#dupes for russia

[tomorrowusa]

Here is Jordan Klepper's entire special on how the GOP became the Party of Putin.

Brace yourself in that vid for another display of MAGA ignorance and stupidity.

The Kremlin is still using unmoderated social media and fake news sites to push disinformation and propaganda into the conspiracy-loving minds of Trump supporters. GOP members of Congress are among them.

The MAGA love for Putin is not due only to media manipulation. Putin's domestic policies closely mirror how the far right would govern in our country: official homophobia, greater income inequality, special treatment for billionaire oligarchs, rigged elections, a de facto official religion, poor consumer protection, censorship, restrictions on abortion, assassination of political opponents, and a lot more. What's not to like in Russia for a US far right fundamentalist? The fringe right pines for the days when women were in the kitchen, Jesus was in the classroom, gays were in the closet, and blacks were completely out of sight.

To truly understand Russia, it's absolutely necessary to talk with its neighbors – not with Tucker Carlson. So Jordan visited Estonia and met with Prime Minister Kaja Kallas.

IMHO, part of the Putin love by some Americans stems from an almost pathological ignorance of Eastern Europe. After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, some idiots began proclaiming "the end of history" and whatever little learning about Eastern Europe which may have taken place in K-12 education then vanished totally.

Putin, a former officer in the Soviet secret police, wants to revive the Soviet Union in all but name. And imperialism is part of that plan.

People in the US who cheer Putin are like the Americans who applauded Hitler in the 1930s. As long as there is substantial support for Putin here we should worry about such people trying to make the US more like totalitarian Russia.

[studentofshinto]

Breaking my rules to post this. Don't go to Russia under any circumstances. Tell everyone you know, if you go, you will end up pushing up sunflowers in Ukraine.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jay Kuo at Think Big Picture:

For years, critics of Vladimir Putin have been warning that the Russians have taken over parts of the Republican Party. They raised the alarm as Republicans defended the Russian leader, parroted clear Kremlin talking points, and became mules for disinformation campaigns. In recent weeks, that criticism has shifted to include not just Republicans who have left the party, including former representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, but current GOP members. Recently, two powerful Republican chairs of the House Intelligence Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee warned openly about how Russian propaganda has seeped into their party and even made its way into speeches on the House floor. Other members are now even openly questioning whether some of their fellow officials have been compromised and are being extorted. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) suggested in a recent interview that the Russian spies may possess compromising tapes of some of his colleagues. It’s unclear where he’s getting his information or how accurate it is.

And then there’s this: According to a report by Politico, a number of European politicians were recently paid by Moscow to interfere in the upcoming EU elections by Russians pretending to be a “media” outlet called “Voice of Europe.” The Kremlin-backed operation used money to influence officials to take pro-Russian stances. Authorities have conducted some money seizures and launched an investigation into which members of the European Parliament may have accepted cash bribes. This in turn raises an important question for our own politics: Are the Russians doing the same with U.S. politicians, directly or indirectly? This piece walks through the three types of compromise—disinformation, extortion, and bribery—to give a sense of what we know and what we don’t really know, and, importantly, where we should be on our guard. As this summary will show, from the 2016 election till now, there’s enough Russian smoke now to assume there is a fire, one that compromises not only the integrity of our own system of elections, but the safety and security of the free world. Duped.

Over the past year, we have witnessed two distinct kinds of Russian propaganda in action. Both use our own elected officials and intelligence processes to amplify and even weaponize disinformation. The first kind originates online through Russian-backed internet channels. Information operatives begin spreading false rumors, for example about Ukraine, that then get repeated within right-wing silos before reaching willing purveyors of it within the halls of Congress. A chief culprit in Congress is Georgia’s Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. Among the Russian-originated false narratives she has uplifted is the patently false claim that Ukraine is waging a war against Christianity while Russia is protecting it. On Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast, Greene even claimed, without evidence, that Ukraine is “executing priests.”

Where would Greene have gotten this wild, concocted notion? We don’t have to look far. Russian talking points have included this gaslighting narrative for some time. The twist, of course, is that, according to the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, it is the Russian army that has been torturing and executing priests and other religious figures, including 30 Ukrainian clergy killed and 26 held captive by Russian forces. The Russians have also targeted Baptists, whom they see as U.S. propagandists, according to an in-depth Time magazine piece on the violence and death directed toward evangelicals. The Congressional propaganda mouthpieces for Russia aren’t limited to the U.S. House. Over in the Senate, Ohio Senator J.D. Vance was also recently accused of spreading Kremlin-backed disinformation about Ukraine, this time over spurious allegations that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy siphoned U.S. aid to purchase himself two luxury yachts.

[...]

The accusation that Russians are presently extorting and blackmailing U.S. politicians into supporting Russia’s agenda has some broad appeal. It would help explain some mysteries, including why people like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) suddenly is no longer as supportive of Ukraine as before and constantly kisses the ring of Donald Trump these days—after presciently saying in 2016 that the GOP would destroy itself if it nominated him. 

The problem has been that these accusations aren’t supported by much evidence. That means that political extortion by the Russians is either not a very prevalent practice, or it’s so effective that no one dares expose it. Either way, we’re left without much to go on. The Russian word kompromat came into common parlance around the time that Buzzfeed published a salacious story about another intelligence report back in early 2017. In that instance, the author, a former British intelligence officer named Christopher Steele, was concerned Russia had compromising data on the soon-to-be president, Donald Trump.

That report never wound up being substantiated, and its sources and funding came into question as well. But intelligence agencies are in general agreement that obtaining kompromat is standard practice by Russia, and someone like Trump could have been an easy mark considering the company that he kept (e.g. Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell) and the projects he was involved with (e.g. the Miss Universe contest). Lately, the notion of kompromat emerged once again, this time not from Democratic-paid outfits but from within the GOP itself. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) is one of the more “colorful” characters within the GOP, primarily known lately for being one of the eight members who voted to oust former Speaker Kevin McCarthy and even for getting into public jostling and shouting matches with McCarthy.

The Republican Party (or at least its pro-MAGA faction) is compromised by Russian kompromat.

[orcinus-veterinarius]

When horses end up with severe leg/hip injuries, they are almost always put to sleep. The odds of recovering full mobility from such injuries are slim and the odds of reinjury are high, so even if the horse is perfectly healthy in all other aspects, it is generally recognized to be more humane to put them down than to keep them alive just to live the rest of their lives limping around a small paddock or stall. A life for a horse in which s/he cannot gallop, leap, explore and play is no life at all. Why not apply the same logic to cetaceans? A life for a cetacean in which they can’t dive hundreds of meters, make meaningful autonomous choices (“should I play with the rubber ball or the puzzle feeder today?” is not a meaningful choice; research has shown that autonomy is crucial for animal welfare), echolocate and experience the rich biodiversity of the ocean is no life. I really don’t understand why it’s so horrible to think it more humane to euthanize a confused and sick orca calf if there is no chance of rehab and release than to take her/him permanently into captivity. It’s not disparaging or hateful to cetacean trainers to say so—I know they care about animals—it’s simply a logical ethical stance. Instead of searching in vain for orca conservation organizations that aren’t “radically anti-captivity”, maybe pro-caps should look inwards and ask themselves why all the major orca organizations (Center for Whale Research, Orca Behavior Institute, OrcaLab, Wild Orca, Orca Conservancy, Far East Russia Orca Project, etc.) as well as some cetacean organizations (ex. Whale and Dolphin Conservation, Cetacean Society International) oppose captivity. Is it because all of these esteemed groups, which if you look them up are all staffed by credentialed scientists, have been duped by the “animal rights agenda”, or could it be because maybe, just maybe, they know what they’re talking about? If captive orcas are so different from wild ones that wild orca biologists have no credibility to speak about their welfare, then that’s a clear indictment of captivity already.

Hi. I'm sorry for not answering right away, I was still at my externship when I got your ask, and I wanted to be able to sit down and give you a proper answer. So unfortunately, I don't think what I say will satisfy you. I don't expect to change your mind, nor is that my goal here. I only want to explain why I believe the way I do, so that you or others reading this can at least understand that it's not a position I take lightly, nor do I think it's infallible.

(Long post below the cut):

To start off, as an (almost) veterinarian, there are absolutely plenty of circumstances where I find euthanasia to be the correct decision. Euthanasia is our final gift to our patients, a swift and painless death in the face of prolonged suffering or poor quality of life. A large dog with debilitating osteoarthritis. A cat with terminal lymphoma. A down cow. A raptor with an amputated leg. Or like you mentioned, a horse with a fractured hip. These animals would live in a constant state of pain that they don't understand, and death can rightly be considered a kindness to them.

But an otherwise healthy orca calf? I would consider that a false equivalence. I agree that life in the wild should be prioritized whenever possible, and that captive orcas lead very different lives than their wild counterparts. But if that orca cannot return to the wild (orphaned and unable to be reunited with its pod, habituated to humans, non-painful disability such as deafness), and there is a facility willing to take it on, I do not think euthanasia is an appropriate option. In human care, that calf can still swim, breach, and dive, even if not to the same depths as the ocean (it's also worth noting that these are all costly behavior energetically and are not performed for no reason). It can still socialize and form family bonds with an adopted pod of whales. It can still (theoretically) mate and rear calves. It can still engage its big brain in problem-solving through training and enrichment in the place of hunting. And as a bonus, it will never go hungry and has access to veterinary care if ill or injured.

This is not a wild life. This is not the same life they would've, or should've known. A pool, no matter how well-appointed, is not the ocean, and we should not claim they're comparable. But I don't think it's a fate worse than death. I truly don't. But if it is... if freedom really is worth more than life, then all captive whales need to be euthanized. Even in a sea pen setting, they will not be free. They will not choose their food, their companions, their enrichment, their comings and goings. Those choices will still be made on their behalf by caregivers, and they will still have pretty much the same levels of autonomy as in their tank habitat. They will still be captive. (While some people do advocate for this, I don't think it's a popular outlook. Even SOS Dolfijn, a historically anti-cap organization, recently announced plans to build an aqauarium as a permanent home for non-releasable cetaceans rather than continuing to euthanize them).

Speaking of autonomy, yes, it is very important. But I truly don't think the orcas are distressed by the lack of meaning in choosing between enrichment devices. I think that's why we disagree on this topic... we have different worldviews. We both see orcas as beautiful, intelligent creatures, but I do not see them as people. They are animals, and for all their complexity, I interpret their behavior the same way I do any other species... they are motivated by food, reproduction, and (since they're highly social) companionship. Because of that, I still think we can give them a good life in human care, which is why it frustrates me to see the zoo community throw up their hands and give up rather than trying to improve our current less-than-ideal setups (*shakes my fist at the Blue World project*).

Now, I don't think it's wrong to be emotional about animals. I most definitely am! And it's very clear to me you love orcas and care about their wellbeing deeply. I admire that about you, and I appreciate your passion.

On to the next point... in the cetacean world, I've found that there is an unfortunate divide between researchers and caregivers who work with cetaceans in human care and those who study them exclusively in the wild. And that schism far predates the Blackfish era. Most of those organizations you listed are indeed legitimate, and I fully support their vital work and encourage others to do the same. A few of them, though, share things like this:

I think you can understand why this hurts me. And it's a lie. I've now interned at three aquariums (two of them AZA-accredited) that house various species of cetacean, and it's impossible for me to reconcile what I know and have seen to be true and what Whale and Dolphin Conservation wants the public to believe: that these unbelievably loved, vivacious animals are drugged and tortured by their greedy captors. It's not true, and I do not appreciate WDC for spreading this creepy artwork around. Nor do I think that fighting captivity is a beneficial allocation of resources when there is an overwhelming number of genuine threats to the survival of wild cetaceans.

Anyway, back to the scientists. Personally, I don't consider researchers who work exclusively with wild orcas to be either superior or inferior to those who work with captive whales. And sometimes I wonder how much of their position is a self-fulfilling prophecy: if someone opposes captivity on moral grounds, they won't work with captive whales, so they'll never get to know what their lives and care are like beyond maybe a single tour of the park or memories of how things were done in the 1960s (like Dr. Spong, who worked with some of the very first captive orcas at the Vancouver Aquarium).

I also don't think it diminishes the expertise of wildlife biologists to say that they are not experts on husbandry, training, or medical care... those are very different fields, and ideally, they should all inform each other. And of course, there are folks who work with both wild and captive whales. One of the reasons I linked SR3 in my previous post is they have staff with backgrounds in both managed care and research of free-ranging populations (I actually have no idea what the organization's official stance on captivity is, it's not something they address).

Maybe I'm wrong. I try my best to keep an open mind, but I know I'm also swayed by my own preconceptions and experiences. When I started this blog in December 2020, I was a first year vet student with minimal actual experience outside of domestic animals and some herps, and had only recently adopted the pro-captivity outlook. Now, I'm much more deeply involved in the zoo and aquarium world. These are people I know and respect, people who have written me letters of recommendation and comment on my Facebook posts, people I've had dinner with and showed up with after hours to care for a sick animal. And I recognize that biases me. The zoo world is often resistant to change, especially folks who have been in the industry for many years. And that doesn't do anyone, especially the animals, any good. I don't want to get stuck in an echo chamber, so I make it a point to read anti-captivity literature, even when it upsets me. If there is anything I can do to improve their lives, I want to learn about it, regardless of the source.

I try to adapt to new information. For example, in the past few months alone, I've become a lot more favorable toward the idea of sea pen habitats. My concerns about "sanctuaries" are more logisitical* and philosophical** rather than the idea that artifical habitats are inherently superior to pen habitats (they're not), especially when plenty of traditional facilites already make great use of ocean pens or enclosed lagoons. There are pros and cons to both, and a lot of it depends on the needs of the individual animals.

*funding; maintenance; lack of land-based backup pools and fully-equipped medical facilities; introducing immunologically naive animals to pollutants and infectious agents; disruptions to native wildlife; staffing activists and wildlife biologists rather than those with relevant husbandry experience

**villainizing aquariums; promoting the project as a "release to freedom" to the public when it's really another form of captivity; claiming the animals' lives will be "natural" when they will still require training, artificial enrichment, contraceptives, and social management if done correctly; downplaying or completely denying the very real risks of such a transition and insisting the animals will automatically be better off when Little White and Little Grey have proved that's not the case

If you made it to the bottom, thanks for reading. I wish all the best for you, and I mean that genuinely ❤️ even if we disagree, I hope you can appreciate our shared love for these animals and a desire for their wellbeing. Best of luck in all your endeavors!

[qqueenofhades]

One of my more "radical" leftist friends admitted after the 2016 election that they voted for Jill Stein. I asked them why and they said, and I quote, "I don't really know."

Anyway, thank you for the thoughtful post about polling. I'm still terrified of another Biden-Trump match up, but I suspect you are right that many of these online leftists yelling about sending a message to "genocide Joe" were not likely voters to begin with.

Well I mean, in Online Leftist world, voting is an essentially meaningless act anyway, so if they do bother to do it, why not make some sort of "protest" against the Corrupt System, even though (as I said) Jill Stein is literally a Manchurian candidate sponsored and funded by Russia precisely in order to dupe gullible leftists who want to Send a Message to the Democrats. She has no platform and no policies. She just exists to hurt Democrats and she is another part of the reason HRC lost in 2016, but hey. That sure showed us, or something.

And the thing is, while I'm not discounting that there could be some slippage of the youth vote, it would be much more effective as a threat (much as I would still deeply disagree with it, since the stakes are far too high with Trumpian fascism to fuck around with this bullshit) if we had literally any shred of evidence that they were planning to vote at all, that they were planning to vote for Biden and this is somehow the one thing that made them decide otherwise, or that their arguments were at all widespread beyond their tiny hermetic internet echo chamber. As I have said, I have not thus far seen compelling evidence that any of this is true, and believe me, I am ALSO keeping a close eye on things because this year will probably kill me before it's over. But when the Online Leftists have already spent three years lying about and trashing everything Biden has actually done, it is difficult to believe that they were in fact intending to vote for him, that they should be priced into any election analysis, or that they are as impactful as they think.

I suspect they're mostly being used to try to convince other people (who may or may not have planned to vote) that it is morally reprehensible to vote for Biden solely because of Gaza, no matter how illogical that is and how many orders of magnitude worse Trump would be on literally everything. And while I'm not denying that they may well peel off a few of the wishy-washy leaners and that's why their rhetoric is dangerous, I deeply doubt that they themselves were ever any kind of electoral or voting participant at all, because they keep telling us loudly that they're not. The media is running hard with this angle because they desperately want more Biden in Trouble stories, but actual election results keep proving them wrong, over and over. For all our sakes, let's hope very much this trend continues.

[vomitdodger]

And it’s just another BS Russia Russia Russia story.

At worst… those guys were duped and didn’t do their homework on resources.

They themselves are victims.

One is very anti trump in fact.

But the FBI specifically called out “conservative commentators” by name. No charges. No crimes. But they got their names out there.

Commies gonna commie.

[koichizeni-dunkminimi]

One day. Two different worlds.

I dont really know how you can post such photos at the same time while Russia targeted the largest CHILDREN'S hospital of Ukraine - Okhmatdyt.

They targeted KIDS.

But i get it. Not everyone has time for other countries problems. But the situation is that this war harms Indian people TOO...

Full article:https://www.reuters.com/world/india-says-it-busts-trafficking-racket-duping-people-into-fighting-russia-2024-03-08/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=twitter

This why i wonder, does India really needs all this? Do indian people want to see how their president are holding hands with not only kids murderer , but also the guy,that profits from indians misery?

Link to help children's hospital,mentioned earlier:

[originalleftist]

PSY-OP ALERT:

Sorry for how long this ended up being, but there's a lot to cover. My sincere gratitude to anyone who actually reads through it.

We have seen again and again how easily supposed progressives, even those considered long-time allies, can quickly fall into believing and acting on fascist psy-ops.

There's no sure way to know that someone is a trustworthy ally. One might say that there is no such thing, since everyone has faults and blind spots and prejudices and is hypocritical to one extent or another.

But here are a few common ways in which so-called Leftists, progressives, feminists, etc get duped into supporting fascist agendas. It's both a litmus test of sorts, red flags that someone may not be as reliable an ally as you think, and also a good shortlist of major narratives the Right uses to try to infiltrate and co-opt progressive communities and divide their opposition, which you should be on the lookout for.

1. Ukraine/Russia. If someone is defending Putin or vilifying Ukraine, they are likely being influenced by Kremlinist-fascist propaganda designed to sway Leftists under the guise of being "anti-imperialism" or "anti-war". This is a larger subset of how opposition to wars and imperialism has been used for decades to draw Left-wingers into supporting conspiracy theorism and hypocritically aligning with dictatorial, even fascist regimes that are seen as opposing "the West".

Note: a specific subset of this, which I've found even people who otherwise don't necessarily fall for it sometimes do, is Assange apologism. Julian Assange is not simply a journalist who was persecuted by the government for exposing its secrets. He is closely-aligned with the Kremlin and its propaganda, and leaked information selectively to hurt Clinton/Democrats help Trump during the 2016 election.

2. Covid. Anti-vax conspiracy theorism used to be a position more associated with the Left, though it has been largely coopted by the fascist Right, thanks to Trump. A lot of this was built on opposition to capitalism/big corporations/"Big Pharma" and probably also environmentalist concerns about toxins in our environment, which appeals to Left-wing sensibilities.

There's also a heavy dose of ableism, particularly fear-mongering about/misrepresenting autism, which is another prejudice that has appeal across the political spectrum. Even if one accepted the (widely-debunked) claims linking vaccines to autism, that means that the central premise of the anti-vax agenda, when you strip it down to its core, can be summarized as "Your child is better off dead of a deadly disease than alive and autistic."

We might also have a word here about support for DNRs*/"assisted dying"/euthanasia and making "assisted dying" more accessible to disabled people, typically framed as letting them "die with dignity" without actually providing them the support that would let them LIVE with dignity (see Canada's MAID controversies). Though I am pleased to see pushback from Left-leaning parties on this recently.

*I should note here that I do not oppose DNRs in principle, nor the right of any patient (assuming they have the ability to do so, and if not that's what living wills are for) to refuse medical care. I DO have a problem when people are mislead or pressured to choose them, or even have them issued without their knowledge/consent (as in the widely-reported case of people with disabilities being given DNR orders in the UK).

3. Trans Rights. Many a proclaimed feminist has shown their true colours once the subject of trans rights came up. Falsely attacking trans people as male predators or fake women does not protect women- trans people are actually one of the most likely groups to be subjected to sexual violence, and if one wants to prey on women, there are far easier and less-stigmatized ways to do so in our society. Transphobia also ultimately serves to oppress cis women, as women who do not perfectly fit white patriarchal standards are investigated and accused of being trans (as seen with anti-drag laws potentially criminalizing non-traditional dress choices, and the attacks on cis female athletes of colour, particularly at the 2024 Olympics).

4. Israel/Palestine. Many so-called Leftists have embraced conspiratorial and even outright genocidal Anti-semitism masquerading as opposing "colonialism" and genocide. This narrative seems to rest on two primary lies- the claim that Jews are not indigenous to the Levant, and therefore colonizers (this is contradicted by overwhelming historical, archaeological, cultural, and genetic evidence), and the usual group-think/collective guilt and "us vs them" mentality (the belief that all Israelis/Jews are collectively guilty for the crimes of the Netanyahu government, and the belief that the rights of Palestinians and Jews cannot coexist, but one must come at the expense of the other).

5. Johnny Depp. Many so-called "feminists" quickly embraced or at least turned a blind eye toward misogynist abuse and conspiracy theories from incels/"Mens' Rights Activists" against a queer activist and DV survivor, out of fandom for Johnny Depp (who also has close ties to both the Kremlin and Saudi governments). Presenting Depp as "the real victim", and Heard as a fake victim undermining "real victims", and as a privileged elite using "white woman tears" to gain sympathy, were other ways in which the Right played on Leftists' sympathies and rhetoric to co-opt them in this case. Amber Heard hate/Johnny Depp fandom is a clear indication that a "progressive" or "feminist" can be swayed to abandon their convictions by celebrity/fandom, and/or lacks understanding of Intersectionality (ie how someone could be relatively privileged in certain ways but still disadvantaged in others, particularly against someone like Depp).

6. Immigration. Many supposed Leftists have proven susceptible to narratives accusing immigrants/foreigners of "stealing" jobs from the working class, while the reality is that immigration also creates jobs (more people means more demand for goods and services), automation is a threat to jobs that has nothing to do with immigration, and immigrants often do jobs most Americans don't want to (which is actually exploitation-in typical DARVO fashion, immigrants are vilified for their own exploitation). Anti-immigrant rhetoric is a divide and conquer tactic used by oligarchs to keep the working class fighting each other, instead of focusing on who's really exploiting them.

7. Housing. Attacks on the Unhoused are one of the most acceptable forms of bigotry in our society on both Left and Right. Often this boils down to simple selfishness- whatever a person's abstract political views, they don't want to see "homeless" or "poor" people around, falsely equate them with criminality/drugs, and are worried about the effect of encampments or even the construction of low-income housing on their property values.

These are all ways in which the Right commonly infiltrates and co-opts Leftwing circles, and pits its opponents against each other (divide and conquer). Of course, there are other issues, other examples. This is not a definitive list. So its important to learn to recognize patterns, so you can spot psy-ops/divide and conquer tactics in other forms/on other issues.

One frequent pattern in these narratives is of course collective guilt/guilt by association: Ukraine is bad because it is aligned with the West, Russia is good because it's against the West. Heard is bad because she's a (relatively) rich famous white woman (somehow Depp isn't, as a rich white man). Israel/Jews are evil because of the crimes of the Israeli government, Hamas is good because they're against Israel. Related to this is the use of DARVO tactics to allow oppressors to falsely claim status as victims, further muddying the waters (and a hard argument to counter, because anyone guilty of it can immediately accuse anyone who points it out of doing the same thing). Assange, an oppressive of the Kremlin, is painted as just a heroic journalist persecuted for exposing the truth. Depp, an extremely wealthy, famous man with a long history of racism, misogyny, violent criminality, and ties to the Mob and dictatorial regimes, is the helpless victim of his ex-wife/a feminist conspiracy. Upper/upper-middle class home owners are the real victims because poor people exist in their communities. White workers are the real victims, not immigrants exploited as cheap labour who don't dare complain if their rights are violated because they might be deported.

A third common trick is to simultaneously paint the target group as a deadly, even existential threat, and as pathetic and weak. This seeming contradiction is a hallmark of fascist propaganda specifically (Umberto Eco listed it on his list of 14 traits of fascism). For example, unhoused people are all lazy pathetic drug users, but also criminals destroying our neighbourhoods. Amber Heard is both a talentless, obviously lying gold digger, but also powerful and competent enough to terrorize her husband (in his home, surrounded by private security on his payroll) for years and mastermind a vast international conspiracy spanning a decade to frame him. Ukraine is not even a real country, but also a huge threat to Russia's security justifying its invasion (propagandists often sidestep this absurdity by simply treating Ukraine as an extension of the US/NATO- this allows them to simultaneously portray Russia's genocidal war as the underdog defending itself against "Western imperialism", and to reinforce their genocidal narrative that Ukraine is not a real nation).

Learn the tricks. Call them out when you see them. And if someone else says you're falling for them, don't get defensive and immediately double-down- listen and consider whether you are, in fact, being misled.

[charmac]

It’s interesting that a lot of Dee and Dennis’ plots this season have been tied to Frank and their life-long dependence on him, yet oppose each other. Dennis is constantly trying to use Frank’s capital to make wealth for himself while Dee keeps finding herself completely tied to Frank’s money with no out in sight:

Inflates: Dee’s dependent on Frank to find a place to stay, since he pays her rent, and then it’s revealed he’s actually her Landlord, evicted her to prove she’s completely dependent on him. Meanwhile, Dennis needs capital, he’s going to Frank, that’s all he wants and needs. Dennis is there for gain, Dee is there because she’s stuck;

Frank Shoots: It’s the twins vs. Frank for his posthumous wealth, and the turn that Frank wants to be put down to a strong, ‘we’re not going to kill you, Frank’ moment. They want to be written back into the will, but they don’t want to reap the rewards now, not really;

Frank vs. Russia: Dee’s aside, who gives a shit about Frank and some stupid chess tournament? And Dennis is with her, fuck Frank’s stupid game—until… You’re saying you’re controlling Frank? He’s your puppet? Now Dennis is in, he’s completely engaged, getting a massive thrill out of controlling the man, but Dee doesn’t find an interest;

Celebrity Booze: Heavily mirroring Inflates, once again Dennis’ sole purpose for going to Frank is for gain, financing. I have a plan so give me money and my plans can work, that’s all I need from you. Dee is there because she duped herself, tried to get something by keeping herself close to Frank, and once again she’s ended up stuck, high in the sky with jackshit from Frank, completely dependent on him for next-to-nothing, while her brother tries to use him for gain. Dennis’ poor business sense gets him nowhere, and no one cares to include Dee, they’re both sitting on Frank’s $35,000,000.00 jet, prospect-less and broke.

I wonder if this thread is being woven for a reason, tying and emphasising their dependence in opposite ways throughout the season: Dee as being stuck to Frank as a consequence of the past, trying to lurch off the wealth he currently has and Dennis clawing himself back to Frank in an attempt to set up his future, create something from himself building off of Frank’s wealth. Though they both are always doomed to stay stuck in their ways, especially when they’re not working together. Their plan with Frank stayed tight, got them somewhere, when they worked together, but they can’t get anything out of him individually.

It’s a constant narrative with all of them, doomed individually, but somewhat viable if they would just talk, if they’d ever learn, set aside their fears and anger and work together. But of course, they don’t. Will they ever?

[comicsart3]

Black Widow has a reasonably long comic book history, making her first appearance in Tales of Suspense #52 in 1964 but has arguably only recently come into her own thanks to reboots from the 2000s and the character’s appearance in the Marvel Comics movie franchise (Iron Man 2 in 2010). Despite being the creation of Stan Lee, Black Widow was a rather two dimensional Cold War figure, whose real name was Natalia (Natasha) Romanova who operated as a seductive Soviet spy and assassin in the 1960s, usually pitched against Iron Man and fellow Avengers. She was later portrayed as something of a brainwashed dupe, controlled by her sinister Communist Russian bosses, until at last, she discovers the joys of American individual freedom and defects to the USA. After this the character somewhat loses her point, working occasionally with The Avengers and briefly becoming Hawkeye’s love interest. In the 1970s, the character was relaunched as a crime-fighting espionage “babe” complete with tight leather costume, her flowing iconic red hair and a jet set lifestyle, perhaps manifesting Marvel’s ongoing struggle with feminist portrayals of its (few) major female characters.

The character dropped from sight in the 1980s and made fleeting appearances the following decade, usually allied to Tony Stark and was a sometime member of The Avengers. Her contributions were often linked to her former role as a Soviet operative, particularly after the Russian Communist regime collapsed in 1991.

In the more nuanced world of the 2000s, Black Widow has become a more standard sexy-but-lethal espionage character, generally working with the good guys against international threats, but her fraught background makes her a morally ambiguous figure, prone to rogue behaviour. In the page featured, Black Widow takes on Alexei Shostakov, Natalia’s original husband. Shostakov began as the Soviet version of Captain America, Red Guardian, frequently working with his wife on anti Western missions during the Cold War. Alexei became estranged from Natalia after her defection, and in the post-Soviet era, the need for Red Guardian was no more, so Shostakov took on the role of Ronin, a more conventional super assassin for hire, although he retained a love for Mother Russia. Working with a terrorist group known as the Dark Ocean Society, Ronin was eventually taken down by a number of Avengers, including Black Widow, and was actually, rather embarrassingly for him, captured and incarcerated by his ex-wife.

Black Widow, for me, falls rather unfortunately between the stools of more convincing DC heroines/villainesses such as Catwoman and Huntress and never quite equals either, her earlier politicisation as a character perhaps not helping. Her current role as a modern Modesty Blaise-type figure perhaps suits her best.

Sources: Black Widow and Red Guardian Wikipedia entries and ReadComicsOnline.

[tomorrowusa]

« If Trump wins, I’m sure he will cut off aid and sell out Ukraine. If Biden wins, and if two-thirds of Congress remains supportive of Ukraine, the aid can keep flowing — and Vladimir Putin will gradually realize that he can’t prevail. That, in turn, might galvanize Russia into serious peace negotiations. »

— Columnist Max Boot at the Washington Post.

Max Boot was born in Russia and came to the United States at an early age with his family. He understands the mindset of authoritarians and oligarchs there.

Right now Putin isn't interested in negotiation – just surrender or crippling concessions from Ukraine. Sadly, the only way to end the war is to raise the price for Russia continuing it.

And the only way to push back against Russia is to continue the flow of Western aid – a plurality of it coming from the US.

A vote for Trump or for Congressional Republicans is a vote for Russia.

Liberal democracy cannot survive in the US if it is under assault around the world. Voting Democratic helps protect both.

[aedesluminis]

Napoléon Bonaparte on Lazare Carnot

Carnot, born in Burgundy, had entered very young the corps of engineers, and shewed himself an advocate of the System of Montalembert. He was considered by his companions an eccentric character, and was already a knight of the order of St. Louis when the Revolution begun, the principles of which he warmly espoused. He became a member of the convention, and was one of the Comité de Salut public with Robespierre, Barère, Couthon, Saint-Just, Billaud-Varennes, Collot-d' Herbois, &c. He shewed himself particularly inveterate against the nobility, and found himself in consequence, frequently engaged in quarrels with Robespierre, who, towards the close of his lite, had taken a great many nobles under his protection.

Carnot was laborious, sincere on every occasion, but unaccustomed to intrigue, and easily deceived. He was attached to Jourdan, as commissioner from the Convention, at the time Jourdan " was employed in relieving the town of Mentz, " which was besieged ; and he rendered some services on the occasion. At the Comité de Salut public, he directed the operations of the war, and was found useful, but he had neither experience nor practice in the affairs of war. He shewed on every occasion a great strength of mind.

After the events of Thermidor, when the Convention caused all the members of the Comité de Salut public to be arrested, with the exception of himself, Carnot insisted upon sharing their fate. This conduct was the more noble, inasmuch as public opinion had pronounced itself violently against the Comité. He was named member of the Directory after Vendemiaire; but after the 9th Thermidor his mind was deeply affected by the reproaches of public opinion, which accused the Comité of ail the blood which had flowed on the scaffold. lie felt the necessity of gaining esteem, and believing that he took the lead, he suffered himself to be led by some of those who directed the party from abroad. His merit was then extolled to the skies, but he did not deserve the praises of the enemies of France; he found himself placed in a critical situation, and fell in Fructidor.

After the 18th Brumaire, Carnot was recalled by the First Consul and placed in the department of war; he had several quarrels with the minister of the finances, and Dufresnes the director of the treasury, in which it is but fair to say that he was always in the wrong. At last he left the department, persuaded that it could no longer go on for want of money.

When a member of the Tribunate, he spoke and voted against the establishment of the Empire; but his conduct, open and manly, gave no uneasiness to the administration. At a later period he was appointed chief inspector of reviews, and received from the Emperor on his retiring from the service a pension of twenty thousand francs. As Iong as things went on prosperously, the Emperor heard nothing of him; but after the campaign of Russia, at the time of the disasters of France, Carnot asked to be employed ; he was appointed to command the town of Antwerp, and he behaved well at his post. On his return in 1815, the Emperor, after a little hesitation, appointed him to be minister of the interior, and had no cause to repent of having done so; he found him faithful, laborious, full of probity, and always sincere. In the months of June, Carnot was named one of the Commission of the Provisional Government, but being unfit for the place, he was duped.

— Las Cases, Memorial of Saint Helena, English edition (1823), p. 139-142

[corporationsarepeople]

This is the clearest summary I’ve seen of why and how the Republican Party has allied itself with Trump, why Republicans are eager to end US democracy, and why Putin is their model leader.

These people aren’t dupes. They aren’t being played for fools. They see the similarities between Trump’s ambition and Putin’s power and they love it. These misogynistic Christian-nationalist white supremacists are ambitious, and they have come astoundingly further in achieving their far-right goals today than they ever did in the 1930s or any time since.

It does no one any good to pretend otherwise.

[mariacallous]

In the summer of 2023, a poet by the name of Gennady Rakitin began publishing his “patriotic” works on VKontakte, Russia’s version of Facebook. He wrote about war, mercenaries killed in action, the Fatherland, and Russia’s “leader.” Russian lawmakers and senators soon began following his page en masse. And his poems were entered into competitions, celebrated at festivals, and shared on channels dedicated to “Z-poetry.” 

But it turns out that Gennady Rakitin doesn’t exist. According to Russian journalist Andrey Zakharov, some of his acquaintances are behind the account — and these anti-war activists have actually been publishing translations of poetry written in Nazi Germany during the 1930s and 1940s. 

The Gennady Rakitin page has an AI-generated profile picture and includes only sparse details about the “poet,” describing him as a 49-year-old who graduated from the Philology Department at Moscow State University. But this was enough to fool dozens of Russian senators and lawmakers, who added Rakitin as a “friend.” 

Rakitin’s friends list includes Russian senators Dmitry Rogozin and Andrey Klishas, State Duma deputies Dmitry Kuznetsov and Nina Ostatina, Putin’s cultural advisor Elena Yampolskaya, and pro-Kremlin “war correspondent” Yuri Kotenok. Zakharov counted a total of 95 State Duma lawmakers and 28 senators among Rakitin’s followers. The account’s creators said that they started out by adding “various public figures and just random people” as friends. “When a critical mass of well-known names was reached, we went after lawmakers and other celebrities,” they explained. The activists also claimed that they “didn’t invest a dime” in promoting the page. 

The works published on Rakitin’s profile include, for example, a translation of Eberhard Möller’s poem “The Führer” — accompanied by a photo of Vladimir Putin emblazoned with a pro-war slogan. Zakharov described Möller as a “committed Nazi and anti-Semite, who became a member of the Nazi Party even before Hitler came to power.” On February 23, 2024, a VKontakte group called “SVO. Quotes from Vladimir Putin. Russia” shared the translation of Möller’s poem to its 112,000 followers. 

The Rakitin page also shared a translation of a poem by Herybert Menzel, a German writer who joined the Nazi Party in 1933 and later became a Stormtrooper. The original poem in question was inspired by a portrait of Adolf Hitler and includes reflections on “what it means to be a son of Germany.” Another Rakitin poem takes a work by Nazi songwriter Heinrich Anacker and replaces the title “Faceless Stormtrooper” with “Faceless PMC Soldier” (a reference to Russian mercenaries fighting in Ukraine). 

Rakitin only “wrote” 18 poems in total, but they’ve made a splash in pro-war poetry competitions and festivals. In early June, one of Rakitin's poems won a prize at an All-Russian Patriotic Poetry Competition held by the Kaluga branch of the Professional Writers’ Union, reaching the semifinals in the “Poems about war and defenders of the Motherland” category. The magazine Moskva entered another one of Rakitin’s poems into a “Patriotic free verse” competition. 

[randomfoggytiger]

Chariots of Fire

(S4, Tunguska)

Tagging @today-in-fic

*****

Alex Krycek had upheld his end of the bargain: dangle the promise of a greater conspiracy in front of Fox Mulder, wheedle him from New York to Washington D.C. to Russia without exposing the dupe, and let his unwitting captive walk straight into the hands of his new countermeasure cohorts. The simplest way of accomplishing those instructions had not, of course, included a sneak-in from the gulag’s backdoor; but Krycek had ulterior motives of his own, and was never one to pass up an opportunity.

Two years ago, he’d been sham-partnered. Two years ago, Mulder’d taken off after a suspect, leaving Alex no choice but to follow. Two years ago, Krycek had eaten Mulder’s dust and embarrassingly pulled a hamstring. Two years ago, he'd been simultaneously angry and impressed enough to note that Fox Mulder ran and ran fast; and that one day he’d find out how fast that fast was.

Two years later, Alex watched, spellbound, as his former partner raced down the hill like an erratic Arabian, mounted militia yelling fruitless commands while their horses panted and slowed in his wake. Not only did Mulder maintain his lead, but he effortlessly lengthened it. 

5 feet, 10 feet, 15--

Above the thundering chaos, Krycek could have sworn he heard an angel jamming "Chariots of Fire" on his harp.

*****

Thank you for reading~

Enjoy!

[angel-derangement]

ao3 ddos, jonah hill abused his ex, toxic gossip train arrives, courts still after trans lives, russia coup, twitter dupe, barbieheimer dropped the nuke, tumblr staff fumbled bag, still won’t let you be a fag