons. Russians from official circles did not allow themselves to be thick-skinned. As soon as someone said something, it was immediately toned down. But that has changed, he said.

The diplomat emphasized that the scheme of all programs is similar and resembles a "fight in the ring". - There are more people in the studio, the kind of clappers who know what to shout. Guests stand around a table where there are usually seven people. They all shout over each other, oppose each other, they don't let it end," he said.

The second thing is that these people are characterized by extremely far-reaching hypocrisy - they said different things in the program, and allowed themselves to make other remarks, for example, during the break. There was one such aggressive propagandist who told me how rotten the West was, and during the break he asked me if there was any chance for any grants. This is the norm, the diplomat reported.

As an example of hypocrisy, Pszczel also cited a story with one of the most famous Russian politicians of recent decades, the late Vladimir Zhirinovsky. - To put it in quotation marks, he liked me. Because he always wanted someone to yell at.

It was 2014, when they were downloading the so-called opołczeńców, i.e. separatists whom Russia supported in Donbas, who cried that Ukraine was so bad. And Zhirinovsky cherished one such person, pointing his finger at me and saying how terrible NATO is, how it destroys such people, and they live there without bread and water. And then, during the break, he invited the man he was defending to refreshments, telling him to "go away" because he didn't need him. It is a cynical world of people who are quite intelligent, like Soloviev, who are able to lie with all their heart, Pszczel reported.

The diplomat emphasized that the propaganda stars of the programs, such as Soloviev or Skabayeva, were only part of the whole machine. - There is a lot of talk about Soloviev, but there are roles written there. There are people who run it, there are people who write scripts. Once a week, I have seen it myself, there is a written instruction from the Kremlin as to what the main message of the day or week is. I saw these one which are primitive, concerning Ukraine. And there are people invited who are supposed to be such clappers, pretending to be experts. They are meant to offend. They take really big money for it - he emphasized and added that in one of the cases, after he had dealt well with the attack, Soloviev went to help his "opponent". He worked in Russia. He argues that propaganda can only gain strength

The former head of the NATO Information Office admitted that while the activity of "certified clowns" has increased with the war, the situation may be getting worse.

“The problem is that the Russians are very good at dealing with complete odds. I met people who were pro-Western, liked to earn money, had a communist party card and hung icons on the walls. But they've been practicing it for years.

I'm worried about the younger generation. The older one is still aware of all this. But the younger, because of the media, education reason that the world is like this, that Putin's nonsense has a reason and cannot be questioned. It is a sick society, as the Russians I know say it themselves, summed up the Pulaski Foundation expert pessimistically.