I mean it as a complement when I say I didn't need to read it; your past essays inoculated me against the vicarious thrill of cheering for civil war on the other side of the world. Still, fun to read, and it inspired me to text this to my "Supporting the Current Thing" family members:
"Apparently hoping for a swift conclusion to the Russia-Ukraine conflict and a return to the pre-2014 status quo makes me a tyrant-loving asshole. But everyone hoping for a protracted guerilla war and seeing Eastern Ukraine turned to rubble are freedom-loving humanitarians.
As a fan, I’ll just say this piece is you at your best- the pace, it’s like within every line I did not know where you were taking me and the connections, analogies, metaphors, there is something poetic about the writing - I know it’s not poetry, but it has a cadence, tone, sharpness, clarity and emotion that can move you and take you on a roller coaster, where by the end, when you hear the air escaping the cylinders, and you roll to a stop, you feel a mental shift. Masterpiece- thank you
This piece is a welcome warning against sensationalism. Altough we'd like to think we have morally progressed; martyrs and gladiators still draw crowds.
Regardless, the description of the Ukrainians as hallucinating on militol is an overblown caricature in my view. When all your competitors are using ideology to increase their advantage it would be to your detriment not to come up with one yourself. 'Tend your garden' is a proper ethic for a quiet neighbourhood, but when the folks next door are busting the fence and telling you "we're all one happy family" how would you react?!
Pretty absurd to claim WW2 was fought for the Poles. There might have been a case made for fighting to preserve Poland, but fighting to save Poland from Hitler by delivering it to Stalin? Not even the Poles would fight for that.
Gonzalo Lira, who has a very similar foreign service-brat upbringing as Mr. Yarvin, is now living in Kharkov. In his latest stream, he pointed out that Victoria Nuland, who is arguably the architect fo this conflict, is descended from Jewish refugees from the 1907 Bessarabia pogrom.
Thanks for having a conversation other than, “Putin is crazy. How can anyone be so crazy in 2022? Did I mention that Putin eats puppies?”.
I want to propose that the disruption of the Putin regime is not obviously a sensible goal for the USG and friends. Specifically, what happens to the Russian government’s nuclear arsenal when the ruling elite lose their grip on the country? As the USG, I don’t want opportunists breaking into military facilities or cutting deals with rogue Russian military officials in order to acquire and sell nuclear weapons to, well anyone, I think.
Although, it looks like most (all?) of the Soviet nukes after the collapse of the USSR were ultimately accounted for, so maybe this is not such a big issue.
"Ministers believe there must not be an 'easy off-ramp' for Putin". A UK goverment source also singled out "France, Germany and the US" as being "too eager for ... [Zelensky] to settle".
Huzzah for freedom-loving humanitarians, I guess. How few dead Ukranians constitute an 'easy off-ramp, Boris? How many would be enough?
(I need a few hundred synonyms for "contempt" and "disgust".)
How would a nuclear detonation suit you? It would boggle the mind if a delivery system were available for a distant target, but given the regional history of nuclear armaments something hand delivered in country certainly seems within possibility.
There just seems so much chatter coming from the neocons about false flags. And I'd imagine that the neo-nazis are probably literally out of control.
What could go wrong with biologicals, nuclear power plants and possible nuclear warheads in combination with racist nutcases?
Anyhow, I can just imagine Yuri Orlov somehow involved. Back in the day.
> Even in checking these things and trying to extirpate them, we have sought to put the most generous interpretation possible upon them because we knew that their source lay, not in any hostile feeling or purpose of the German people toward us (who were no doubt as ignorant of them as we ourselves were) but only in the selfish designs of a government that did what it pleased and told its people nothing. But they have played their part in serving to convince us at last that that government entertains no real friendship for us and means to act against our peace and security at its convenience. That it means to stir up enemies against us at our very doors the intercepted note to the German minister at Mexico City is eloquent evidence.
> We are accepting this challenge of hostile purpose because we know that in such a government, following such methods, we can never have a friend; and that in the presence of its organized power, always lying in wait to accomplish we know not what purpose, there can be no assured security for the democratic governments of the world. We are now about to accept [the] gage [the challenge] of battle with this natural foe to liberty and shall, if necessary, spend the whole force of the nation to check and nullify its pretensions and its power. We are glad, now that we see the facts with no veil of false pretense about them, to fight thus for the ultimate peace of the world and for the liberation of its peoples, the German peoples included: for the rights of nations great and small and the privilege of men everywhere to choose their way of life and of obedience.
> The world must be made *safe for democracy*. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty. We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make. We are but one of the champions of the rights of mankind. We shall be satisfied when those rights have been made as secure as the faith and the freedom of nations can make them.
> Just because we fight without rancor and without selfish object, seeking nothing for ourselves but what we shall wish to share with all free peoples, we shall, I feel confident, conduct our operations as belligerents without passion and ourselves observe with proud punctilio the principles of right and of fair play we profess to be fighting for.
A lot of people would, if they had a time machine, go back and strangle baby Hitler in the cradle. I'd kill baby Wilson. It gets better:
> Self-governed nations do not fill their neighbor states with spies or set the course of intrigue to bring about some critical posture of affairs which will give them an opportunity to strike and make conquest. Such designs can be successfully worked out only under cover and where no one has the right to ask questions. Cunningly contrived plans of deception or aggression, carried, it may be, from generation to generation, can be worked out and kept from the light only within the privacy of courts or behind the carefully guarded confidences of a narrow and privileged class. They are happily impossible where public opinion commands and insists upon full information concerning all the nation’s affairs.
> Does not every American feel that assurance has been added to our hope for the future peace of the world by the wonderful and heartening things that have been happening within the last few weeks in Russia? Russia was known by those who knew it best to have been always in fact democratic at heart, in all the vital habits of her thought, in all the intimate relationships of her people that spoke their natural instinct, their habitual attitude toward life. The autocracy that crowned the summit of her political structure, long as it had stood and terrible as was the reality of its power, was not in fact Russian in origin, character, or purpose; and now it has been shaken off and the great, generous Russian people have been added in all their naive majesty and might to the forces that are fighting for freedom in the world, for justice, and for peace. Here is a fit partner for a League of Honor.
Damn. If Putin's government ever comes apart in a ball of fire, you could print that in the Times.
Excellent.
I mean it as a complement when I say I didn't need to read it; your past essays inoculated me against the vicarious thrill of cheering for civil war on the other side of the world. Still, fun to read, and it inspired me to text this to my "Supporting the Current Thing" family members:
"Apparently hoping for a swift conclusion to the Russia-Ukraine conflict and a return to the pre-2014 status quo makes me a tyrant-loving asshole. But everyone hoping for a protracted guerilla war and seeing Eastern Ukraine turned to rubble are freedom-loving humanitarians.
"We live in truly strange times."
As a fan, I’ll just say this piece is you at your best- the pace, it’s like within every line I did not know where you were taking me and the connections, analogies, metaphors, there is something poetic about the writing - I know it’s not poetry, but it has a cadence, tone, sharpness, clarity and emotion that can move you and take you on a roller coaster, where by the end, when you hear the air escaping the cylinders, and you roll to a stop, you feel a mental shift. Masterpiece- thank you
This seems more an exercise in self-affirmation than serious analysis.
How did "we" goad the Ukraine into anything more that expressing their desires?
How did "we" pleasure ourselves with "war porn" when in fact an independent nation is opposing an invasion of a foreign power?
This seems very binary in many respects:
Did Russia invade the Ukraine? Yes or No.
Has the Russian military targeted civilian areas? Yes or No.
Apart from "Greater Russia" what is the justification for invasion?
Do the majority of people living in Russia have anything to worry about from the West or is it the Power Elite that "rules" Russia?
"Your “support” for the Kiev regime is about one thing: love. It is about your love for yourself."
That is one of the more fatuous statements that I have read on Substack, not even Matt Taibbi would write something of that nature.
How does one cancel their subscription, it is not clear from the Gray Mirror website? It most most certainly should be.
This piece is a welcome warning against sensationalism. Altough we'd like to think we have morally progressed; martyrs and gladiators still draw crowds.
Regardless, the description of the Ukrainians as hallucinating on militol is an overblown caricature in my view. When all your competitors are using ideology to increase their advantage it would be to your detriment not to come up with one yourself. 'Tend your garden' is a proper ethic for a quiet neighbourhood, but when the folks next door are busting the fence and telling you "we're all one happy family" how would you react?!
this:
https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/the-history-behind-the-russia-ukraine-war/?fbclid=IwAR3IeTec3m-4MHH1AyUuwBxhyfCEyIAGviWDfinYn4ctSRMzVQpu1y_oOAI
and this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLY9ssQ-TNE&list=WL&index=3&t=19s
Pretty absurd to claim WW2 was fought for the Poles. There might have been a case made for fighting to preserve Poland, but fighting to save Poland from Hitler by delivering it to Stalin? Not even the Poles would fight for that.
Gonzalo Lira, who has a very similar foreign service-brat upbringing as Mr. Yarvin, is now living in Kharkov. In his latest stream, he pointed out that Victoria Nuland, who is arguably the architect fo this conflict, is descended from Jewish refugees from the 1907 Bessarabia pogrom.
Thanks for having a conversation other than, “Putin is crazy. How can anyone be so crazy in 2022? Did I mention that Putin eats puppies?”.
I want to propose that the disruption of the Putin regime is not obviously a sensible goal for the USG and friends. Specifically, what happens to the Russian government’s nuclear arsenal when the ruling elite lose their grip on the country? As the USG, I don’t want opportunists breaking into military facilities or cutting deals with rogue Russian military officials in order to acquire and sell nuclear weapons to, well anyone, I think.
Although, it looks like most (all?) of the Soviet nukes after the collapse of the USSR were ultimately accounted for, so maybe this is not such a big issue.
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/what-happened-soviet-superpowers-nuclear-arsenal-clues-nuclear-security-summit
Then I would more generally ask, if the Putin regime collapses messily, what are the potential risks to the USG? And to the USG’s people?
After your titanic success on coof, expanding into psychoanalysis was an obvious second act.
>a list of super-mainstream foreign-policy sages
Yes, thank you for that roundup of criminals and grifters of the permanent state, truly fascinating.
Why do French Canadian men like take their wives from behind: so she can watch the hockey game as well
In the Times (no not NYT, the UK version) today:
"Don't back down, Ukraine urged
[...]
"Ministers believe there must not be an 'easy off-ramp' for Putin". A UK goverment source also singled out "France, Germany and the US" as being "too eager for ... [Zelensky] to settle".
Huzzah for freedom-loving humanitarians, I guess. How few dead Ukranians constitute an 'easy off-ramp, Boris? How many would be enough?
(I need a few hundred synonyms for "contempt" and "disgust".)
How would a nuclear detonation suit you? It would boggle the mind if a delivery system were available for a distant target, but given the regional history of nuclear armaments something hand delivered in country certainly seems within possibility.
There just seems so much chatter coming from the neocons about false flags. And I'd imagine that the neo-nazis are probably literally out of control.
What could go wrong with biologicals, nuclear power plants and possible nuclear warheads in combination with racist nutcases?
Anyhow, I can just imagine Yuri Orlov somehow involved. Back in the day.
It seems everyone needs a monster to destroy; they ought to listen to John Quincy.
Instead, it seems we're all Wilsonites now. I'm sure you're familiar with this banger:
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4943/
> Even in checking these things and trying to extirpate them, we have sought to put the most generous interpretation possible upon them because we knew that their source lay, not in any hostile feeling or purpose of the German people toward us (who were no doubt as ignorant of them as we ourselves were) but only in the selfish designs of a government that did what it pleased and told its people nothing. But they have played their part in serving to convince us at last that that government entertains no real friendship for us and means to act against our peace and security at its convenience. That it means to stir up enemies against us at our very doors the intercepted note to the German minister at Mexico City is eloquent evidence.
> We are accepting this challenge of hostile purpose because we know that in such a government, following such methods, we can never have a friend; and that in the presence of its organized power, always lying in wait to accomplish we know not what purpose, there can be no assured security for the democratic governments of the world. We are now about to accept [the] gage [the challenge] of battle with this natural foe to liberty and shall, if necessary, spend the whole force of the nation to check and nullify its pretensions and its power. We are glad, now that we see the facts with no veil of false pretense about them, to fight thus for the ultimate peace of the world and for the liberation of its peoples, the German peoples included: for the rights of nations great and small and the privilege of men everywhere to choose their way of life and of obedience.
> The world must be made *safe for democracy*. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty. We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make. We are but one of the champions of the rights of mankind. We shall be satisfied when those rights have been made as secure as the faith and the freedom of nations can make them.
> Just because we fight without rancor and without selfish object, seeking nothing for ourselves but what we shall wish to share with all free peoples, we shall, I feel confident, conduct our operations as belligerents without passion and ourselves observe with proud punctilio the principles of right and of fair play we profess to be fighting for.
A lot of people would, if they had a time machine, go back and strangle baby Hitler in the cradle. I'd kill baby Wilson. It gets better:
> Self-governed nations do not fill their neighbor states with spies or set the course of intrigue to bring about some critical posture of affairs which will give them an opportunity to strike and make conquest. Such designs can be successfully worked out only under cover and where no one has the right to ask questions. Cunningly contrived plans of deception or aggression, carried, it may be, from generation to generation, can be worked out and kept from the light only within the privacy of courts or behind the carefully guarded confidences of a narrow and privileged class. They are happily impossible where public opinion commands and insists upon full information concerning all the nation’s affairs.
> Does not every American feel that assurance has been added to our hope for the future peace of the world by the wonderful and heartening things that have been happening within the last few weeks in Russia? Russia was known by those who knew it best to have been always in fact democratic at heart, in all the vital habits of her thought, in all the intimate relationships of her people that spoke their natural instinct, their habitual attitude toward life. The autocracy that crowned the summit of her political structure, long as it had stood and terrible as was the reality of its power, was not in fact Russian in origin, character, or purpose; and now it has been shaken off and the great, generous Russian people have been added in all their naive majesty and might to the forces that are fighting for freedom in the world, for justice, and for peace. Here is a fit partner for a League of Honor.
Damn. If Putin's government ever comes apart in a ball of fire, you could print that in the Times.