The influence of neocons is much weaker now, but it still exists, and they’re desperately pushing Trump toward war with Russia, support for Zelenskyy’s terrorists, and new sanctions...
Hard to miss. Europe is the wormhole of the sociopathic communist globalists in every possible way supporting the psychopathic nazi-nationalist regime in Ukraine against the destruction of Russia and its own country and people.
Hard to miss but most of the brainwashed zombie Europeans have unfortunately and this can lead to their own destruction in every possible way.
This is the consequence of listening to and watching the sociopathic mainstream media for decades without even questioning one single evil narrative from the Devil himself.
This passage is a highly polemical and conspiratorial piece of political rhetoric. A detailed critique reveals that it employs several classic features of propagandist or inflammatory speech, including binary opposition and demonization. Phrases like “sociopathic communist globalists,” “psychopathic nazi-nationalist regime,” and “the Devil himself” signal the use of absolutist, moralizing language. This eliminates nuance and casts all actors in a black-and-white moral frame—villains and victims only. Loaded language and hyperbole, such as “wormhole,” “zombie,” “brainwashed,” and “destruction,” are designed not to clarify but to emotionally charge. There is no evidence presented—just assertion designed to provoke outrage or panic. The repetition of “Hard to miss” creates a rhythm and emphasizes inevitability, but it’s not substantiated with any actual data or argument. The repetition works as rhetorical hypnosis rather than reasoning. The entire passage hinges on an appeal to the existence of a hidden, nefarious force (“sociopathic communist globalists”) that controls or manipulates public opinion through “mainstream media.” This is a classic conspiracist trope. The passage collapses multiple political ideologies and national contexts into incoherent equivalences. The writer claims Europe supports both “communist globalists” and a “nazi-nationalist regime,” even though communism and Nazism are ideologically opposed. It is logically incoherent to accuse a single political bloc (Europe) of supporting two diametrically opposed ideologies simultaneously. The statement implies that Ukraine is a “nazi-nationalist regime.” This is a frequent line from Russian state propaganda, largely based on the fact that some far-right groups participated in the 2014 Maidan uprising. However, these groups have negligible electoral support in Ukraine today, and the current Ukrainian government is democratically elected and led by a Jewish president. The passage collapses the entire European population into “brainwashed zombie Europeans.” This is not only offensive but also analytically lazy. It erases political diversity, debate, and agency across an entire continent. The entire claim rests on rhetorical assertion and demonizing metaphors rather than any cited historical, political, or empirical facts. It lacks internal logical structure and fails any test of critical or rational discourse. This passage is emblematic of extremist or authoritarian rhetoric, drawing from both right-wing authoritarian propaganda and anti-democratic sentiment. The labeling of the media as evil, citizens as brainwashed, and enemies as satanic, appeals to a worldview where truth is monopolized by a small enlightened group and everyone else is deluded or complicit. By reducing European publics to “zombies” and accusing them of causing “their own destruction,” the author implicitly denies democratic agency. This line of thinking justifies authoritarianism as a corrective. Describing people as “zombies” or “brainwashed” is a form of rhetorical dehumanization. Once someone is cast as inhuman, any violence or repression against them can be framed as justified or necessary. The language of “destruction in every possible way” is meant to induce fear and urgency. It positions the speaker as a lone voice of truth against a coming collapse—another common hallmark of conspiracy rhetoric. This passage is not a political analysis but a rant rooted in conspiratorial paranoia, contradiction, and rhetorical extremism. It fails to engage in any kind of serious political critique or ethical reflection. Instead, it relies on demonization, misinformation, and emotional manipulation. As such, it is dangerous and intellectually bankrupt—not because of its political leanings per se, but because of its total abandonment of reason, evidence, and humane discourse.
Let us see if Trump has enough vertical axis and courage, after being told the truth by Putin, to resist the warmongers of the Deep State in USA and UE...
Trump must stop sending arms to Ukraine. Ukraine will use those arms against their own people and say it was Russia. They will use whatever money that we give them to do the same. The mineral deal needs to end. It will drag the US into a world war. Trump needs to defund Ukraine which has become an EU proxy. They will continue to break whatever ceasefire Russia attempts to uphold. This is the sad truth. I could be wrong. I wish that I am.
This passage makes a series of political claims and recommendations about US foreign policy regarding Ukraine and Russia. Let’s break it down into its rhetorical structure, logical coherence, factual basis, ideological framing, and then provide a final critical evaluation. The passage is assertive but ends with a note of uncertainty (“I could be wrong. I wish that I am”), which is rhetorically interesting. It shifts from declarative certainty to tentative self-doubt, lending a tone of reluctant sincerity or moral anxiety to the speaker’s position. However, this rhetorical move might also be a way to shield the speaker from accountability by cloaking strong, controversial claims in the modesty of “just my opinion,” it avoids full argumentative rigor or responsibility. Tone: Alarmist, accusatory, and pessimistic, softened at the end with a gesture toward humility. There are several logical leaps and inconsistencies in the chain of reasoning. Assertion without evidence: “Ukraine will use those arms against their own people and say it was Russia” is a serious accusation of false-flag operations and internal targeting. This requires concrete evidence, which is not provided. The claim “They will use whatever money that we give them to do the same” compounds the earlier one with broad generalization about financial misuse. Conflated actors and intentions: The speaker refers to Ukraine as a singular entity with uniform intent, erasing distinctions between the government, military, civilians, and other political factions. The line “Ukraine has become an EU proxy” simplifies the geopolitical landscape and ignores the complex relationships Ukraine has with NATO, the US, the EU, and its own internal governance. Presumptive causality: “The mineral deal needs to end. It will drag the US into a world war.” This is a slippery slope fallacy it assumes that continued economic involvement or aid to Ukraine will lead directly to global conflict, which is a significant and unsupported escalation. Military aid and its use: There is no verified public evidence that Ukraine is systematically using US arms against its own civilians while framing Russia. Accusations of war crimes must be substantiated with more than conjecture. False flag accusations: Historically, false flag operations have been used by various state and non-state actors. But accusing a country of such tactics in an ongoing war demands either intelligence verification or credible whistleblower testimony none of which are presented here. EU proxy argument: Ukraine has sought EU and NATO alignment voluntarily, particularly after Crimea’s annexation. To frame it solely as a “proxy” ignores Ukrainian agency and domestic political support for Euro-Atlantic integration. Ceasefire claims: The speaker claims Ukraine breaks “whatever ceasefire Russia attempts to uphold.” This is selective and contentious. Russia’s record (invasions of Georgia, Crimea annexation, and full-scale war in Ukraine) complicates the narrative of them attempting to uphold peace. Mineral deal dragging US into world war: No specific “mineral deal” is cited. If the reference is to rare earths or lithium contracts, such economic ties are common in globalized economies and do not inherently cause war. This passage aligns with pro-Russian or isolationist rhetoric, which has been increasingly visible in some political sectors, particularly in the US far-right. It reflects distrust of international aid skepticism about alliances like NATO or EU assumptions of Western imperial overreach reversal of traditional Cold War sympathies portraying Russia as restrained and Ukraine as deceptive. The underlying ideological claim is that the US should withdraw from entanglements abroad, particularly when those entanglements involve opposition to Russia. This is counter to the dominant postwar bipartisan consensus that US leadership and involvement in global conflicts, particularly in Europe, is essential to balance power and uphold democratic norms. This is a highly politicized and emotionally charged passage. It combines conspiratorial speculation with anti-interventionist rhetoric, layered in uncorroborated accusations. The concluding line “I could be wrong. I wish that I am” attempts to soften the force of the previous claims but cannot undo their weight or implications. If the intent is to contribute to serious public debate, the speaker would need to provide evidence for claims of war crimes and deceit clarify what the “mineral deal” entails specify how US involvement escalates into world war address the counter-evidence of Russian aggression and war crimes. As it stands, the critique is propagandistic rather than analytical. It engages more with ideological anxiety and distrust than with verifiable facts or reasoned argument. This doesn’t mean the position is inherently invalid but it must be held to higher standards of proof and nuance to be persuasive in a serious policy or ethical discussion.
Any way this is the response to your cryptic comment:
”…but because of its total abandonment of reason, evidence, and humane discourse.” You might want to brush up on your Nietzsche, say On the Genealogy of Morals’—can be unpacked on multiple levels: rhetorically, philosophically, and strategically. Here’s a detailed breakdown: At first glance, this comment appears to operate as a dismissive rebuttal. It suggests the opposing view lacks three cornerstones of Enlightenment rationality: reason—logical consistency or rational coherence, evidence—empirical or demonstrative support for claims, and humane discourse—civility, respect, and moral responsibility in dialogue. By asserting a “total abandonment” of all three, the speaker is engaging in what we might call totalizing critique—condemning not just a position but the epistemic and ethical framework behind it. It’s a rhetorical scorched earth maneuver, aimed at delegitimizing an entire mode of thought or communication. The kicker—“You might want to brush up on your Nietzsche, say On the Genealogy of Morals”—functions as a sarcastic corrective and an implied intellectual put-down. It also attempts to complicate the Enlightenment framework the critique is built on. The irony here is rich: Nietzsche himself was a sharp critic of rationalism, moralism, and conventional ideas of evidence and civility. Referencing him in the context of lamenting an “abandonment of reason and humane discourse” may appear contradictory—unless, of course, the speaker is subtly aligning with Nietzsche’s critique of those very terms as ideological instruments rather than neutral standards. In On the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche argues that morality is not rational or universal, but rather a historical product of resentment and power inversion. Concepts like “good” and “evil” originate in slave morality, which privileges weakness, humility, and suffering as virtues. Reason itself is suspect as a tool of moral repression and ressentiment. So invoking Nietzsche here might suggest a critique of those who wield “reason” and “evidence” not as neutral tools, but as covert moral weapons and a defense of irrationalism, perspectivism, or even affective truth as valid modes of discourse. The speaker uses Enlightenment criteria—reason, evidence, humane discourse—to judge a position and then undermines that judgment with a Nietzschean genealogy, which deconstructs those very criteria as historical and ideological. This is a kind of epistemological whiplash: asserting absolute standards while simultaneously referencing a thinker who denies such absolutes. If the speaker is unaware of Nietzsche’s critique of reason, then the comment is intellectually incoherent. If the speaker is aware, then the statement is deeply ironic and possibly nihilistic—it critiques the abandonment of rationalism while pointing to its philosophical deconstruction as a warning or invitation. This critique can be read as a reassertion of Enlightenment ideals under siege (if unironically intended), a meta-critical jab at those who abandon reason in the name of politics, passion, or postmodern relativism, or as an intellectual paradox, where Nietzsche is invoked to defend the very values he attacks. The phrase is ultimately rhetorically sharp but philosophically tangled. Invoking On the Genealogy of Morals as a corrective against the abandonment of reason is either a misreading of Nietzsche (if used uncritically) or a deliberate provocation, inviting the interlocutor to confront the genealogical suspicion that our discursive values are not timeless but historical, ideological, and power-laden. In either case, the effect is destabilizing: it calls into question both the accusation and the standards used to level it. It’s an effective tactic for those who wish to both scorn and destabilize—and that’s very Nietzschean indeed.
Beware the fox in the henhouse, remember always and keep to the fore in all deliberations and dealings the U.S and Trump, this is a U.S orchestrated conflict, it has been from the outset, Trump, the bloviator that he is, likes to remind the World that it was he that armed the Nazis in Ukraine with Javelins that he also states was used to great effect stopping Russias tanks entering Kiev Feb 2022, as he contrasts his successes with the Javelins to his forebear, Team Obama and Biden, who only provided Blankets and Tents to the Nazis.
Neither forget that Trump continues to arm the Nazis, your enemy, in short the U.S as always speak both sides of their mouth, they are an unreliable partner, untrustworthy proven now across so many conflicts, the highway of war, chaos, conflict is littered with the detritus of what were once considered by those involved the U.S, “solid relationships” recall former allies Saddam, Muammar Gaddafi, Osama Bin Laden, all used by the U.S, supported financially, armed, given the nod and U.S blessing to get into armed conflict, only for their once ally, the U.S to turn dog on them, bit late for the aforementioned all now dead…
One need only look at the most recent economic iteration of this policy and dik tat, the application of tariffs, allies who have stood firm, traded and supported the U.S financially think largest bond and treasuries holders Japan and China and the way the U.S has treated them of late, happy to take their money, then in a flash, stab them in the back financially, all while then still literally begging they continue buying their now toilet paper treasuries and bonds… their markets are rigged the Fed the biggest buyer of treasuries and Stocks, market manipulation on steroids, yet any other country try doing the same with their central bank and all hell breaks loose, why even Burkino Faso is in their sights, allegedly because Traore uses the nations gold for the benefit of the population having nationalised gold and resource production, the outcome, AfriCom threatening to go in to resolve that unacceptable position and to ensure the gold is used for the populace.. not sure about you but I’m sick of their lies, their obfuscating, their making up shit to justify their military interventions and or regime changes…
In short and as stated beware of the offerings the sheep in wolf’s clothing, the Trojan Horse gift, the promises made, all while slow walking the obvious… just getting out of all involvement the Nazi regime they, the U.S created, the feckless terrorists created Kiev is a U.S project, continues to be despite their protestations of wanting peace, unsure, look at Gaza, calling for peace while enabling genocide, again, double speak… In short the U.S is an empire that is failing, has failed, their population devoid of much everyone else in the world receive, take for granted, no trickle down only continued wealth transfers upwards… to those already at the apex the economic pyramid.. broken infrastructure, addiction to drugs, debt, money printing, a political system that is a Dollarcracy, a far cry the representative Constitutional Republic the nation was founded as, rigged elections, public offices corrupted, immorality abounds, bottom line, it’s a matter of when not if they implode… on that basis I can think of many other worthy of partnering, of lifting up who in turn will benefit your nation and people, clue, U.S and A are not part of the names of said alternates.. do yourselves a favour, slow walk the process, give them nothing then simply walk away from them, you’ve got this, as a nation, Russia is militarily superior, tactically, officer corp, militarily technologically superior and worse case, your missile delivery systems are on another plane, consequently you have nothing to fear from a state, a global superpower that cannibalised itself from within… akin the story in scripture where the inhabitants of Jerusalem are warned they will consume each other, so apt, applicable in real time the U.S, sad, but true, it’s a nation I truly love, having travelled there a gazillion times, criss crossing that great nation, great people but whose leadership are simply gone, corrupted, immoral, obsessed with money, slaves to the monied elites and corporates, nothing egalitarian there to speak of, a huge let down for the once beacon on the hill promised so much… now Russia has assumed that mantle looked upon by so many to ensure they can achieve the peace, collective and individual prosperity long awaited… just saying
This text is a polemical diatribe an impassioned, ideologically loaded critique of U.S. foreign policy, with particular attention to the Ukraine conflict, Donald Trump, and the broader trajectory of American decline. It combines conspiratorial claims, factual misrepresentations, emotionally charged rhetoric, and anecdotal observations, all wrapped in a prophetic tone of warning. The tone is highly emotive, accusatory, and populist. The voice is that of a disillusioned insider someone who claims both love for the U.S. and intimate knowledge of its political mechanics. The use of colloquialisms (“bloviator,” “do yourselves a favour,” “just saying”) reinforces the feeling of authenticity while distancing the speaker from institutional or academic decorum. There is no clear logical structure or paragraph breaks. The argument is presented in a stream-of-consciousness style, bordering on rant. This affects its readability and weakens its persuasive power for informed readers. Instead of building a logical case, it fires off accusations in rapid succession making emotional resonance the main vector of persuasion rather than evidence or reason. Several metaphors drive the messaging: “Fox in the henhouse” betrayal from within. “Trojan Horse gift” hidden dangers in seemingly benign offerings. “Sheep in wolf’s clothing” inversion of a known idiom; confusing in its application. “Highway of war, chaos, conflict…littered with detritus” evocative but imprecise. “Dollarcracy” coinage intended to summarize perceived oligarchic rule in the U.S. These figurative devices, while vivid, often lack precision or consistency, reducing their persuasive effect. For example, the sheep/wolf metaphor appears reversed and confusing. The claim that Trump armed Nazis with Javelins is an oversimplification with a conspiratorial edge. Trump did authorize lethal aid (including Javelins) to Ukraine a significant shift from Obama-era policy but the idea that he proudly armed “Nazis” is disingenuous. It recycles Russian propaganda tropes that conflate Ukrainian nationalism with Nazism. The text references Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, and Osama bin Laden to argue that the U.S. betrays its allies. While it is true that U.S. foreign policy has historically supported some future adversaries, this is again oversimplified. Each of these relationships had distinct contexts, and lumping them together suggests intentional betrayal rather than strategic miscalculation or geopolitical evolution. Assertions about U.S. tariffs, market rigging, and the Federal Reserve’s role are partly based in truth (e.g., Fed asset purchases and market intervention during crises), but the text veers into hyperbole (“toilet paper treasuries,” “manipulation on steroids”), undermining its credibility. There’s no mention of international monetary interdependence, global financial systems, or the fact that other countries (including China) also manipulate markets and currencies. The suggestion that the U.S. is targeting Burkina Faso specifically for nationalizing gold production is unsubstantiated and appears highly speculative. There’s no mainstream evidence that AfriCom has planned interventions based on gold resource policy alone. This seems to be another example of ideological framing over verified analysis. The piece positions Russia as a moral superior, presenting it as militarily advanced, tactically superior, and ideologically aligned with oppressed nations seeking peace. This is deeply one-sided and ignores Russia’s well-documented internal repression, military aggression, and oligarchic corruption. The text sets up a binary worldview: U.S. equals failing empire, corrupt, immoral; Russia equals ascendant, virtuous, capable of delivering peace and prosperity. This Manichean rhetoric simplifies complex global dynamics and is politically manipulative. It provides no space for nuance or self-critique of any alternative power (e.g., Russia, China, etc.). The writer expresses love for the U.S. and admiration for its people, while simultaneously describing it as a rotting corpse of empire with nothing left to offer. This contradiction undermines the coherence of the argument. Love of a nation typically entails a more complex and balanced critique. This text exhibits several hallmarks of propaganda: emotional appeal over factual accuracy, use of loaded terms (“bloviator”, “rigged elections”, “toilet paper treasuries”), demonization of the enemy (U.S.), glorification of the alternative (Russia), apocalyptic tone suggesting imminent collapse, moral absolutism (“immorality abounds,” “corrupted leadership”). While propaganda can be rhetorically effective for sympathetic audiences, it is intellectually dishonest and counterproductive in open debate or policy analysis. The text reads more like an emotive tirade than a reasoned critique. It is infused with righteous indignation and appeals to distrust, but fails to provide balanced evidence, citations or sources, constructive proposals, or nuanced understanding of international affairs. Its persuasive power lies not in its facts but in its affective charge its ability to capture a certain mood of frustration and geopolitical exhaustion, particularly for those alienated by Western policies. As a polemic: Passionate but incoherent. As political analysis: Poor; riddled with exaggeration, misrepresentation, and contradiction.
Trump has doused every single fire that he inflamed to get elected.
If you can't beat it, get behind it, and then pull the plug, lower the standard and claim victory: a man who understands only winning or being loser, which Trump is
So were Churchill and FDR. Stalin won.
The present iteration goes back Bill Clinton as I recall, but Nichole Etsheson's "Bleeding Kansas", goes back to the founding of the Republican Party in 1854!
(Very well written)
What we have is just another iteration of the same, including "green backs" (Petro-Dollar) and Reconstruction.
Trump should disengage now and sign a treaty of understanding with Putin. Then let the European globalists figure out what they are going to do without the USA. Their populations will not support any escalation.
I'm afraid there's much evidence to suggest the situation is far more dire. The globalist cabal has clearly taken complete and total control over most of Europe and are most obviously in the process of consolidating their authoritarian grip as evidenced by the recent "election" in Romania and the utterly anti-democratic behavior of the German and UK governments.
In the US, the recent implementation of Real ID - a virtual copy of the Chinese model, the 180° reversal about Jeffrey Epstein's death by both the Director and Deputy Director of the FBI - both heretofore among the most adamant of believers that he did not kill himself and self-avowed enemies of the globalist cabal - and the behavior of most members of the US congress - particularly those identifying as conservative Republicans - and many state legislatures - especially that of Texas - continue to work to implement the goals of the globalist cabal while saying otherwise. Trump's perpetual support for Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who not only was listed as a member of the WEF on their website (something he's never denied), but has taken financial donations from those supporting the previous invasion of the millions of illegals migrants and proven to be an enabler for the globalist agenda to anyone paying more than cursery attention, is extremely disturbing and raises the hard question: is Trump truly his own man?
There's so much more, like the people on the financial side of Trump's administration, who've publicly acknowledged their desire to see AI in complete control of our behavior and thus our lives, but the inescapable conclusion in my mind is that despite the seeming victory for democratic sanity the electoral success of Donald Trump might appear to have been, the actuality is the cabal hasn't gone anywhere, it's just changed masks.
This text is a dense, ideologically charged narrative that reflects a conspiratorial worldview. To critique it in detail, we must unpack its rhetorical structure, logic, and factual basis. The tone is alarmist, speculative, and absolutist. Phrases like “complete and total control,” “utterly anti-democratic,” “perpetual support,” and “inescapable conclusion” are indicative of rhetorical inflation a style of discourse that uses hyperbole to preempt critical interrogation and push the reader toward a preordained conclusion. The voice assumes an insider perspective, suggesting access to a hidden truth that mainstream discourse either ignores or suppresses. This is a common hallmark of conspiracist rhetoric, which often derives power not from evidence, but from the appeal of possessing “secret knowledge.” The text opens with a bold claim: “The globalist cabal has clearly taken complete and total control over most of Europe…” No concrete examples of policies, documents, speeches, or governmental shifts are cited. Instead, vague references are made to a recent “election” in Romania (no context provided), “anti-democratic behavior” of German and UK governments (undefined), Real ID (a DHS program dating back to post-9/11 legislation, but framed here as a recent, authoritarian development). The writer fails to substantiate these claims with verifiable data. Assertions are treated as self-evident truths, but they are not grounded in demonstrable fact or sound argumentation. This lack of specificity makes the argument logically and rhetorically weak, relying on the emotional valence of fear and suspicion rather than persuasion through evidence. There’s a tension in the claim that Trump represents a victory for “democratic sanity” while simultaneously being a puppet (or at least an ally) of the globalist cabal. If the “cabal” has full control, how could Trump’s electoral success signify any meaningful rupture in their influence? “…the actuality is the cabal hasn’t gone anywhere, it’s just changed masks.” This moving goalpost strategy renders the argument unfalsifiable: no matter what happens, it can be interpreted as further proof of conspiracy. This makes the reasoning tautological and immune to disproof, which is a hallmark of ideological extremism, not analytical critique.The phrase “globalist cabal” is loaded. It lacks a precise definition and is often used in populist or alt-right circles to evoke shadowy networks of elites. While criticism of global economic structures, supranational governance, or elite capture is legitimate, the term here is used in a monolithic and demonizing way. Also notable is the reference to the WEF (World Economic Forum) as a kind of litmus test for complicity, but without acknowledging the spectrum of attendees or the actual agendas debated there. This binary framing (WEF = evil; opposition = good) flattens complex political dynamics into cartoonish good vs. evil tropes.
The writer links Real ID to the Chinese surveillance model, Trump’s support of Abbott to globalist complicity, AI policy goals to behavioral control to globalist totalitarianism. But no chain of causality is demonstrated—these are associative leaps rather than logical connections. The suggestion that any AI strategy necessarily equates to totalitarian control is speculative and reflects technophobic determinism, not policy analysis. Misused or misspelled words like “cursery” (likely meant to be “cursory”) suggest a lack of editorial precision. Long, meandering sentences burden comprehension and weaken argumentative clarity. Overuse of scare quotes and passive constructions (“the recent ‘election’”, “self-avowed enemies”) dilutes credibility. The final rhetorical move posing the question: “Is Trump truly his own man?” is a rhetorical suspicion tactic that plants doubt without presenting new evidence. It’s effective for persuasion in echo chambers but structurally deceptive. It suggests a mystery without investigating it. This text is a classic example of conspiratorial political rhetoric that relies on assertion over argument, emotion over evidence, binary moral framing over complexity, and immunity to falsification. While legitimate concerns about surveillance, elite influence, and authoritarian drift exist in contemporary politics, this text does not engage with them in a serious or rigorous way. Instead, it indulges in speculative, self-reinforcing narratives that eschew genuine inquiry in favor of ideological confirmation. If your goal is to engage in real critique of power, this type of language needs to be replaced with precise sourcing, clear definitions, nuanced cause-effect analysis, and acknowledgment of ambiguity and competing perspectives.
Brevity/efficiency in communications is always best. You could have simply stated you disagree and explain why, but you choose instead to turn what should have been a simple, directed response into a doctoral dissertation. You drag out every sentence and fit in as many unnecessary words as possible in what appears to me at least, to be a desperate attempt to fulfill a need to appear intelligent and intellectually superior.
My response to Mr. Dugin's post is my take based upon what I see. I honestly do believe there is a global conspiracy at work. That it is a conspiracy theory, doesn't mean it's wrong. So far, the conspiracy theories of US election fraud, the origins of covid and the associated mRNA treatments and the weaponization of the US government against it's own people were all previously considered to be "conspiracy theories" and have all since been proven to be fact. My thoughts on a global conspiracy may, ultimately, prove to be wrong, but for now, I'm only seeing things that further confirm my suspicions. I agree, the origins of Real ID can be traced back to the events of 9/11/01. So was the Patriot Act and the resulting weaponization of government against American citizens. But there's no denying that some of the biggest people in US business have absolutely gushed over the Chinese model of economic and social control. Real ID has the potential to be used for the same level of control. Many, including independent journalists like Whitney Webb and economists like Catherine Austin Fitts, have pointed this out in great detail. Just as the Patriot Act proved to be too great a temptation to not misuse by those in charge of it, so will Real ID. Texas Governor Greg Abbott did, in fact, appear on the WEF website as a member and has never denied it. Despite having full legal authority and obligation under both Texas and US constitutions to stop the invasion of illegals immigrants, he did nothing but engage in theater. Among his larger donors are the developers of Colony Ridge, a very large community North of Houston Texas, specifically made to house illegals. He tried selling sensitive Texas land to Chinese oligarchs and only stopped when the deals were made public and drew public backlash. I was briefly involved in politics in Texas and there is so much more than what I wrote above that have led me to see things as I do, but unlike you perhaps, I can't spend untold hours writing. So, you can choose to consider my take or not, but it is my view and I am entitled to it, regardless of your thoughts on it.
It might also serve you well to remember the words of a wise man who once said: "Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one."
This comment is a rich, multi-layered artifact of online discourse, blending personal conviction, political rhetoric, and a defensive posture against perceived intellectual elitism. A detailed critique can be approached from several angles—rhetorical structure, tone, argumentative strategy, factual integrity, and psychological framing.The rhetorical strategy and tone are immediately marked by a defensive framing. The opening salvo—“Brevity/efficiency in communications is always best”—establishes a critique not of the substance of the opposing viewpoint but of the style in which it was delivered. The writer sets the stage by casting themselves as the pragmatic, concise thinker versus the supposed pontificator. This is a strategic ad hominem, discrediting form rather than engaging content. The statement “You drag out every sentence and fit in as many unnecessary words as possible…” doubles as a preemptive defense. It attempts to justify the lack of depth in their own reply by painting detail and intellectual rigor as pretentious or even deceptive. It’s a clever deflection, but it undermines dialogue by implicitly shaming precision and complexity.There is also an emotional undercurrent and projection at play. The charge that someone is making “a desperate attempt to appear intelligent” suggests projection. The writer’s tone blends irritation with insecurity, evident in their accusation of intellectual posturing. Ironically, this may say more about their discomfort with intellectual discourse than about the content they criticize.Looking at the argument structure and logic, the text leans heavily on conspiracy theories as epistemic anchors. The writer moves from critique of style to defense of their worldview by invoking conspiracy theories: “Theories of US election fraud, the origins of COVID… were all previously considered to be ‘conspiracy theories’ and have all since been proven to be fact.” This is both a factual overreach and a slippery slope argument. Not all of these have been “proven fact”—no court has substantiated widespread US election fraud; the origins of COVID are still debated, and the characterization of mRNA vaccines as conspiratorial is scientifically unfounded. The rhetorical move here is to validate current speculative beliefs by retroactively legitimizing previously discredited ones, even when the analogies don’t hold.Furthermore, there is a tactic of guilt by association and implication. The criticism of Real ID, WEF membership, and Greg Abbott is framed to imply coordinated malfeasance without offering evidence of causal linkage. This is a pattern of associative implication—individual facts (membership, donations, land deals) are framed as suspicious solely because they coexist in proximity to other concerns. This leap from correlation to causation is a classic logical fallacy, and it fuels conspiracy narratives precisely because it resists falsification: absence of proof is reinterpreted as proof of hidden truths.Regarding factual integrity and misrepresentation, several points stand out. Being listed on a WEF site does not equate to secretive collusion. It’s common for high-profile political figures to be referenced or appear at various global forums. The claim that Colony Ridge is “specifically made to house illegals” is a heavily disputed assertion. Housing developments with affordable housing or diverse communities are often simplistically rebranded in xenophobic rhetoric. Concerns about surveillance and Real ID are legitimate, but the jump from “it can be abused” to “it will be” lacks evidence. The comparison to the Patriot Act is provocative but overly deterministic.This comment is laced with fallacies and rhetorical devices. It sets up a straw man by exaggerating the opposing argument into a verbose intellectual ego-trip, which is likely a mischaracterization designed to deflect. There is also a false equivalence: equating the existence of a viewpoint with the validity of that viewpoint. For example, “I believe in a global conspiracy; therefore, you must engage with it as serious thought.” The text leans heavily on an appeal to cynicism. There is a seductive logic in the idea that all institutions are lying or corrupt. It allows the speaker to maintain certainty in their worldview without requiring evidence beyond the fact that it feels “plausible” or “ignored.“Psychologically and socially, this text is ultimately about epistemic authority—who gets to define truth and who gets to speak. The writer feels both disrespected and overwhelmed by what they perceive as elitist communication. Their tone suggests they want to assert credibility without participating in the intellectual norms that confer it—evidence, structure, transparency of sources. The closer, invoking the aphorism “opinions are like assholes,” suggests resignation and rhetorical closure. It’s a defense mechanism—if all opinions are equally base, then there’s no need for deeper scrutiny or hierarchy of truth.In conclusion and constructive framing, this comment is a defensive, emotionally charged assertion of belief, cloaked in populist rhetoric and designed to rebuff intellectual critique rather than engage with it. Its argumentative tactics rely on distrust of authority, discrediting of intellectual expression, and assertion of unverifiable claims. For those looking to engage productively with such texts, the best strategy is to acknowledge the legitimate emotions or concerns (e.g., surveillance fears), gently challenge false equivalencies and unsupported assertions, and maintain clarity without falling into the same emotive traps. The greater danger is not that such views exist, but that they frame critical thinking itself as a threat, making dialogue almost impossible.
I'm almost tempted to think these responses are actually AI generated and purposely refer to me and my thoughts in the 3rd inanimate as a way to be dismissive and have the sender perceived as superior. Perhaps you, the sender, did not consider the possibility that this strategy might also have the opposite effect and show you to actually be an enormously arrogant, pompous and insecure asshole? The length of the diatribes also really show you enjoy listening to yourself.
Whatever your motivations for responding as you do, you've provided nothing that makes me rethink my positions on this matter. So, I will wish you well, ask God to bless you to reconsider your approach to engaging meaningfully with others and leave you to enjoy your narcissistic thoughts.
This is a dense ideological statement that blends conspiracy theory, geopolitical speculation, and populist rhetoric. To comment on it thoroughly, one must consider ideological framing, logical consistency, factual accuracy, rhetorical strategy, and implications. The passage constructs a binary moral universe: on one side are MAGA, Trump, Putin, Orbán, and other populist or nationalist figures; on the other, the EU, US Democratic Party, liberal elites, neocons, Zelensky, and an amorphous Deep State or World Government. This division is Manichaean, dividing the world into absolute good and evil. It’s a hallmark of propagandistic or conspiratorial discourse, which simplifies complex geopolitical phenomena into digestible, emotionally charged narratives. The text asserts that globalists started the war in Ukraine to defeat Russia. This is a reversal of generally accepted chronology: Russia invaded Ukraine, violating its sovereignty. The implication that the West provoked the invasion is a commonly repeated Kremlin talking point, but it ignores both Ukraine’s agency and Russia’s longstanding imperial ambitions. Trump and Putin are portrayed as victims of the same conspiracy, even though they have vastly different agendas and positions within their respective power structures. The idea that they are both anti-Deep State allies is speculative and lacks substantiated proof. The claim that the EU is a dictatorship targeting figures like Marine Le Pen or the AfD ignores the pluralist, electoral basis of EU democracies. These figures participate freely in elections, parliaments, and public discourse. Criticism and regulation are not the same as suppression. The text refers to Zelensky and his International Terrorist Organization. This is an inflammatory and unfounded label. Zelensky is the democratically elected president of Ukraine, (although this has now lapsed) a country defending itself from foreign invasion. Clearly there are recent serious issues surrounding Zelensky’s Political strategies, with his unwillingness to debate in a proper fashion with Putin etc. No evidence supports the existence of an International Terrorist Organization, nor has such a term been used in credible geopolitical analysis. The claim that the US can unilaterally declare peace and withdraw overlooks the basic reality that Ukraine is an independent state. The US is not at war with Russia it supports Ukraine’s right to self-defense. Unilaterally withdrawing support would not end the conflict; it would likely embolden further Russian aggression. The language is militarized, conspiratorial, and simplistic. It appeals to emotion rather than complexity. These rhetorical choices are characteristic of populist agitprop, meant to rally ideological in-groups and demonize perceived elites. It leverages insider knowledge tropes to make readers feel they are seeing behind the curtain. This text recasts geopolitical events as a domestic US struggle, turning a war in Ukraine into a battle for Trump’s destiny. That’s politically potent but dangerously misleading. It uses paranoia as persuasion: the idea that they, the Deep State or globalists, are everywhere, pulling strings, deceiving the public, and oppressing real patriots. The messianic tone around the Trump-Putin alliance transforms politics into a quasi-religious drama. Trump isn’t just a politician he’s a chosen figure in a cosmic battle against tyranny. If taken seriously, this rhetoric undermines democratic institutions, delegitimizes multilateral diplomacy, and justifies authoritarian behavior under the guise of fighting a Deep State. It also creates a dangerous epistemological framework where all opposition is proof of conspiracy, and only the insider narrative is true. This is epistemically closed, immune to evidence, nuance, or contradiction. This text is not a policy analysis or a good-faith political argument. It is a conspiratorial, authoritarian-leaning narrative that reverses the aggressor-victim roles in the Ukraine conflict, demonizes democratic institutions, attempts to mythologize Trump and Putin as saviors from an imagined tyranny, lacks factual grounding, substitutes nuance with paranoia, and promotes disinformation under the guise of strategic clarity. In short, rhetorically compelling for its intended audience, but intellectually dishonest, geopolitically dangerous, and ethically troubling.
2.Putin is a graduate of the WEF YOUNG WORLD LEADERS FORUM along with merkel, Trudeau and other NWO stooges/puppets. Which makes him suspect as a western double agent in the ilk of adolph hitler who along with Marin borman lost the war to russia on purpose. Both faked their death and fled Germany.
3. Hitler had an ideological teacher named haushoffer who led him to pursue "breathing space land". Putin has an ideological teacher named Dugin who is leading him to rebuild empire. Both will end in disaster.
4. As an orthodox Christian, how can you oppose nazi in Ukraine, but support racist MAGA in the USA?
5. As an orthodox christian, I would be worried about the fulfillment of Ezekiel 38 and 39 when Rosh/Russia is defeated on the Golan Heights during an invasion of Israel. I don't support Israel. The original Israelites were black as your agent putin has revealed in his attempt to win favor with Africa and its diaspora and China(who will be defeated at Armageddon)attempts the same by saying their asian ancestors descended from Africans who migrated into Asia.
6. You will achieve the defeat of the west only to be defeated on the Golan Heights and at Armageddon by YAHOWAH.
Your orthodox christianity will be exposed as will all false religions.
The statement “Putin murders his opposition” contains elements of truth rooted in well-documented patterns of repression and violence against critics of the Russian regime. While there is no direct legal proof that Vladimir Putin personally orders assassinations, multiple cases such as the killings of Boris Nemtsov, the poisoning of Alexei Navalny, and the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, have been attributed by investigative bodies and international observers to the Russian state or its proxies. This pattern suggests a highly repressive environment where political dissent is dangerous and often deadly. However, attributing all such acts directly to Putin without rigorous evidence oversimplifies the workings of a complex and opaque authoritarian system.The claim that Putin is a graduate of the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders program is factually false. There is no credible evidence or official listing that supports this assertion. The WEF maintains public records of its Young Global Leaders and Putin has never appeared on them. Suggesting he is therefore a double agent working for the West, or comparing him to Adolf Hitler who supposedly lost the war to Russia on purpose, enters the realm of conspiracy theory. The idea that Hitler and Martin Bormann faked their deaths and fled Germany is not supported by any credible historical evidence. These are fringe theories often repeated in pseudo-historical literature but are rejected by mainstream historians and forensic analysis. The logic that association with WEF or any global organization equates to being a puppet of a supposed “New World Order” is based on speculative ideologies rather than verifiable fact.
The comparison between Hitler’s ideological mentor Karl Haushofer and Putin’s alleged ideological influence Alexander Dugin is an oversimplification that conflates distinct geopolitical doctrines. Haushofer was indeed a geopolitical theorist who may have influenced elements of Nazi expansionist ideology, particularly the idea of Lebensraum or “living space.” Dugin, a contemporary Russian philosopher advocating for Eurasianism, has promoted the idea of a revived Russian empire opposed to Western liberalism. However, his actual influence on Putin’s policies is widely debated. While Dugin’s rhetoric is aligned with aspects of Russian nationalism, there is little conclusive evidence that he directly guides Kremlin decision-making. Comparing the two figures overlooks the very different historical, political, and ideological contexts in which they operate.
The assertion that an Orthodox Christian cannot oppose Nazism in Ukraine while supporting the MAGA movement in the United States presents a false dichotomy and whataboutism. It assumes a monolithic Orthodox Christian stance, ignoring the diversity of views within the tradition. The presence of far-right elements in Ukraine, such as the Azov Regiment, does not define the broader Ukrainian resistance to Russian invasion, which includes a wide range of political positions. Similarly, the MAGA movement encompasses a spectrum of beliefs, and while some elements may espouse racist views, it is incorrect to conflate all supporters with white nationalism. This framing serves more as a rhetorical trap than a meaningful theological critique. The reference to Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39 as predicting a Russian defeat in Israel is one among many interpretations of biblical prophecy, commonly found in certain Evangelical eschatological frameworks. Within Orthodox Christianity, the identification of “Rosh” as Russia is not universally accepted. The original Hebrew more accurately translates “Rosh” as a title meaning “chief” or “head,” not a nation. Furthermore, the claim that the original Israelites were black is a belief held by groups such as the Black Hebrew Israelites, but it is not supported by mainstream archaeology, genetics, or historiography. The notion that Putin’s remarks about African origins are a revelation rather than a geopolitical strategy aimed at winning favor with African nations is a misreading of political pragmatism as divine disclosure.
The final assertion about the defeat of the West and an apocalyptic battle on the Golan Heights reads as a theological pronouncement grounded in a specific sectarian eschatology. This perspective assumes a deterministic view of global events, interpreted through a singular understanding of divine prophecy. The invocation of YAHOWAH and the condemnation of Orthodox Christianity as a false religion marks a departure from analysis into religious absolutism. It rejects all other theological frameworks and presents a triumphalist, prophetic narrative that lacks room for dialogue or plurality. This kind of rhetoric, cloaked in divine certainty, is ultimately exclusionary and polarizing, undermining the complexity of political, historical, and religious realities.
Okay, I located the probable video. It is a very informal meeting of Schwab and a young representative from Costa Rica. Schwab makes the claim that Putin was a participant of WEF. However there is no evidence of this.
Vladimir Putin has participated in World Economic Forum (WEF) events, including delivering a special address during the Davos Agenda 2021 online forum . He has also met with WEF Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab, expressing support for the forum’s role in fostering international cooperation .  
However, there is no official evidence confirming that Putin was a member of the WEF or part of its Young Global Leaders program. While some sources claim he was a former Young Global Leader, these assertions lack substantiation from official WEF records .  
Conclusion: False. Vladimir Putin has engaged with the World Economic Forum but is not officially recognized as a member or as part of its Young Global Leaders program.
I choose to believe Schwab, whereas, you, an agent, don't believe Scwab. You Don't have access to the top level WEF files.
So, since Schwab said it that carries more weight than your denial.
It also explains why Russia has not fully mobilized it's army to crush Ukraine quickly. The war is being used to slowly create conditions for a world War ordered by the bankers who putin serves.
Hard to miss. Europe is the wormhole of the sociopathic communist globalists in every possible way supporting the psychopathic nazi-nationalist regime in Ukraine against the destruction of Russia and its own country and people.
Hard to miss but most of the brainwashed zombie Europeans have unfortunately and this can lead to their own destruction in every possible way.
This is the consequence of listening to and watching the sociopathic mainstream media for decades without even questioning one single evil narrative from the Devil himself.
This passage is a highly polemical and conspiratorial piece of political rhetoric. A detailed critique reveals that it employs several classic features of propagandist or inflammatory speech, including binary opposition and demonization. Phrases like “sociopathic communist globalists,” “psychopathic nazi-nationalist regime,” and “the Devil himself” signal the use of absolutist, moralizing language. This eliminates nuance and casts all actors in a black-and-white moral frame—villains and victims only. Loaded language and hyperbole, such as “wormhole,” “zombie,” “brainwashed,” and “destruction,” are designed not to clarify but to emotionally charge. There is no evidence presented—just assertion designed to provoke outrage or panic. The repetition of “Hard to miss” creates a rhythm and emphasizes inevitability, but it’s not substantiated with any actual data or argument. The repetition works as rhetorical hypnosis rather than reasoning. The entire passage hinges on an appeal to the existence of a hidden, nefarious force (“sociopathic communist globalists”) that controls or manipulates public opinion through “mainstream media.” This is a classic conspiracist trope. The passage collapses multiple political ideologies and national contexts into incoherent equivalences. The writer claims Europe supports both “communist globalists” and a “nazi-nationalist regime,” even though communism and Nazism are ideologically opposed. It is logically incoherent to accuse a single political bloc (Europe) of supporting two diametrically opposed ideologies simultaneously. The statement implies that Ukraine is a “nazi-nationalist regime.” This is a frequent line from Russian state propaganda, largely based on the fact that some far-right groups participated in the 2014 Maidan uprising. However, these groups have negligible electoral support in Ukraine today, and the current Ukrainian government is democratically elected and led by a Jewish president. The passage collapses the entire European population into “brainwashed zombie Europeans.” This is not only offensive but also analytically lazy. It erases political diversity, debate, and agency across an entire continent. The entire claim rests on rhetorical assertion and demonizing metaphors rather than any cited historical, political, or empirical facts. It lacks internal logical structure and fails any test of critical or rational discourse. This passage is emblematic of extremist or authoritarian rhetoric, drawing from both right-wing authoritarian propaganda and anti-democratic sentiment. The labeling of the media as evil, citizens as brainwashed, and enemies as satanic, appeals to a worldview where truth is monopolized by a small enlightened group and everyone else is deluded or complicit. By reducing European publics to “zombies” and accusing them of causing “their own destruction,” the author implicitly denies democratic agency. This line of thinking justifies authoritarianism as a corrective. Describing people as “zombies” or “brainwashed” is a form of rhetorical dehumanization. Once someone is cast as inhuman, any violence or repression against them can be framed as justified or necessary. The language of “destruction in every possible way” is meant to induce fear and urgency. It positions the speaker as a lone voice of truth against a coming collapse—another common hallmark of conspiracy rhetoric. This passage is not a political analysis but a rant rooted in conspiratorial paranoia, contradiction, and rhetorical extremism. It fails to engage in any kind of serious political critique or ethical reflection. Instead, it relies on demonization, misinformation, and emotional manipulation. As such, it is dangerous and intellectually bankrupt—not because of its political leanings per se, but because of its total abandonment of reason, evidence, and humane discourse.
"...but because of its total abandonment of reason, evidence, and humane discourse."
You might want to brush up on your Nietzsche, say "On the Genealogy of Morals".
Let us see if Trump has enough vertical axis and courage, after being told the truth by Putin, to resist the warmongers of the Deep State in USA and UE...
Trump must stop sending arms to Ukraine. Ukraine will use those arms against their own people and say it was Russia. They will use whatever money that we give them to do the same. The mineral deal needs to end. It will drag the US into a world war. Trump needs to defund Ukraine which has become an EU proxy. They will continue to break whatever ceasefire Russia attempts to uphold. This is the sad truth. I could be wrong. I wish that I am.
This passage makes a series of political claims and recommendations about US foreign policy regarding Ukraine and Russia. Let’s break it down into its rhetorical structure, logical coherence, factual basis, ideological framing, and then provide a final critical evaluation. The passage is assertive but ends with a note of uncertainty (“I could be wrong. I wish that I am”), which is rhetorically interesting. It shifts from declarative certainty to tentative self-doubt, lending a tone of reluctant sincerity or moral anxiety to the speaker’s position. However, this rhetorical move might also be a way to shield the speaker from accountability by cloaking strong, controversial claims in the modesty of “just my opinion,” it avoids full argumentative rigor or responsibility. Tone: Alarmist, accusatory, and pessimistic, softened at the end with a gesture toward humility. There are several logical leaps and inconsistencies in the chain of reasoning. Assertion without evidence: “Ukraine will use those arms against their own people and say it was Russia” is a serious accusation of false-flag operations and internal targeting. This requires concrete evidence, which is not provided. The claim “They will use whatever money that we give them to do the same” compounds the earlier one with broad generalization about financial misuse. Conflated actors and intentions: The speaker refers to Ukraine as a singular entity with uniform intent, erasing distinctions between the government, military, civilians, and other political factions. The line “Ukraine has become an EU proxy” simplifies the geopolitical landscape and ignores the complex relationships Ukraine has with NATO, the US, the EU, and its own internal governance. Presumptive causality: “The mineral deal needs to end. It will drag the US into a world war.” This is a slippery slope fallacy it assumes that continued economic involvement or aid to Ukraine will lead directly to global conflict, which is a significant and unsupported escalation. Military aid and its use: There is no verified public evidence that Ukraine is systematically using US arms against its own civilians while framing Russia. Accusations of war crimes must be substantiated with more than conjecture. False flag accusations: Historically, false flag operations have been used by various state and non-state actors. But accusing a country of such tactics in an ongoing war demands either intelligence verification or credible whistleblower testimony none of which are presented here. EU proxy argument: Ukraine has sought EU and NATO alignment voluntarily, particularly after Crimea’s annexation. To frame it solely as a “proxy” ignores Ukrainian agency and domestic political support for Euro-Atlantic integration. Ceasefire claims: The speaker claims Ukraine breaks “whatever ceasefire Russia attempts to uphold.” This is selective and contentious. Russia’s record (invasions of Georgia, Crimea annexation, and full-scale war in Ukraine) complicates the narrative of them attempting to uphold peace. Mineral deal dragging US into world war: No specific “mineral deal” is cited. If the reference is to rare earths or lithium contracts, such economic ties are common in globalized economies and do not inherently cause war. This passage aligns with pro-Russian or isolationist rhetoric, which has been increasingly visible in some political sectors, particularly in the US far-right. It reflects distrust of international aid skepticism about alliances like NATO or EU assumptions of Western imperial overreach reversal of traditional Cold War sympathies portraying Russia as restrained and Ukraine as deceptive. The underlying ideological claim is that the US should withdraw from entanglements abroad, particularly when those entanglements involve opposition to Russia. This is counter to the dominant postwar bipartisan consensus that US leadership and involvement in global conflicts, particularly in Europe, is essential to balance power and uphold democratic norms. This is a highly politicized and emotionally charged passage. It combines conspiratorial speculation with anti-interventionist rhetoric, layered in uncorroborated accusations. The concluding line “I could be wrong. I wish that I am” attempts to soften the force of the previous claims but cannot undo their weight or implications. If the intent is to contribute to serious public debate, the speaker would need to provide evidence for claims of war crimes and deceit clarify what the “mineral deal” entails specify how US involvement escalates into world war address the counter-evidence of Russian aggression and war crimes. As it stands, the critique is propagandistic rather than analytical. It engages more with ideological anxiety and distrust than with verifiable facts or reasoned argument. This doesn’t mean the position is inherently invalid but it must be held to higher standards of proof and nuance to be persuasive in a serious policy or ethical discussion.
Courage is the key.
One good step, you won a battle not the War.
Oswald ?
Who are you ?
No sign of your comment within the thread ?
Any way this is the response to your cryptic comment:
”…but because of its total abandonment of reason, evidence, and humane discourse.” You might want to brush up on your Nietzsche, say On the Genealogy of Morals’—can be unpacked on multiple levels: rhetorically, philosophically, and strategically. Here’s a detailed breakdown: At first glance, this comment appears to operate as a dismissive rebuttal. It suggests the opposing view lacks three cornerstones of Enlightenment rationality: reason—logical consistency or rational coherence, evidence—empirical or demonstrative support for claims, and humane discourse—civility, respect, and moral responsibility in dialogue. By asserting a “total abandonment” of all three, the speaker is engaging in what we might call totalizing critique—condemning not just a position but the epistemic and ethical framework behind it. It’s a rhetorical scorched earth maneuver, aimed at delegitimizing an entire mode of thought or communication. The kicker—“You might want to brush up on your Nietzsche, say On the Genealogy of Morals”—functions as a sarcastic corrective and an implied intellectual put-down. It also attempts to complicate the Enlightenment framework the critique is built on. The irony here is rich: Nietzsche himself was a sharp critic of rationalism, moralism, and conventional ideas of evidence and civility. Referencing him in the context of lamenting an “abandonment of reason and humane discourse” may appear contradictory—unless, of course, the speaker is subtly aligning with Nietzsche’s critique of those very terms as ideological instruments rather than neutral standards. In On the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche argues that morality is not rational or universal, but rather a historical product of resentment and power inversion. Concepts like “good” and “evil” originate in slave morality, which privileges weakness, humility, and suffering as virtues. Reason itself is suspect as a tool of moral repression and ressentiment. So invoking Nietzsche here might suggest a critique of those who wield “reason” and “evidence” not as neutral tools, but as covert moral weapons and a defense of irrationalism, perspectivism, or even affective truth as valid modes of discourse. The speaker uses Enlightenment criteria—reason, evidence, humane discourse—to judge a position and then undermines that judgment with a Nietzschean genealogy, which deconstructs those very criteria as historical and ideological. This is a kind of epistemological whiplash: asserting absolute standards while simultaneously referencing a thinker who denies such absolutes. If the speaker is unaware of Nietzsche’s critique of reason, then the comment is intellectually incoherent. If the speaker is aware, then the statement is deeply ironic and possibly nihilistic—it critiques the abandonment of rationalism while pointing to its philosophical deconstruction as a warning or invitation. This critique can be read as a reassertion of Enlightenment ideals under siege (if unironically intended), a meta-critical jab at those who abandon reason in the name of politics, passion, or postmodern relativism, or as an intellectual paradox, where Nietzsche is invoked to defend the very values he attacks. The phrase is ultimately rhetorically sharp but philosophically tangled. Invoking On the Genealogy of Morals as a corrective against the abandonment of reason is either a misreading of Nietzsche (if used uncritically) or a deliberate provocation, inviting the interlocutor to confront the genealogical suspicion that our discursive values are not timeless but historical, ideological, and power-laden. In either case, the effect is destabilizing: it calls into question both the accusation and the standards used to level it. It’s an effective tactic for those who wish to both scorn and destabilize—and that’s very Nietzschean indeed.
Hi Alexander,
Beware the fox in the henhouse, remember always and keep to the fore in all deliberations and dealings the U.S and Trump, this is a U.S orchestrated conflict, it has been from the outset, Trump, the bloviator that he is, likes to remind the World that it was he that armed the Nazis in Ukraine with Javelins that he also states was used to great effect stopping Russias tanks entering Kiev Feb 2022, as he contrasts his successes with the Javelins to his forebear, Team Obama and Biden, who only provided Blankets and Tents to the Nazis.
Neither forget that Trump continues to arm the Nazis, your enemy, in short the U.S as always speak both sides of their mouth, they are an unreliable partner, untrustworthy proven now across so many conflicts, the highway of war, chaos, conflict is littered with the detritus of what were once considered by those involved the U.S, “solid relationships” recall former allies Saddam, Muammar Gaddafi, Osama Bin Laden, all used by the U.S, supported financially, armed, given the nod and U.S blessing to get into armed conflict, only for their once ally, the U.S to turn dog on them, bit late for the aforementioned all now dead…
One need only look at the most recent economic iteration of this policy and dik tat, the application of tariffs, allies who have stood firm, traded and supported the U.S financially think largest bond and treasuries holders Japan and China and the way the U.S has treated them of late, happy to take their money, then in a flash, stab them in the back financially, all while then still literally begging they continue buying their now toilet paper treasuries and bonds… their markets are rigged the Fed the biggest buyer of treasuries and Stocks, market manipulation on steroids, yet any other country try doing the same with their central bank and all hell breaks loose, why even Burkino Faso is in their sights, allegedly because Traore uses the nations gold for the benefit of the population having nationalised gold and resource production, the outcome, AfriCom threatening to go in to resolve that unacceptable position and to ensure the gold is used for the populace.. not sure about you but I’m sick of their lies, their obfuscating, their making up shit to justify their military interventions and or regime changes…
In short and as stated beware of the offerings the sheep in wolf’s clothing, the Trojan Horse gift, the promises made, all while slow walking the obvious… just getting out of all involvement the Nazi regime they, the U.S created, the feckless terrorists created Kiev is a U.S project, continues to be despite their protestations of wanting peace, unsure, look at Gaza, calling for peace while enabling genocide, again, double speak… In short the U.S is an empire that is failing, has failed, their population devoid of much everyone else in the world receive, take for granted, no trickle down only continued wealth transfers upwards… to those already at the apex the economic pyramid.. broken infrastructure, addiction to drugs, debt, money printing, a political system that is a Dollarcracy, a far cry the representative Constitutional Republic the nation was founded as, rigged elections, public offices corrupted, immorality abounds, bottom line, it’s a matter of when not if they implode… on that basis I can think of many other worthy of partnering, of lifting up who in turn will benefit your nation and people, clue, U.S and A are not part of the names of said alternates.. do yourselves a favour, slow walk the process, give them nothing then simply walk away from them, you’ve got this, as a nation, Russia is militarily superior, tactically, officer corp, militarily technologically superior and worse case, your missile delivery systems are on another plane, consequently you have nothing to fear from a state, a global superpower that cannibalised itself from within… akin the story in scripture where the inhabitants of Jerusalem are warned they will consume each other, so apt, applicable in real time the U.S, sad, but true, it’s a nation I truly love, having travelled there a gazillion times, criss crossing that great nation, great people but whose leadership are simply gone, corrupted, immoral, obsessed with money, slaves to the monied elites and corporates, nothing egalitarian there to speak of, a huge let down for the once beacon on the hill promised so much… now Russia has assumed that mantle looked upon by so many to ensure they can achieve the peace, collective and individual prosperity long awaited… just saying
Kia Kaha (stay strong) from New Zealand
This text is a polemical diatribe an impassioned, ideologically loaded critique of U.S. foreign policy, with particular attention to the Ukraine conflict, Donald Trump, and the broader trajectory of American decline. It combines conspiratorial claims, factual misrepresentations, emotionally charged rhetoric, and anecdotal observations, all wrapped in a prophetic tone of warning. The tone is highly emotive, accusatory, and populist. The voice is that of a disillusioned insider someone who claims both love for the U.S. and intimate knowledge of its political mechanics. The use of colloquialisms (“bloviator,” “do yourselves a favour,” “just saying”) reinforces the feeling of authenticity while distancing the speaker from institutional or academic decorum. There is no clear logical structure or paragraph breaks. The argument is presented in a stream-of-consciousness style, bordering on rant. This affects its readability and weakens its persuasive power for informed readers. Instead of building a logical case, it fires off accusations in rapid succession making emotional resonance the main vector of persuasion rather than evidence or reason. Several metaphors drive the messaging: “Fox in the henhouse” betrayal from within. “Trojan Horse gift” hidden dangers in seemingly benign offerings. “Sheep in wolf’s clothing” inversion of a known idiom; confusing in its application. “Highway of war, chaos, conflict…littered with detritus” evocative but imprecise. “Dollarcracy” coinage intended to summarize perceived oligarchic rule in the U.S. These figurative devices, while vivid, often lack precision or consistency, reducing their persuasive effect. For example, the sheep/wolf metaphor appears reversed and confusing. The claim that Trump armed Nazis with Javelins is an oversimplification with a conspiratorial edge. Trump did authorize lethal aid (including Javelins) to Ukraine a significant shift from Obama-era policy but the idea that he proudly armed “Nazis” is disingenuous. It recycles Russian propaganda tropes that conflate Ukrainian nationalism with Nazism. The text references Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, and Osama bin Laden to argue that the U.S. betrays its allies. While it is true that U.S. foreign policy has historically supported some future adversaries, this is again oversimplified. Each of these relationships had distinct contexts, and lumping them together suggests intentional betrayal rather than strategic miscalculation or geopolitical evolution. Assertions about U.S. tariffs, market rigging, and the Federal Reserve’s role are partly based in truth (e.g., Fed asset purchases and market intervention during crises), but the text veers into hyperbole (“toilet paper treasuries,” “manipulation on steroids”), undermining its credibility. There’s no mention of international monetary interdependence, global financial systems, or the fact that other countries (including China) also manipulate markets and currencies. The suggestion that the U.S. is targeting Burkina Faso specifically for nationalizing gold production is unsubstantiated and appears highly speculative. There’s no mainstream evidence that AfriCom has planned interventions based on gold resource policy alone. This seems to be another example of ideological framing over verified analysis. The piece positions Russia as a moral superior, presenting it as militarily advanced, tactically superior, and ideologically aligned with oppressed nations seeking peace. This is deeply one-sided and ignores Russia’s well-documented internal repression, military aggression, and oligarchic corruption. The text sets up a binary worldview: U.S. equals failing empire, corrupt, immoral; Russia equals ascendant, virtuous, capable of delivering peace and prosperity. This Manichean rhetoric simplifies complex global dynamics and is politically manipulative. It provides no space for nuance or self-critique of any alternative power (e.g., Russia, China, etc.). The writer expresses love for the U.S. and admiration for its people, while simultaneously describing it as a rotting corpse of empire with nothing left to offer. This contradiction undermines the coherence of the argument. Love of a nation typically entails a more complex and balanced critique. This text exhibits several hallmarks of propaganda: emotional appeal over factual accuracy, use of loaded terms (“bloviator”, “rigged elections”, “toilet paper treasuries”), demonization of the enemy (U.S.), glorification of the alternative (Russia), apocalyptic tone suggesting imminent collapse, moral absolutism (“immorality abounds,” “corrupted leadership”). While propaganda can be rhetorically effective for sympathetic audiences, it is intellectually dishonest and counterproductive in open debate or policy analysis. The text reads more like an emotive tirade than a reasoned critique. It is infused with righteous indignation and appeals to distrust, but fails to provide balanced evidence, citations or sources, constructive proposals, or nuanced understanding of international affairs. Its persuasive power lies not in its facts but in its affective charge its ability to capture a certain mood of frustration and geopolitical exhaustion, particularly for those alienated by Western policies. As a polemic: Passionate but incoherent. As political analysis: Poor; riddled with exaggeration, misrepresentation, and contradiction.
Trump has doused every single fire that he inflamed to get elected.
If you can't beat it, get behind it, and then pull the plug, lower the standard and claim victory: a man who understands only winning or being loser, which Trump is
So were Churchill and FDR. Stalin won.
The present iteration goes back Bill Clinton as I recall, but Nichole Etsheson's "Bleeding Kansas", goes back to the founding of the Republican Party in 1854!
(Very well written)
What we have is just another iteration of the same, including "green backs" (Petro-Dollar) and Reconstruction.
Trump will fail as R.B. Hayes did in 1876.
Simple, yes. Easy, no. It will humble Trump. His ego resists that.
Trump should disengage now and sign a treaty of understanding with Putin. Then let the European globalists figure out what they are going to do without the USA. Their populations will not support any escalation.
I'm afraid there's much evidence to suggest the situation is far more dire. The globalist cabal has clearly taken complete and total control over most of Europe and are most obviously in the process of consolidating their authoritarian grip as evidenced by the recent "election" in Romania and the utterly anti-democratic behavior of the German and UK governments.
In the US, the recent implementation of Real ID - a virtual copy of the Chinese model, the 180° reversal about Jeffrey Epstein's death by both the Director and Deputy Director of the FBI - both heretofore among the most adamant of believers that he did not kill himself and self-avowed enemies of the globalist cabal - and the behavior of most members of the US congress - particularly those identifying as conservative Republicans - and many state legislatures - especially that of Texas - continue to work to implement the goals of the globalist cabal while saying otherwise. Trump's perpetual support for Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who not only was listed as a member of the WEF on their website (something he's never denied), but has taken financial donations from those supporting the previous invasion of the millions of illegals migrants and proven to be an enabler for the globalist agenda to anyone paying more than cursery attention, is extremely disturbing and raises the hard question: is Trump truly his own man?
There's so much more, like the people on the financial side of Trump's administration, who've publicly acknowledged their desire to see AI in complete control of our behavior and thus our lives, but the inescapable conclusion in my mind is that despite the seeming victory for democratic sanity the electoral success of Donald Trump might appear to have been, the actuality is the cabal hasn't gone anywhere, it's just changed masks.
This text is a dense, ideologically charged narrative that reflects a conspiratorial worldview. To critique it in detail, we must unpack its rhetorical structure, logic, and factual basis. The tone is alarmist, speculative, and absolutist. Phrases like “complete and total control,” “utterly anti-democratic,” “perpetual support,” and “inescapable conclusion” are indicative of rhetorical inflation a style of discourse that uses hyperbole to preempt critical interrogation and push the reader toward a preordained conclusion. The voice assumes an insider perspective, suggesting access to a hidden truth that mainstream discourse either ignores or suppresses. This is a common hallmark of conspiracist rhetoric, which often derives power not from evidence, but from the appeal of possessing “secret knowledge.” The text opens with a bold claim: “The globalist cabal has clearly taken complete and total control over most of Europe…” No concrete examples of policies, documents, speeches, or governmental shifts are cited. Instead, vague references are made to a recent “election” in Romania (no context provided), “anti-democratic behavior” of German and UK governments (undefined), Real ID (a DHS program dating back to post-9/11 legislation, but framed here as a recent, authoritarian development). The writer fails to substantiate these claims with verifiable data. Assertions are treated as self-evident truths, but they are not grounded in demonstrable fact or sound argumentation. This lack of specificity makes the argument logically and rhetorically weak, relying on the emotional valence of fear and suspicion rather than persuasion through evidence. There’s a tension in the claim that Trump represents a victory for “democratic sanity” while simultaneously being a puppet (or at least an ally) of the globalist cabal. If the “cabal” has full control, how could Trump’s electoral success signify any meaningful rupture in their influence? “…the actuality is the cabal hasn’t gone anywhere, it’s just changed masks.” This moving goalpost strategy renders the argument unfalsifiable: no matter what happens, it can be interpreted as further proof of conspiracy. This makes the reasoning tautological and immune to disproof, which is a hallmark of ideological extremism, not analytical critique.The phrase “globalist cabal” is loaded. It lacks a precise definition and is often used in populist or alt-right circles to evoke shadowy networks of elites. While criticism of global economic structures, supranational governance, or elite capture is legitimate, the term here is used in a monolithic and demonizing way. Also notable is the reference to the WEF (World Economic Forum) as a kind of litmus test for complicity, but without acknowledging the spectrum of attendees or the actual agendas debated there. This binary framing (WEF = evil; opposition = good) flattens complex political dynamics into cartoonish good vs. evil tropes.
The writer links Real ID to the Chinese surveillance model, Trump’s support of Abbott to globalist complicity, AI policy goals to behavioral control to globalist totalitarianism. But no chain of causality is demonstrated—these are associative leaps rather than logical connections. The suggestion that any AI strategy necessarily equates to totalitarian control is speculative and reflects technophobic determinism, not policy analysis. Misused or misspelled words like “cursery” (likely meant to be “cursory”) suggest a lack of editorial precision. Long, meandering sentences burden comprehension and weaken argumentative clarity. Overuse of scare quotes and passive constructions (“the recent ‘election’”, “self-avowed enemies”) dilutes credibility. The final rhetorical move posing the question: “Is Trump truly his own man?” is a rhetorical suspicion tactic that plants doubt without presenting new evidence. It’s effective for persuasion in echo chambers but structurally deceptive. It suggests a mystery without investigating it. This text is a classic example of conspiratorial political rhetoric that relies on assertion over argument, emotion over evidence, binary moral framing over complexity, and immunity to falsification. While legitimate concerns about surveillance, elite influence, and authoritarian drift exist in contemporary politics, this text does not engage with them in a serious or rigorous way. Instead, it indulges in speculative, self-reinforcing narratives that eschew genuine inquiry in favor of ideological confirmation. If your goal is to engage in real critique of power, this type of language needs to be replaced with precise sourcing, clear definitions, nuanced cause-effect analysis, and acknowledgment of ambiguity and competing perspectives.
Brevity/efficiency in communications is always best. You could have simply stated you disagree and explain why, but you choose instead to turn what should have been a simple, directed response into a doctoral dissertation. You drag out every sentence and fit in as many unnecessary words as possible in what appears to me at least, to be a desperate attempt to fulfill a need to appear intelligent and intellectually superior.
My response to Mr. Dugin's post is my take based upon what I see. I honestly do believe there is a global conspiracy at work. That it is a conspiracy theory, doesn't mean it's wrong. So far, the conspiracy theories of US election fraud, the origins of covid and the associated mRNA treatments and the weaponization of the US government against it's own people were all previously considered to be "conspiracy theories" and have all since been proven to be fact. My thoughts on a global conspiracy may, ultimately, prove to be wrong, but for now, I'm only seeing things that further confirm my suspicions. I agree, the origins of Real ID can be traced back to the events of 9/11/01. So was the Patriot Act and the resulting weaponization of government against American citizens. But there's no denying that some of the biggest people in US business have absolutely gushed over the Chinese model of economic and social control. Real ID has the potential to be used for the same level of control. Many, including independent journalists like Whitney Webb and economists like Catherine Austin Fitts, have pointed this out in great detail. Just as the Patriot Act proved to be too great a temptation to not misuse by those in charge of it, so will Real ID. Texas Governor Greg Abbott did, in fact, appear on the WEF website as a member and has never denied it. Despite having full legal authority and obligation under both Texas and US constitutions to stop the invasion of illegals immigrants, he did nothing but engage in theater. Among his larger donors are the developers of Colony Ridge, a very large community North of Houston Texas, specifically made to house illegals. He tried selling sensitive Texas land to Chinese oligarchs and only stopped when the deals were made public and drew public backlash. I was briefly involved in politics in Texas and there is so much more than what I wrote above that have led me to see things as I do, but unlike you perhaps, I can't spend untold hours writing. So, you can choose to consider my take or not, but it is my view and I am entitled to it, regardless of your thoughts on it.
It might also serve you well to remember the words of a wise man who once said: "Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one."
This comment is a rich, multi-layered artifact of online discourse, blending personal conviction, political rhetoric, and a defensive posture against perceived intellectual elitism. A detailed critique can be approached from several angles—rhetorical structure, tone, argumentative strategy, factual integrity, and psychological framing.The rhetorical strategy and tone are immediately marked by a defensive framing. The opening salvo—“Brevity/efficiency in communications is always best”—establishes a critique not of the substance of the opposing viewpoint but of the style in which it was delivered. The writer sets the stage by casting themselves as the pragmatic, concise thinker versus the supposed pontificator. This is a strategic ad hominem, discrediting form rather than engaging content. The statement “You drag out every sentence and fit in as many unnecessary words as possible…” doubles as a preemptive defense. It attempts to justify the lack of depth in their own reply by painting detail and intellectual rigor as pretentious or even deceptive. It’s a clever deflection, but it undermines dialogue by implicitly shaming precision and complexity.There is also an emotional undercurrent and projection at play. The charge that someone is making “a desperate attempt to appear intelligent” suggests projection. The writer’s tone blends irritation with insecurity, evident in their accusation of intellectual posturing. Ironically, this may say more about their discomfort with intellectual discourse than about the content they criticize.Looking at the argument structure and logic, the text leans heavily on conspiracy theories as epistemic anchors. The writer moves from critique of style to defense of their worldview by invoking conspiracy theories: “Theories of US election fraud, the origins of COVID… were all previously considered to be ‘conspiracy theories’ and have all since been proven to be fact.” This is both a factual overreach and a slippery slope argument. Not all of these have been “proven fact”—no court has substantiated widespread US election fraud; the origins of COVID are still debated, and the characterization of mRNA vaccines as conspiratorial is scientifically unfounded. The rhetorical move here is to validate current speculative beliefs by retroactively legitimizing previously discredited ones, even when the analogies don’t hold.Furthermore, there is a tactic of guilt by association and implication. The criticism of Real ID, WEF membership, and Greg Abbott is framed to imply coordinated malfeasance without offering evidence of causal linkage. This is a pattern of associative implication—individual facts (membership, donations, land deals) are framed as suspicious solely because they coexist in proximity to other concerns. This leap from correlation to causation is a classic logical fallacy, and it fuels conspiracy narratives precisely because it resists falsification: absence of proof is reinterpreted as proof of hidden truths.Regarding factual integrity and misrepresentation, several points stand out. Being listed on a WEF site does not equate to secretive collusion. It’s common for high-profile political figures to be referenced or appear at various global forums. The claim that Colony Ridge is “specifically made to house illegals” is a heavily disputed assertion. Housing developments with affordable housing or diverse communities are often simplistically rebranded in xenophobic rhetoric. Concerns about surveillance and Real ID are legitimate, but the jump from “it can be abused” to “it will be” lacks evidence. The comparison to the Patriot Act is provocative but overly deterministic.This comment is laced with fallacies and rhetorical devices. It sets up a straw man by exaggerating the opposing argument into a verbose intellectual ego-trip, which is likely a mischaracterization designed to deflect. There is also a false equivalence: equating the existence of a viewpoint with the validity of that viewpoint. For example, “I believe in a global conspiracy; therefore, you must engage with it as serious thought.” The text leans heavily on an appeal to cynicism. There is a seductive logic in the idea that all institutions are lying or corrupt. It allows the speaker to maintain certainty in their worldview without requiring evidence beyond the fact that it feels “plausible” or “ignored.“Psychologically and socially, this text is ultimately about epistemic authority—who gets to define truth and who gets to speak. The writer feels both disrespected and overwhelmed by what they perceive as elitist communication. Their tone suggests they want to assert credibility without participating in the intellectual norms that confer it—evidence, structure, transparency of sources. The closer, invoking the aphorism “opinions are like assholes,” suggests resignation and rhetorical closure. It’s a defense mechanism—if all opinions are equally base, then there’s no need for deeper scrutiny or hierarchy of truth.In conclusion and constructive framing, this comment is a defensive, emotionally charged assertion of belief, cloaked in populist rhetoric and designed to rebuff intellectual critique rather than engage with it. Its argumentative tactics rely on distrust of authority, discrediting of intellectual expression, and assertion of unverifiable claims. For those looking to engage productively with such texts, the best strategy is to acknowledge the legitimate emotions or concerns (e.g., surveillance fears), gently challenge false equivalencies and unsupported assertions, and maintain clarity without falling into the same emotive traps. The greater danger is not that such views exist, but that they frame critical thinking itself as a threat, making dialogue almost impossible.
I'm almost tempted to think these responses are actually AI generated and purposely refer to me and my thoughts in the 3rd inanimate as a way to be dismissive and have the sender perceived as superior. Perhaps you, the sender, did not consider the possibility that this strategy might also have the opposite effect and show you to actually be an enormously arrogant, pompous and insecure asshole? The length of the diatribes also really show you enjoy listening to yourself.
Whatever your motivations for responding as you do, you've provided nothing that makes me rethink my positions on this matter. So, I will wish you well, ask God to bless you to reconsider your approach to engaging meaningfully with others and leave you to enjoy your narcissistic thoughts.
This is a dense ideological statement that blends conspiracy theory, geopolitical speculation, and populist rhetoric. To comment on it thoroughly, one must consider ideological framing, logical consistency, factual accuracy, rhetorical strategy, and implications. The passage constructs a binary moral universe: on one side are MAGA, Trump, Putin, Orbán, and other populist or nationalist figures; on the other, the EU, US Democratic Party, liberal elites, neocons, Zelensky, and an amorphous Deep State or World Government. This division is Manichaean, dividing the world into absolute good and evil. It’s a hallmark of propagandistic or conspiratorial discourse, which simplifies complex geopolitical phenomena into digestible, emotionally charged narratives. The text asserts that globalists started the war in Ukraine to defeat Russia. This is a reversal of generally accepted chronology: Russia invaded Ukraine, violating its sovereignty. The implication that the West provoked the invasion is a commonly repeated Kremlin talking point, but it ignores both Ukraine’s agency and Russia’s longstanding imperial ambitions. Trump and Putin are portrayed as victims of the same conspiracy, even though they have vastly different agendas and positions within their respective power structures. The idea that they are both anti-Deep State allies is speculative and lacks substantiated proof. The claim that the EU is a dictatorship targeting figures like Marine Le Pen or the AfD ignores the pluralist, electoral basis of EU democracies. These figures participate freely in elections, parliaments, and public discourse. Criticism and regulation are not the same as suppression. The text refers to Zelensky and his International Terrorist Organization. This is an inflammatory and unfounded label. Zelensky is the democratically elected president of Ukraine, (although this has now lapsed) a country defending itself from foreign invasion. Clearly there are recent serious issues surrounding Zelensky’s Political strategies, with his unwillingness to debate in a proper fashion with Putin etc. No evidence supports the existence of an International Terrorist Organization, nor has such a term been used in credible geopolitical analysis. The claim that the US can unilaterally declare peace and withdraw overlooks the basic reality that Ukraine is an independent state. The US is not at war with Russia it supports Ukraine’s right to self-defense. Unilaterally withdrawing support would not end the conflict; it would likely embolden further Russian aggression. The language is militarized, conspiratorial, and simplistic. It appeals to emotion rather than complexity. These rhetorical choices are characteristic of populist agitprop, meant to rally ideological in-groups and demonize perceived elites. It leverages insider knowledge tropes to make readers feel they are seeing behind the curtain. This text recasts geopolitical events as a domestic US struggle, turning a war in Ukraine into a battle for Trump’s destiny. That’s politically potent but dangerously misleading. It uses paranoia as persuasion: the idea that they, the Deep State or globalists, are everywhere, pulling strings, deceiving the public, and oppressing real patriots. The messianic tone around the Trump-Putin alliance transforms politics into a quasi-religious drama. Trump isn’t just a politician he’s a chosen figure in a cosmic battle against tyranny. If taken seriously, this rhetoric undermines democratic institutions, delegitimizes multilateral diplomacy, and justifies authoritarian behavior under the guise of fighting a Deep State. It also creates a dangerous epistemological framework where all opposition is proof of conspiracy, and only the insider narrative is true. This is epistemically closed, immune to evidence, nuance, or contradiction. This text is not a policy analysis or a good-faith political argument. It is a conspiratorial, authoritarian-leaning narrative that reverses the aggressor-victim roles in the Ukraine conflict, demonizes democratic institutions, attempts to mythologize Trump and Putin as saviors from an imagined tyranny, lacks factual grounding, substitutes nuance with paranoia, and promotes disinformation under the guise of strategic clarity. In short, rhetorically compelling for its intended audience, but intellectually dishonest, geopolitically dangerous, and ethically troubling.
1. Putin murders his opposition.
2.Putin is a graduate of the WEF YOUNG WORLD LEADERS FORUM along with merkel, Trudeau and other NWO stooges/puppets. Which makes him suspect as a western double agent in the ilk of adolph hitler who along with Marin borman lost the war to russia on purpose. Both faked their death and fled Germany.
3. Hitler had an ideological teacher named haushoffer who led him to pursue "breathing space land". Putin has an ideological teacher named Dugin who is leading him to rebuild empire. Both will end in disaster.
4. As an orthodox Christian, how can you oppose nazi in Ukraine, but support racist MAGA in the USA?
5. As an orthodox christian, I would be worried about the fulfillment of Ezekiel 38 and 39 when Rosh/Russia is defeated on the Golan Heights during an invasion of Israel. I don't support Israel. The original Israelites were black as your agent putin has revealed in his attempt to win favor with Africa and its diaspora and China(who will be defeated at Armageddon)attempts the same by saying their asian ancestors descended from Africans who migrated into Asia.
6. You will achieve the defeat of the west only to be defeated on the Golan Heights and at Armageddon by YAHOWAH.
Your orthodox christianity will be exposed as will all false religions.
The statement “Putin murders his opposition” contains elements of truth rooted in well-documented patterns of repression and violence against critics of the Russian regime. While there is no direct legal proof that Vladimir Putin personally orders assassinations, multiple cases such as the killings of Boris Nemtsov, the poisoning of Alexei Navalny, and the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, have been attributed by investigative bodies and international observers to the Russian state or its proxies. This pattern suggests a highly repressive environment where political dissent is dangerous and often deadly. However, attributing all such acts directly to Putin without rigorous evidence oversimplifies the workings of a complex and opaque authoritarian system.The claim that Putin is a graduate of the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders program is factually false. There is no credible evidence or official listing that supports this assertion. The WEF maintains public records of its Young Global Leaders and Putin has never appeared on them. Suggesting he is therefore a double agent working for the West, or comparing him to Adolf Hitler who supposedly lost the war to Russia on purpose, enters the realm of conspiracy theory. The idea that Hitler and Martin Bormann faked their deaths and fled Germany is not supported by any credible historical evidence. These are fringe theories often repeated in pseudo-historical literature but are rejected by mainstream historians and forensic analysis. The logic that association with WEF or any global organization equates to being a puppet of a supposed “New World Order” is based on speculative ideologies rather than verifiable fact.
The comparison between Hitler’s ideological mentor Karl Haushofer and Putin’s alleged ideological influence Alexander Dugin is an oversimplification that conflates distinct geopolitical doctrines. Haushofer was indeed a geopolitical theorist who may have influenced elements of Nazi expansionist ideology, particularly the idea of Lebensraum or “living space.” Dugin, a contemporary Russian philosopher advocating for Eurasianism, has promoted the idea of a revived Russian empire opposed to Western liberalism. However, his actual influence on Putin’s policies is widely debated. While Dugin’s rhetoric is aligned with aspects of Russian nationalism, there is little conclusive evidence that he directly guides Kremlin decision-making. Comparing the two figures overlooks the very different historical, political, and ideological contexts in which they operate.
The assertion that an Orthodox Christian cannot oppose Nazism in Ukraine while supporting the MAGA movement in the United States presents a false dichotomy and whataboutism. It assumes a monolithic Orthodox Christian stance, ignoring the diversity of views within the tradition. The presence of far-right elements in Ukraine, such as the Azov Regiment, does not define the broader Ukrainian resistance to Russian invasion, which includes a wide range of political positions. Similarly, the MAGA movement encompasses a spectrum of beliefs, and while some elements may espouse racist views, it is incorrect to conflate all supporters with white nationalism. This framing serves more as a rhetorical trap than a meaningful theological critique. The reference to Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39 as predicting a Russian defeat in Israel is one among many interpretations of biblical prophecy, commonly found in certain Evangelical eschatological frameworks. Within Orthodox Christianity, the identification of “Rosh” as Russia is not universally accepted. The original Hebrew more accurately translates “Rosh” as a title meaning “chief” or “head,” not a nation. Furthermore, the claim that the original Israelites were black is a belief held by groups such as the Black Hebrew Israelites, but it is not supported by mainstream archaeology, genetics, or historiography. The notion that Putin’s remarks about African origins are a revelation rather than a geopolitical strategy aimed at winning favor with African nations is a misreading of political pragmatism as divine disclosure.
The final assertion about the defeat of the West and an apocalyptic battle on the Golan Heights reads as a theological pronouncement grounded in a specific sectarian eschatology. This perspective assumes a deterministic view of global events, interpreted through a singular understanding of divine prophecy. The invocation of YAHOWAH and the condemnation of Orthodox Christianity as a false religion marks a departure from analysis into religious absolutism. It rejects all other theological frameworks and presents a triumphalist, prophetic narrative that lacks room for dialogue or plurality. This kind of rhetoric, cloaked in divine certainty, is ultimately exclusionary and polarizing, undermining the complexity of political, historical, and religious realities.
There is a video with Klaus Schwab saying putin is a graduate of the WEF YOUNG WORLD LEADERS FORUM. YOUR AI IS LACKING.
Okay, I located the probable video. It is a very informal meeting of Schwab and a young representative from Costa Rica. Schwab makes the claim that Putin was a participant of WEF. However there is no evidence of this.
Vladimir Putin has participated in World Economic Forum (WEF) events, including delivering a special address during the Davos Agenda 2021 online forum . He has also met with WEF Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab, expressing support for the forum’s role in fostering international cooperation .  
However, there is no official evidence confirming that Putin was a member of the WEF or part of its Young Global Leaders program. While some sources claim he was a former Young Global Leader, these assertions lack substantiation from official WEF records .  
Conclusion: False. Vladimir Putin has engaged with the World Economic Forum but is not officially recognized as a member or as part of its Young Global Leaders program.
I will check this out and get back to you but not in the ‘sneaky’ way.
I choose to believe Schwab, whereas, you, an agent, don't believe Scwab. You Don't have access to the top level WEF files.
So, since Schwab said it that carries more weight than your denial.
It also explains why Russia has not fully mobilized it's army to crush Ukraine quickly. The war is being used to slowly create conditions for a world War ordered by the bankers who putin serves.
You ‘choose’ to believe Schwab.
Based on what ?
Choosing and Believing are not ‘grounded’ in any provable facts.
Your ‘belief’ and ‘choice’ is based on pieces of straw.
I am nobody’s ‘agent’.
What Agent ?
-said it that- ? don’t you mean -said that it- ………?
Your final sentence is absurd from beginning to end.
Please don’t insult my intelligence.
So, you are calling Schwab a liar?? Why hasn't putin denied Schwab"s claim?
Good job using AI. I WILL DESTRUCTIVELY RESPOND TO YOU LATER.
Great I await gleefully your response.
https://x.com/Megatron_ron/status/1924787331325644864 ??
https://x.com/marklevinshow/status/1920999438639624225