Alexander Dugin declares World War Three the globalists’ war of all against all, masked by nationalism, driven by nuclear chaos, and answerable only by sacred Russian power.
This text, deeply embedded in conspiratorial geopolitics and apocalyptic determinism, is an incendiary political-theological treatise drawing from Alexander Dugin’s neo-Eurasianist philosophy (Dugin, 2012), end-times eschatology, and hyper-nationalist, anti-liberal narratives. It weaves current events real, exaggerated, or invented into a larger eschatological drama of civilizational warfare and cosmic destiny, framed within a quasi-religious vision of Russia’s salvific mission. It should be read not as sober analysis but as a form of political Gnosticism, enacting what Eric Voegelin described as the “immanentization of the eschaton” (Voegelin, 1968).
The essay opens with a melodramatic framing device: the U.S. bombing of Iran’s Fordow facility is cast not as a regional escalation, but as the trigger of World War Three. The invocation of Chekhov’s dramatic principle that a pistol hung on the wall in Act I must be fired in Act III becomes a metaphysical claim: the mere existence of nuclear weapons necessitates their eventual use. This is a classic instance of teleological determinism, foreclosing contingency, restraint, or diplomacy. It mirrors Carl Schmitt’s notion that sovereignty lies in the power to decide on the exception (Schmitt, 2005) here, the nuclear exception has already been declared inevitable. By reconfiguring the Cold War’s balance of terror into a theological necessity for nuclear apocalypse, the text mimics a political-theological dramaturgy that dissolves complexity into fated eschaton.
At the center of this vision is a stark binary between “globalists” a deliberately nebulous term conflating liberal elites, technocratic futurists, LGBTQ advocates, international finance, and AI theorists and the defenders of traditional sovereignty and multipolar order. The globalists are depicted as engaged in an ontological war against humanity itself, seeking the elimination of national borders, gender, identity, and finally human beings, in order to replace them with artificial intelligence and post-human governance. This vision is directly inherited from Alexander Dugin’s warnings about liberalism as an ontological dissolution of Being itself (Dugin, 2012). Yet it also echoes Hannah Arendt’s account of totalitarianism’s drive toward a world “in which everything becomes possible” (Arendt, 1973). However, the author moves from critique to cosmic conspiracy: the globalist elite is simultaneously orchestrating MAGA, neo-Nazism in Ukraine, Zionist militarism, radical Islam, Hindutva nationalism, and AI research into a single program of post-human planetary control. This level of coordination and intentionality is implausible; it reflects what Richard Hofstadter called the “paranoid style” in political thought, wherein disparate forces are imagined as puppets of a single omnipotent hand (Hofstadter, 1965).
One of the essay’s most ideologically consequential reversals lies in its claim that globalists are no longer resisting nationalism, but harnessing it for their own apocalyptic ends. In this retelling, Trump, Netanyahu, Hindutva forces in India, and Ukrainian ultranationalists are not true resistors of globalism, but are either co-opted or naïvely serving globalist designs. This is an ingenious but unstable dialectic: nationalism becomes both the instrument of resistance and of domination, both a threat to the globalist order and a tool of its advancement. The ideological sleight of hand here is to preserve one pure form of nationalism Russian nationalism as the only remaining source of authentic metaphysical resistance. All other forms are either debased, corrupted, or compromised. This is in keeping with the messianic tendencies of Eurasianist thought, which casts Russia as the katechon the eschatological force restraining the coming of the Antichrist (Shlapentokh, 2007). Within such a vision, the world is not composed of competing political systems or ideologies, but of cosmic archetypes locked in eschatological combat.
The essay’s use of moral inversion and symbolic reversal is particularly extreme. Israel is cast as the new Nazi regime, while Palestinians are reconfigured as their victims. Ukrainian nationalism is collapsed into neo-Nazism, itself framed as a tool of the globalists. The nuclear arsenal, once imagined as a deterrent, is now transformed into an inevitable weapon of planetary cleansing. Even Trump, who once stood for a multipolar order and anti-interventionism, is said to have “unleashed World War Three.” These rhetorical strategies serve not analytical but mythic purposes, in which guilt, violence, and resistance are redistributed along metaphysical, not political lines. Slavoj Žižek has argued that such symbolic inversions are typical of ideological fantasy, where the victim is cast as the aggressor and the aggressor as the savior (Žižek, 2008). This rhetorical strategy inoculates the author from critique: any contradiction becomes proof of deeper conspiracy, any act of war an act of defensive eschatology.
The concluding appeal to embrace a new, totalizing Russian ideology serves as both a call to arms and a theological imperative. The author explicitly rejects both the liberal humanitarianism of the post-Soviet Russian state and the class-based totalitarianism of Soviet Marxism. What is proposed instead is a fresh ideology sacred, aggressive, uncompromising. This recalls Dugin’s advocacy for a “Fourth Political Theory,” one that fuses elements of Tradition, mysticism, and radical political mobilization (Dugin, 2012). But what the author is ultimately proposing is not theory but myth: the activation of an ideological will that fuses military force, sacrificial destiny, and redemptive sovereignty. Umberto Eco’s warning about “ur-fascism” is apt here he described it as an ideology without coherent doctrine, defined instead by emotional commitment to struggle, victimhood, and sacred violence (Eco, 1995).
The essay is riddled with factual distortions, illogic, and rhetorical manipulation. It conflates conventional military strikes with nuclear escalation; it fabricates a seamless continuity between disparate nationalist movements across geographies and ideologies; it assumes a world-historical coherence in events that are plainly contradictory. Furthermore, its elevation of apocalypse as the necessary horizon of politics eliminates the possibility of diplomacy, peace, or ideological hybridity. It demands total war in the name of metaphysical purity. This is not analysis, but political Gnosticism. It presents evil as a global code, war as an ontological necessity, and ideology as salvific flame.
This text is not merely dangerous for what it proposes, but for the form it takes: it replaces reality with myth, analysis with eschatology, history with fate. It should be read alongside the warnings of Arendt, Schmitt, Eco, Hofstadter, and Snyder, who all in different ways identified the signs of a totalitarian imaginary masquerading as political clarity. What we are witnessing in this document is not prophecy, but performance the resurrection of an old fascist script dressed in the language of AI, transhumanism, and multipolarity. Its call is not for sovereignty, but for sacred violence. It is the paranoid sublime made legible.
References
• Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt, 1973.
• Dugin, Alexander. The Fourth Political Theory. Arktos, 2012.
• Eco, Umberto. “Ur-Fascism.” The New York Review of Books, 1995.
• Hofstadter, Richard. The Paranoid Style in American Politics. Vintage, 1965.
• Schmitt, Carl. Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. University of Chicago Press, 2005.
• Shlapentokh, Dmitry. Eurasia: Between Illusion and Reality. Brill, 2007.
• Voegelin, Eric. Science, Politics and Gnosticism. Regnery Gateway, 1968.
• Žižek, Slavoj. Violence: Six Sideways Reflections. Picador, 2008.
• Snyder, Timothy. The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America. Tim Duggan Books, 2018.
This reads like mediocre AI slop. It’s even worse than Dugin’s own writing which is quite terrible itself. But he has a reasonable excuse, his work is being translated from Russian to English. This commentary is evidence of the limitless well of delusion and self regard typical of mid-wit “intellectuals". This person is obsessed with Dugin. There is not one original work or post produced by this troll. Just derivative AI slop, which he considers "creative".
When you produce an original argument that is not generated by AI, I will do so. I will not argue with AI, I’m interested in the products of human thought and creativity.
This stance is rhetorically evasive and philosophically incoherent. Dismissing an argument solely because it was generated by AI is an ad hominem fallacy attacking the source, not the substance. If the argument is sound, coherent, and original in structure or insight, its origin is secondary. Refusing engagement on the basis of authorship avoids critical thinking and betrays a nostalgia for “authenticity” over analytical rigor. Furthermore, AI outputs are shaped by human prompts, training data, and language meaning they are not entirely non-human. To meaningfully oppose or critique an argument, one must evaluate its logic, not its label.
Analytical rigor if applied to your reading of my comment would reveal that my primary objective was to presented a meta-critique of your commentary not necessarily the arguments presented therein. Making a claim of an ad hominem fallacy is specious as LLMs are not persons. While the output of an AI may be shaped by humans it is not in fact the product of human thought or reasoning. I maintain my position that your original post was AI slop. It was meant to evoke an emotional response which would lead to real thought and discussion regarding the use of AI as a stand in for human reason and intellect.
This defense collapses under its own contradictions. Claiming a meta-critique while simultaneously making a definitive judgment (“AI slop”) is not analysis but rhetorical dismissal. Arguing that LLMs are not persons misses the point: the ad hominem fallacy targets the origin rather than the argument, which still applies here. Declaring that AI output is not the product of human reasoning ignores the human-shaped architecture, training, and prompt-driven generation that deeply inflects the text. Finally, the assertion that the post was designed to “evoke emotional response” ironically mirrors the very “slop” you decry provocation without substantive engagement.
Every such AI generated screed morphs into infinite oxbow meanders through interminable morasses of hyperbolized verbiage which a talented human must ruthlessly edit for clarity and brevity.
This complaint is itself verbose and ironic condemning excess while indulging in it. It mistakes density for aimlessness and overlooks the analytical precision often embedded in complexity. Concise critique demands more than stylistic disdain; it requires substantive engagement.
This thumping, grandiose reply denies the essence of the essay it attempts to undermine: the quick Zionist turn to focus on nuclear weaponry is their newly ascendant imaginary. Their aesthetic attractions and delusions always precede and signal the approach their coordination will orient itself around, in their next iterations of navel-gazing violence. As such, their own obsessions self-fulfill. This has been the case in each of the two world wars they fanned from regional to global conflagration. Their motives remain the same: self-aggrandizement, with the physical locus, Palestine.
This critique veers into conspiratorial essentialism and recycles antisemitic tropes disguised as geopolitical insight. By attributing world wars and nuclear escalation to an abstract, monolithic “Zionist” aesthetic imaginary, it collapses historical complexity into deterministic myth. It offers no evidence, only projection, turning interpretive language into accusatory metaphysics. The claim that aesthetic delusions cause global violence is speculative rhetoric, not argument.
Oooh, a repeat! Keep fapping with your AI, I guess.
The pompous paranoia you're leading with as though it's an argument are hallmarks of Zionist word production. Can't call it thought, when it is nothing more than rehash.
Aesthetics as a component of rationalization and decision making is well understood and accepted in the cognitive and philosophical sciences. You're just an idiot who doesn't know much.
Cheers Melvin! Keep it up and you'll get some more history of Zionist machinations. It is always helpful when a hasbara gives me a reason to pile on a ton of history that people might not yet be aware of.
eta: I promised Melv I would just add more information about Israel's nature and behavior if he kept it up. He has kept it up.
To spare you having to read through his AI stuff (he thinks he's a "provocateur"), here is the link.
• Assessment: The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (UNGC) defines genocide by both actus reus (acts like killing, causing harm, preventing births, etc.) and mens rea (intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group). The application of this legal framework to Gaza is currently being litigated, notably at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
• Clarification: The ICJ has not yet ruled definitively that Israel is committing genocide. It issued provisional measures in January and March 2024, noting plausibility of genocide, but this is not a conviction.
2. Reference to Nuremberg Principles
• Claim: Refusal to label Gaza a genocide is a violation of the Nuremberg Principles.
• Assessment: The Nuremberg Principles, codified post-WWII, established crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide. While they set moral and legal precedents, they do not obligate AI systems or commentaries to label every conflict. The author overextends the analogy: Nuremberg was a military tribunal; modern international law operates via the ICJ, ICC, and UN mechanisms, not AI policy or automated speech outputs.
3. Comparison to Rwanda and Bosnia
• Claim: Starvation tactics and hospital destruction in Gaza mirror those prosecuted at the ICTR and ICTY.
• Assessment: Factually accurate in precedent—both Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1998) and Radovan Karadžić (Bosnia) were convicted based on policies including starvation and hospital targeting. But genocide convictions required clear intent to destroy a group, not just outcomes or tactics. In Gaza, intent remains legally contested—hence the ICJ’s framing of it as “plausible,” not definitive.
• Caveat: Destruction of infrastructure, hospitals, and sieges may also qualify as war crimes or crimes against humanity, which are separate categories.
4. Use of Speech as Evidence of Genocidal Intent
• Claim: Netanyahu’s “Amalek” reference and soldier videos equate to Julius Streicher-style propaganda.
• Assessment: This is contextually grounded. Streicher was convicted at Nuremberg for incitement via dehumanizing language. Likewise, the ICTR (Rwanda) convicted media figures for similar speech.
• Important nuance: A head of state’s invocation of biblical extermination narratives (e.g., Amalek) could, in theory, contribute to evidence of genocidal intent, but this would require systematic linkage between speech and state policy/actions—not just isolated clips. The argument is suggestive, not conclusive.
5. 1971 ICJ Ruling on Namibia
• Claim: ICJ ruled settler-colonialism and displacement as illegal, and this applies to the Nakba.
• Assessment: The Namibia Advisory Opinion (1971) declared South Africa’s continued presence in Namibia illegal under international law due to apartheid and violations of self-determination.
• Misapplication: While the analogy to Israel/Palestine as settler-colonialism is widely argued in critical scholarship, the ICJ has not issued a ruling applying the Namibia precedent to Israel’s 1948 actions. The Nakba, while historically documented, has not been adjudicated under these terms in any international court. So this application is analytical, not legal.
6. UNGA Resolution 3379 (1975)
• Claim: The resolution supports labeling Zionism as racism and settler colonialism.
• Clarification: Resolution 3379 did equate Zionism with racism, but it was revoked in 1991 by UNGA Resolution 46/86. Thus, its legal force is null, though its historical significance remains.
⸻
II. Claims Regarding AI and Censorship
1. AI “Lying” or “Rewriting History”
• Claim: AI systems like ChatGPT or Grok are “reprogrammed to lie.”
• Assessment: Large Language Models (LLMs) do not hold beliefs or lie—they generate outputs based on training data and policy constraints (e.g., OpenAI’s or Google’s moderation frameworks). The term “lie” anthropomorphizes algorithms.
• However: These systems are often programmed to avoid legally or politically sensitive claims, such as “declaring genocide,” unless there is international legal consensus or a court ruling. This is a moderation policy, not censorship in the legal sense.
2. “Violation of ICJ Orders” by AI platforms
• Claim: Delay in labeling Gaza a genocide constitutes complicity under Article III(e) of the Genocide Convention.
• Assessment: Only states and individuals can violate the Genocide Convention under international law—not algorithms or corporations in this way. While companies can arguably amplify harmful narratives, it is a stretch to say that cautious language constitutes legal complicity, especially given the ICJ has not ruled genocide definitively.
3. “Digital Laundering of Genocide Denial”
• Claim: AI platforms are laundering genocide denial algorithmically.
• Assessment: This is a provocative but ambiguous claim. It might resonate metaphorically but lacks legal precedent or a clear legal framework. Genocide denial laws do exist (e.g., in Germany, France, and Rwanda), but their application to algorithmic outputs is legally novel and untested.
⸻
III. Strategic and Rhetorical Framework
This piece employs:
• Militant legal activism: framing AI critique as part of a war crimes tribunal logic.
• High-stakes rhetoric: “Machines will testify,” “Algorithmic Nuremberg,” “weaponize terms of service.”
• Performative certainty: It presents hypotheses and critical analogies as definitive legal truths, which is strategically powerful but legally misleading.
• Tools of digital resistance: The “Legal Siege Toolkit” imagines a crowdsourced, decentralized legal campaign using FOIA, ICC filings, GDPR, etc.
⸻
IV. Concluding Evaluation
Strengths
Weaknesses
Raises urgent moral and legal questions about Gaza and algorithmic neutrality.
Overstates legal certainty; misrepresents AI moderation as genocide denial.
Accurately cites real historical legal precedents.
Applies precedents without sufficient nuance or legal context.
Challenges AI platforms to reflect legal case law.
Equates moderation policies with legal complicity.
Draws on patterns of state violence, speech, and propaganda effectively.
Blurs lines between activist narrative, legal argument, and factual assertion.
Summary Judgment:
The text is a highly charged fusion of legal critique, activist strategy, and rhetorical performance. While it accurately references several genocide case precedents, it overextends legal analogies, misapplies international law, and ascribes intention to AI systems where there is none. It does not distinguish clearly between legal plausibility and legal determination, and its use of emotionally loaded language—while effective for mobilization—compromises factual neutrality.
Still, it rightly identifies the tension between AI moderation policies and international legal discourse, and invites necessary scrutiny of how technology mediates political realities.
The article functions first and foremost as a testimonial—a first-person narrative of technological disillusionment. This lends it an immediacy and authenticity that resonates with readers who distrust technological neutrality, especially around sensitive geopolitical topics like Palestine. The opening lines powerfully frame the experience as a personal encounter with digital gaslighting: “It was not a conversation. It was an evasion.” This is effective rhetoric, particularly in its dramatic inversion of user expectation. The voice is emotional, lucid, and indignant—entirely appropriate for a writer attempting to expose systemic silencing of a people and a history.
From an ethico-political standpoint, the writer’s moral urgency is unambiguous and grounded in legitimate concerns: algorithmic bias, historical erasure, digital colonialism, and the asymmetry of narrative framing. These are real issues in AI development and deployment, and their intersection with Palestine/Israel discourse deserves rigorous and sustained attention. Scholars such as Safiya Umoja Noble (Algorithms of Oppression, 2018) and Ruha Benjamin (Race After Technology, 2019) have extensively documented how digital systems perpetuate racial and geopolitical inequalities. The article enters that lineage with compelling passion.
⸻
2. Key Allegations and Structural Weaknesses
However, while the political stakes are clear, the article suffers in several important respects:
a. Lack of Source Attribution and Verification
Many of the AI’s alleged responses—about Jericho, Yeir Golan, the 10:1 death toll, and the refusal to discuss genocide—are not documented with direct screenshots or transcripts. Instead, the reader is asked to take the author’s word on a sequence of interactions with “Maya” and “Miles.” For an article whose core claim is about systemic disinformation and revisionism, the absence of empirical backing weakens its argumentative power.
Further, there is no citation for the quote attributed to Yeir Golan (“killing babies for fun”), which is an extremely serious accusation. If the claim is based on public record, as stated, it should be quoted and linked directly. The absence of such sourcing risks transforming a righteous critique into a polemical hearsay.
b. Conflation of Function with Malice
The article frequently assumes that every discrepancy, hedged response, or failure to mention Palestinians is intentional ideological manipulation rather than possibly the result of limited training data, guardrails against incitement, or system constraints designed to avoid making definitive political claims. That these gaps exist is problematic and deserves criticism—but the leap to conscious malice or intentional erasure requires more evidence.
The claim that chat logs are deleted to “burn the receipts” is speculative. Many AI platforms auto-delete conversations for privacy and data minimization compliance (e.g., GDPR). Suggesting this feature exists to protect genocidal propaganda may resonate rhetorically but lacks substantiating evidence.
⸻
3. Rhetorical Framing and Emotional Force
The article deploys powerful rhetorical motifs: erasure, silence, doublespeak, complicity, and digital propaganda. The comparison between the AI’s moral clarity on the Holocaust versus its equivocation on Palestine is one of the most effective devices used—it reveals an apparent double standard and places the question of selective moralization under the spotlight.
However, the strength of the rhetoric sometimes becomes its weakness. Phrases like “the most documented genocide of our time,” or describing the AI as a “machine that whitewashes genocide,” or “propaganda masquerading as progress,” signal a shift from critique to accusatory absolutism. This style may inspire solidarity among sympathizers, but it risks alienating broader audiences who might otherwise be open to investigating the biases of these technologies.
⸻
4. AI Ethics, Political Neutrality, and the Myth of Objectivity
The article correctly identifies that AI systems often default to language like “both sides,” “complicated,” or “nuanced”—terms that, when applied to asymmetrical conflict or systemic injustice, function as moral anesthetics. As the writer suggests, this is not neutral; it masks power under the guise of fairness. That insight aligns with critiques in critical theory and media studies: objectivity often codes dominant ideology as neutral, while marginal or colonized perspectives are framed as emotional or irrational.
Where the article excels is in drawing attention to this contradiction. It exposes how AI systems reflect hegemonic epistemologies, particularly when discussing colonial projects like Israel/Palestine. However, rather than exploring how this happens (e.g., through training data sources, moderation protocols, liability concerns), the article reverts to accusatory language that limits explanatory depth.
⸻
5. Legal and Platform-Specific Claims
The references to Sesame’s Terms of Service (e.g., Section 3(xxi), 7.3, 4.4) are provocative and interesting. If accurate, they raise serious questions about corporate responsibility, content moderation, and narrative control. However, these claims need clearer documentation. The reader cannot verify these sections without access to the full ToS. A screenshot or link would greatly strengthen the argument.
Furthermore, the connection between terms like “disputed territory” or “complicated” and the idea of a deliberate, encoded ideology remains suggestive but unproven in the article. To move from advocacy to investigative journalism or theoretical critique, a stronger evidentiary and conceptual apparatus is needed.
⸻
6. Philosophical and Theoretical Implications
At its heart, the article critiques the ontological bias of artificial intelligence—the way machine systems “think” not as independent actors, but as reflections of the data, norms, and ideologies fed into them by human systems of power. This is its most important and insightful contribution.
In this, the article aligns with:
• Michel Foucault’s notion of episteme—the historical frameworks that determine what is sayable or knowable in a given age.
• Gayatri Spivak’s critique of the subaltern being spoken about but not allowed to speak.
• Walter Mignolo’s decolonial theory, particularly how modernity hides its colonial logic in the language of “progress” and “rationality.”
By showing how AI’s “neutral” tone suppresses Palestinian experience and renders it unspeakable, the article unwittingly performs a kind of critical decolonial tech analysis—one that deserves to be more fully developed.
⸻
Final Assessment
Strengths:
• Morally urgent and politically bold.
• Highlights real asymmetries in narrative and ethical framing.
• Effectively critiques faux-neutrality in AI language.
• Opens vital questions about data, ideology, and digital colonialism.
Weaknesses:
• Lacks empirical rigor (no screenshots, no transcript evidence).
• Conflates functionality with intent.
• Rhetorically powerful but occasionally hyperbolic.
• Fails to explore AI’s epistemological limits in depth.
⸻
Conclusion
This article is a compelling act of political witnessing, grounded in justifiable anger and structural awareness. It demands to be taken seriously—but to persuade beyond those who already agree, it would benefit from more empirical precision, less rhetorical overreach, and deeper theoretical scaffolding. That said, it is a necessary and valuable intervention in the growing discourse around AI, narrative warfare, and the weaponization of “neutrality.” With further development, it could become an important reference in critical AI studies, digital ethics, and decolonial critique.
nobody gives a shit. Your larp of a rubberstamp "critique" method is reviled by all professors and serious minds everywhere. The point of the author is that even the engines that power the pretend-thought you're spewing are geared to try to undermine anything that speaks for the Palestinians or against the Israeli project at large.
No surprise when the tech companies that create the tech are staffed with former Israeli Army goons and Zionist dweebs who truly view their tech as a new way to dominate the planet. The industry's true name is New Media because it is media, just like hollywood or what passes for journalism.
Noone cares about your torrent of asterisks and well-akshuallies.
The article refers specifically to two human-voice AI systems named Maya and Miles, which are described as being hosted on sesame.com. These AIs are portrayed as accessible voice assistants or conversational agents that users can interact with for short periods (5 minutes unregistered, 30 minutes with signup).
Key references in the article:
• “I’ve documented how the voice AIs Maya and Miles (hosted on sesame.com) systematically…”
So, the AI in question is Sesame’s Maya and Miles, presumably part of an interactive public-facing AI service that engages users in voice-based dialogue. The critique centers on how these systems allegedly respond with measured neutrality or evasiveness when asked about Palestinian history, occupation, or Israeli state violence, while offering more direct moral clarity on other global atrocities.
I couldn’t find any public documentation or credible references online about AI voice assistants named Maya or Miles being hosted on sesame.com. The website itself doesn’t clearly promote such products under those names, and there’s no mention of these AIs in tech media, user reviews, or official announcements.
This absence leaves several possibilities:
1. Limited release or prototype – These could be internal demos, short-lived experiments, or private/closed-access products not publicly indexed.
2. Renaming or platform confusion – The AIs might have different official names, and “Maya” and “Miles” could be aliases or informal labels used by the article’s author.
3. Unverified or anecdotal claims – Without external confirmation (screenshots, transcripts, user reports), it’s impossible to verify the article’s central assertions about these systems.
Bottom line: The specific AIs—Maya and Miles on sesame.com—appear to be unverified from a public or technical standpoint. If you have direct links, transcripts, or other evidence, I can investigate further—but based on what’s available, there’s no concrete confirmation these AIs exist or operate as described.
Interesting comment, man. Now let me ask you if you fit the following demographic profile, just by chance:
1. You were all in on those nifty experimental "vaccines" and probably got at least six injections, but for some strange reason no longer are "Trusting The Science" (tm) and keeping up with your booster shots.
2. You support Ukraine full on, regardless of the fact that elections have been suspended, opposing parties have been outlawed, free speech is a thing not tolerated, churches have been closed and priests arrested, and we got an ongoing clear as day Nazi issue that's been around for decades.
3. You would feel very unhappy to be asked what, in fact, a women is.
4. You sure as hell don't object to the entire notion of men in both women's sport and spaces.
5. Trans time story hour for preschoolers is great!
So, tell me where I'm off on these presumptions. They are, to be sure, presumptions, but usually this is how things work out when I run into your ilk. No offense, man, it's simply true, as a marketing rule. Don't blame me; blame the reality of marketing demographics.
1. I have made sure that I do not fit into any ‘demographic’ profile. I most certainly do not intend to place myself either intentionally or by mistake into any such one.
/
I think that you will find good reliable evidence that vaccines work and have helped at least to reduce the instances of serious infectious diseases. Parents / Guardians who deny this are putting themselves and their children at unnecessary risk.
Having said that, of course, nature is nature is nature and nature always wins. Humans always have to look towards their backs. That’s the reality. Sadly many people globally still do not have access to lifesaving vaccines. We need to work with nature, not against it………
2. I do not support Ukraine, however I have sympathy and empathy for the Ukrainian people. I have Ukrainian friends and work colleagues who are divided amongst themselves. Ukraine is known to have been a corrupt State for many decades. Zelensky is an insane criminal. Russia will complete its mission. Putin is well educated and politically shrewd and cleverly calculating. Your statements are necessary of scrutiny:
Your statement oversimplifies complex wartime measures. Elections are legally paused under martial law, not abolished. Only parties and clerics with alleged ties to Russia have faced legal action, not all opposition or religion. Ukraine retains press freedom under constraints. As for the “Nazi issue,” far-right groups are marginal and do not define the state Zelenskyy is Jewish, after all. Your framing reflects propaganda narratives more than the nuanced, factual reality on the ground.
3. On the contrary, my answer would be: ‘A thinking and feeling human being — A person.’
From a Gender perspective I accept that biologically there is ‘male’ and ‘female’.
However from time to time wonderful and blessed nature throws in ‘variables’, like ‘hermaphroditism’, and all manner of other variations. We should all bear in mind that these occurrences are statistically relatively small: ‘biological’ inflections. Rareisms to be clear.
Thence, to a sexual perspective which can be summed up in a few words:
Variety is the spice of life. Give me a person and they will show you a unique sexual fantasyism and fetish. If this were not the case then sex would be a very dull ‘ball’ game for all and sundry. Please read the Marquis de Sade for more information.
So, a person can be many things.
4. I understand the concern about transgender participation in sports.
However the issue has to be thrashed out in the open. Once again the numbers are statistically very small, and the Media, usually controlled by Governments enjoy whipping up public hysteria over an issue which is fairly marginal within the scheme of things. Whether I agree or not makes little or no impact, since in fact I have no interest in Sport.
5. Why burden children with biological / sexual politics.
There are so many other wonderful books to engage their minds.
I trained as a Nursery / Primary School Teacher. Quality is of the essence rather than engineering.
Finally I shall state my overall presumption: You seem to have fallen into your own trap of ‘profile demographics’ the irony being that I now have a fairly clear profile of you presuming that my presumption is correct. No offense meant.
I am not required to parse your AI generated output, nor even finish hacking my way through it with a metaphorical machete to discover WTF you are even on about. You, OTOH, need to edit it for clarity and brevity before publishing or be ignored.
The tone is performatively dismissive and avoids engaging content. While calling for clarity, it opts for theatrics over substance. Genuine critique edits with precision; this posture demands brevity while offering none of its own.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint the exact moment when the Third World War began. But we are no longer in a time of peace. We stand on the edge of a nuclear precipice, not as a threat but as a memory. The real danger now is hypersonic, a paradigm not only of weapons but of time itself. War has entered a new metaphysics: the capacity to destroy is measured in seconds, and sovereignty is the power to decide at the speed of flight.
The British Empire, let us remember, was never more powerful than in its final century. Empires do not die; they dematerialize. They become systems, protocols, currencies, cartographies of fear. Like languages, empires survive in silence. The liberal world order, NATO, the Gulf financial complex, these are not post-imperial; they are imperial after-images.
The regime in Tehran has reached the end of its revolutionary cycle. The doctrine of Shiite Jacobinism, expansion through escatological containment, is exhausted. You, who know the esoteric dimensions of Shiism, will remember that the Hidden Imam (al-Imām al-Mahdī al-Muntaẓar) is not simply absent; he is veiled. His sovereignty is exercised through shadows, and in the long Persian tradition, that shadow was the Shah, a worldly figure who held the mirror of divine kingship, not in contradiction but in occult continuity.
The Islamic Republic inverted this axis. By proclaiming the Wilāyat al-Faqīh, the clerical establishment claimed not only custodianship, but theocratic regency. This shift was not merely political, it was an act of theological war. The Ayatollahs replaced the imperial shadow with a revolutionary void. Yet now, their fear is precisely this: that if Russia is allowed to enter, if a great imperial logic reasserts itself in Iran, the revolutionary order will collapse.
They know it, as Robespierre knew Napoleon was the end. The regime will resist to the very end, for such is the tragic logic of revolutions: they cannot reform. They must either spread or burn. The Sunni powers, those cold monarchies built on oil and patience, smile from the margins. The long arc of conflict between Arab Sunnism and Persian Shiism is bending toward conclusion. For decades, the Shiite regime tried to project a supranational legitimacy in a region that never accepted it. Interventionism, militias, ideological superiority, it was always alien in Arab space. Now the Arab monarchies watch as the Shiite fever breaks.
And allow me, here, a deliberate irreverence: Israel and the United States have already ended the revolution by exposing its core illusion. The nuclear program, that last theological fetish of the regime, has become strategically irrelevant. The true weapon of sovereignty now is not fission, but precision. Not radioactive fallout, but hypersonic velocity. He who strikes first, fast, and unseen is sovereign.
Arab regimes feared Iran’s bomb far more than Israel did. Israel, in this calculus, was their executor. And they paid Netanyahu in mythological coin: regional normalization in exchange for annihilation-by-proxy. "May Israel be blessed" like they say time to time, when Israel has to do the dirty work.
The Palestinian cause, too, is approaching eclipse. Much of its momentum was driven by Sunni powers, not for its sake, but as pressure against Israel, to recalibrate the balance of power and isolate Iran. In turn, Iran appropriated it as a symbol of its revolutionary destiny. But this symbolism has decayed. The resistance has become ritual: absurd, bloody, and theatrically obsolete.
Arafat understood this long before his death. He abandoned the vision of a Greater Middle East governed by Islamic nationalism. He was not a dreamer, but a tactician. His secret agreements with the United States were not betrayal, but recognition: Arab unity was dead, and so was the eschatology of armed liberation. What followed was not peace, but programming.
The Bush Doctrine absorbed this ideological vacuum and transformed it into a geopolitical algorithm. The Arab Spring was its expression: not revolution, but systemic implosion. The Maghreb was sealed, compressed, and looted. The sovereign state became a carcass, paraded, pitied, and drained. The next target is Iran.And now, Russia must act. Not only geopolitically, but metaphysically. It is the last katechon, the restrainer, the imperial interruption of apocalyptic entropy. Its presence would shatter the Jacobin core of the Islamic Republic and replace it with the older logic of imperial order.The nuclear paradigm is dead. It was always an illusion, a delay tactic, a sacred cow. What governs now is the hypersonic paradigm; speed as sovereignty, annihilation as deterrence, the fusion of decision and impact.
This is the true Schmittian moment: Sovereign is he who decides on transformation before annihilation. He who controls the interval between detection and destruction commands the political.
The Islamic Republic is already undead. Its revolution is no longer capable of decision. And in Schmitt’s world, that is the true definition of political death.
First, let me say this plainly: I admire your intellect, your fire, your courage to name things most won’t touch. In an age of shallow platitudes and clickbait morality, you remain a man of thunder—unafraid to speak of civilization, metaphysics, and destiny. That is rare. That is worthy of respect. I offer mine without hesitation.
Because I respect you, I must also respond seriously to what you wrote.
You claim—with force and urgency—that the nuclear age has crossed the final threshold, and that we are now in the opening chapters of World War Three. You assert that the globalists, thwarted in their soft conquest, have turned instead to managed chaos: a war of all against all, fueled not by liberalism but by nationalism, not by diplomacy but by engineered apocalypse. And you suggest that Russia must no longer plead for peace like Leopold the Cat, but embrace a new sacred ideology of holy Russian power.
I hear you. And I do not dismiss your warning lightly.
But I differ.
Not because I reject your analysis of the West. You are right to say the so-called "global order" is corrupt, exhausted, and now weaponized against the very things it once claimed to uphold. You are right to say that liberalism, as practiced by the WEF and NATO elite, has become a husk—an empty ritual masking power grabs and cultural liquidation. And you are right to say that civilization cannot survive on such terms.
But where you see inevitability, I see choice.
Atomic war is not a certainty. It is a decision. And it is precisely when prophets speak of its inevitability that we must resist the pull of despair, no matter how sophisticated its reasoning. We must not become the mouthpieces of fate. Leaders—true leaders—must imagine peace even when peace seems impossible. That is not naivety. That is moral courage.
You speak of the need for a new ideology. I agree. The current vacuum is unsustainable. A civilization cannot endure without metaphysical purpose. But the answer is not simply a return to Russian power for its own sake, nor is it the globalist dream of singularity, nor the Bellamy salute of weaponized populism. We must build something better.
What would that look like?
It would begin with sacred limits: no torture, no genocide, no targeting of children. These are not "Western values" or "Eastern values"; they are human values, paid for in blood at Nuremberg and etched into the Geneva Conventions. They are not a scheme of domination. They are fire lines against horror. They are what make civilization worth defending.
We can have a multipolar world—and we should. But let it be a world with rules. Let every civilization be free, but none free to burn children and call it culture.
If the globalists now wear nationalism as a mask to accelerate chaos, then let us answer not with counter-chaos, but with conscience. Not with surrender, but with resurrection.
You ask: what ideology can answer this age? I answer: one that remembers the sacred, defends the innocent, honors the dead, and sees in every human face not just blood or flag, but the image of God.
I say this as one who stands outside your tradition, but not outside your concern.
History is not over. Fate is not fixed. And even now, another path can be taken.
“In this vision, world government will be established not now, but after the nuclear war – when much of humanity has perished, the survivors beg for any form of peace, and robots and AI assume leadership, as modern warfare increasingly depends on them.”
Seems a bit far fetched, doesn’t it? I don’t mean that it is beyond comprehension that the globalists have this plan.
I do think continuing to produce and operate robots and AI data centers in the aftermath of nuclear war, to the extent required to create a world wide totalitarian technocracy, may not be as simple as the snapping of some globalists’ digital fingers.
No one cares what you or anyone from that barbarian backwater Russia thinks. It’s laughable you all think you’re a global power. You’re just a mafia criminal state that starts wars to keep your names in the news. No one likes you or wants you to have anything to do with leading the global order. The world respects Ukraine by magnitudes more than you freaks who only know death and destruction. Fk off
Oh fuck off ya stupid bastard. You have zero idea what "the world" thinks and your open racism sucks shit, so take a hike ya Nazi wanna-be. Keep on underestimating Mother Russia with your retarded presumptions--how'd that turn out for you in WW2? How's it turning out for you now, you utter nitwit? Do tell. Russia advancing on all fronts and a GDP outstripping Europe right alongside its defense production, you nit. But hey, go ahead, ignore reality if makes you feel good, I guess. "The Russian economy is in tatters--tatters I tell you, and they are fighting with shovels." You really retarded enough to believe that bullshit, ya nitwit?
Trump non ha saputo resistere ai globalisti , si è piegato come un servo difronte al padrone globalista, non ha avuto il coraggio di contrapporsi al male, si è piegato come una foglia al vento, ha preferito salvaguardare la sua pelle piuttosto che cercare la pace.Peccato, ma c'era da aspettarselo, in America non ci sono uomini liberi, tantomeno i presidenti lo sono. È stato un sogno , ora ci siamo svegliati, per fortuna!
This text, deeply embedded in conspiratorial geopolitics and apocalyptic determinism, is an incendiary political-theological treatise drawing from Alexander Dugin’s neo-Eurasianist philosophy (Dugin, 2012), end-times eschatology, and hyper-nationalist, anti-liberal narratives. It weaves current events real, exaggerated, or invented into a larger eschatological drama of civilizational warfare and cosmic destiny, framed within a quasi-religious vision of Russia’s salvific mission. It should be read not as sober analysis but as a form of political Gnosticism, enacting what Eric Voegelin described as the “immanentization of the eschaton” (Voegelin, 1968).
The essay opens with a melodramatic framing device: the U.S. bombing of Iran’s Fordow facility is cast not as a regional escalation, but as the trigger of World War Three. The invocation of Chekhov’s dramatic principle that a pistol hung on the wall in Act I must be fired in Act III becomes a metaphysical claim: the mere existence of nuclear weapons necessitates their eventual use. This is a classic instance of teleological determinism, foreclosing contingency, restraint, or diplomacy. It mirrors Carl Schmitt’s notion that sovereignty lies in the power to decide on the exception (Schmitt, 2005) here, the nuclear exception has already been declared inevitable. By reconfiguring the Cold War’s balance of terror into a theological necessity for nuclear apocalypse, the text mimics a political-theological dramaturgy that dissolves complexity into fated eschaton.
At the center of this vision is a stark binary between “globalists” a deliberately nebulous term conflating liberal elites, technocratic futurists, LGBTQ advocates, international finance, and AI theorists and the defenders of traditional sovereignty and multipolar order. The globalists are depicted as engaged in an ontological war against humanity itself, seeking the elimination of national borders, gender, identity, and finally human beings, in order to replace them with artificial intelligence and post-human governance. This vision is directly inherited from Alexander Dugin’s warnings about liberalism as an ontological dissolution of Being itself (Dugin, 2012). Yet it also echoes Hannah Arendt’s account of totalitarianism’s drive toward a world “in which everything becomes possible” (Arendt, 1973). However, the author moves from critique to cosmic conspiracy: the globalist elite is simultaneously orchestrating MAGA, neo-Nazism in Ukraine, Zionist militarism, radical Islam, Hindutva nationalism, and AI research into a single program of post-human planetary control. This level of coordination and intentionality is implausible; it reflects what Richard Hofstadter called the “paranoid style” in political thought, wherein disparate forces are imagined as puppets of a single omnipotent hand (Hofstadter, 1965).
One of the essay’s most ideologically consequential reversals lies in its claim that globalists are no longer resisting nationalism, but harnessing it for their own apocalyptic ends. In this retelling, Trump, Netanyahu, Hindutva forces in India, and Ukrainian ultranationalists are not true resistors of globalism, but are either co-opted or naïvely serving globalist designs. This is an ingenious but unstable dialectic: nationalism becomes both the instrument of resistance and of domination, both a threat to the globalist order and a tool of its advancement. The ideological sleight of hand here is to preserve one pure form of nationalism Russian nationalism as the only remaining source of authentic metaphysical resistance. All other forms are either debased, corrupted, or compromised. This is in keeping with the messianic tendencies of Eurasianist thought, which casts Russia as the katechon the eschatological force restraining the coming of the Antichrist (Shlapentokh, 2007). Within such a vision, the world is not composed of competing political systems or ideologies, but of cosmic archetypes locked in eschatological combat.
The essay’s use of moral inversion and symbolic reversal is particularly extreme. Israel is cast as the new Nazi regime, while Palestinians are reconfigured as their victims. Ukrainian nationalism is collapsed into neo-Nazism, itself framed as a tool of the globalists. The nuclear arsenal, once imagined as a deterrent, is now transformed into an inevitable weapon of planetary cleansing. Even Trump, who once stood for a multipolar order and anti-interventionism, is said to have “unleashed World War Three.” These rhetorical strategies serve not analytical but mythic purposes, in which guilt, violence, and resistance are redistributed along metaphysical, not political lines. Slavoj Žižek has argued that such symbolic inversions are typical of ideological fantasy, where the victim is cast as the aggressor and the aggressor as the savior (Žižek, 2008). This rhetorical strategy inoculates the author from critique: any contradiction becomes proof of deeper conspiracy, any act of war an act of defensive eschatology.
The concluding appeal to embrace a new, totalizing Russian ideology serves as both a call to arms and a theological imperative. The author explicitly rejects both the liberal humanitarianism of the post-Soviet Russian state and the class-based totalitarianism of Soviet Marxism. What is proposed instead is a fresh ideology sacred, aggressive, uncompromising. This recalls Dugin’s advocacy for a “Fourth Political Theory,” one that fuses elements of Tradition, mysticism, and radical political mobilization (Dugin, 2012). But what the author is ultimately proposing is not theory but myth: the activation of an ideological will that fuses military force, sacrificial destiny, and redemptive sovereignty. Umberto Eco’s warning about “ur-fascism” is apt here he described it as an ideology without coherent doctrine, defined instead by emotional commitment to struggle, victimhood, and sacred violence (Eco, 1995).
The essay is riddled with factual distortions, illogic, and rhetorical manipulation. It conflates conventional military strikes with nuclear escalation; it fabricates a seamless continuity between disparate nationalist movements across geographies and ideologies; it assumes a world-historical coherence in events that are plainly contradictory. Furthermore, its elevation of apocalypse as the necessary horizon of politics eliminates the possibility of diplomacy, peace, or ideological hybridity. It demands total war in the name of metaphysical purity. This is not analysis, but political Gnosticism. It presents evil as a global code, war as an ontological necessity, and ideology as salvific flame.
This text is not merely dangerous for what it proposes, but for the form it takes: it replaces reality with myth, analysis with eschatology, history with fate. It should be read alongside the warnings of Arendt, Schmitt, Eco, Hofstadter, and Snyder, who all in different ways identified the signs of a totalitarian imaginary masquerading as political clarity. What we are witnessing in this document is not prophecy, but performance the resurrection of an old fascist script dressed in the language of AI, transhumanism, and multipolarity. Its call is not for sovereignty, but for sacred violence. It is the paranoid sublime made legible.
References
• Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt, 1973.
• Dugin, Alexander. The Fourth Political Theory. Arktos, 2012.
• Eco, Umberto. “Ur-Fascism.” The New York Review of Books, 1995.
• Hofstadter, Richard. The Paranoid Style in American Politics. Vintage, 1965.
• Schmitt, Carl. Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. University of Chicago Press, 2005.
• Shlapentokh, Dmitry. Eurasia: Between Illusion and Reality. Brill, 2007.
• Voegelin, Eric. Science, Politics and Gnosticism. Regnery Gateway, 1968.
• Žižek, Slavoj. Violence: Six Sideways Reflections. Picador, 2008.
• Snyder, Timothy. The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America. Tim Duggan Books, 2018.
This reads like mediocre AI slop. It’s even worse than Dugin’s own writing which is quite terrible itself. But he has a reasonable excuse, his work is being translated from Russian to English. This commentary is evidence of the limitless well of delusion and self regard typical of mid-wit “intellectuals". This person is obsessed with Dugin. There is not one original work or post produced by this troll. Just derivative AI slop, which he considers "creative".
Put your ‘slop’ where your mouth is.
Put forward your arguments vis a vis the points made.
If you are unable to, then it speaks volumes ……..
When you produce an original argument that is not generated by AI, I will do so. I will not argue with AI, I’m interested in the products of human thought and creativity.
This stance is rhetorically evasive and philosophically incoherent. Dismissing an argument solely because it was generated by AI is an ad hominem fallacy attacking the source, not the substance. If the argument is sound, coherent, and original in structure or insight, its origin is secondary. Refusing engagement on the basis of authorship avoids critical thinking and betrays a nostalgia for “authenticity” over analytical rigor. Furthermore, AI outputs are shaped by human prompts, training data, and language meaning they are not entirely non-human. To meaningfully oppose or critique an argument, one must evaluate its logic, not its label.
Analytical rigor if applied to your reading of my comment would reveal that my primary objective was to presented a meta-critique of your commentary not necessarily the arguments presented therein. Making a claim of an ad hominem fallacy is specious as LLMs are not persons. While the output of an AI may be shaped by humans it is not in fact the product of human thought or reasoning. I maintain my position that your original post was AI slop. It was meant to evoke an emotional response which would lead to real thought and discussion regarding the use of AI as a stand in for human reason and intellect.
This defense collapses under its own contradictions. Claiming a meta-critique while simultaneously making a definitive judgment (“AI slop”) is not analysis but rhetorical dismissal. Arguing that LLMs are not persons misses the point: the ad hominem fallacy targets the origin rather than the argument, which still applies here. Declaring that AI output is not the product of human reasoning ignores the human-shaped architecture, training, and prompt-driven generation that deeply inflects the text. Finally, the assertion that the post was designed to “evoke emotional response” ironically mirrors the very “slop” you decry provocation without substantive engagement.
ITFPITF’re
@Melvin Clive Bird (Behnke)
TL; DNR
Every such AI generated screed morphs into infinite oxbow meanders through interminable morasses of hyperbolized verbiage which a talented human must ruthlessly edit for clarity and brevity.
This complaint is itself verbose and ironic condemning excess while indulging in it. It mistakes density for aimlessness and overlooks the analytical precision often embedded in complexity. Concise critique demands more than stylistic disdain; it requires substantive engagement.
This thumping, grandiose reply denies the essence of the essay it attempts to undermine: the quick Zionist turn to focus on nuclear weaponry is their newly ascendant imaginary. Their aesthetic attractions and delusions always precede and signal the approach their coordination will orient itself around, in their next iterations of navel-gazing violence. As such, their own obsessions self-fulfill. This has been the case in each of the two world wars they fanned from regional to global conflagration. Their motives remain the same: self-aggrandizement, with the physical locus, Palestine.
This critique veers into conspiratorial essentialism and recycles antisemitic tropes disguised as geopolitical insight. By attributing world wars and nuclear escalation to an abstract, monolithic “Zionist” aesthetic imaginary, it collapses historical complexity into deterministic myth. It offers no evidence, only projection, turning interpretive language into accusatory metaphysics. The claim that aesthetic delusions cause global violence is speculative rhetoric, not argument.
Oooh, a repeat! Keep fapping with your AI, I guess.
The pompous paranoia you're leading with as though it's an argument are hallmarks of Zionist word production. Can't call it thought, when it is nothing more than rehash.
Aesthetics as a component of rationalization and decision making is well understood and accepted in the cognitive and philosophical sciences. You're just an idiot who doesn't know much.
For readers who are curious about Melvin's "style", here's something else you might find interesting: this substack account publishes articles about AI's biases and the various ways that AI and other algorithmic legedemain are used to shield Israelis and their genocide. I'm linking directly to a couple of the articles I've found interesting: https://open.substack.com/pub/bobbyai/p/the-algorithmic-truth-revolution and https://open.substack.com/pub/bobbyai/p/the-machine-that-erased-palestine
Cheers Melvin! Keep it up and you'll get some more history of Zionist machinations. It is always helpful when a hasbara gives me a reason to pile on a ton of history that people might not yet be aware of.
eta: I promised Melv I would just add more information about Israel's nature and behavior if he kept it up. He has kept it up.
To spare you having to read through his AI stuff (he thinks he's a "provocateur"), here is the link.
https://substack.com/@artsandletters/note/c-101036525?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=7imgx
Critique of first article cited:
I. Accuracy of Legal References and Claims
1. Genocide Convention (1948) and Legal Threshold
• Claim: Israel’s actions meet “every legally recognized genocide pattern.”
• Assessment: The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (UNGC) defines genocide by both actus reus (acts like killing, causing harm, preventing births, etc.) and mens rea (intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group). The application of this legal framework to Gaza is currently being litigated, notably at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
• Clarification: The ICJ has not yet ruled definitively that Israel is committing genocide. It issued provisional measures in January and March 2024, noting plausibility of genocide, but this is not a conviction.
2. Reference to Nuremberg Principles
• Claim: Refusal to label Gaza a genocide is a violation of the Nuremberg Principles.
• Assessment: The Nuremberg Principles, codified post-WWII, established crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide. While they set moral and legal precedents, they do not obligate AI systems or commentaries to label every conflict. The author overextends the analogy: Nuremberg was a military tribunal; modern international law operates via the ICJ, ICC, and UN mechanisms, not AI policy or automated speech outputs.
3. Comparison to Rwanda and Bosnia
• Claim: Starvation tactics and hospital destruction in Gaza mirror those prosecuted at the ICTR and ICTY.
• Assessment: Factually accurate in precedent—both Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1998) and Radovan Karadžić (Bosnia) were convicted based on policies including starvation and hospital targeting. But genocide convictions required clear intent to destroy a group, not just outcomes or tactics. In Gaza, intent remains legally contested—hence the ICJ’s framing of it as “plausible,” not definitive.
• Caveat: Destruction of infrastructure, hospitals, and sieges may also qualify as war crimes or crimes against humanity, which are separate categories.
4. Use of Speech as Evidence of Genocidal Intent
• Claim: Netanyahu’s “Amalek” reference and soldier videos equate to Julius Streicher-style propaganda.
• Assessment: This is contextually grounded. Streicher was convicted at Nuremberg for incitement via dehumanizing language. Likewise, the ICTR (Rwanda) convicted media figures for similar speech.
• Important nuance: A head of state’s invocation of biblical extermination narratives (e.g., Amalek) could, in theory, contribute to evidence of genocidal intent, but this would require systematic linkage between speech and state policy/actions—not just isolated clips. The argument is suggestive, not conclusive.
5. 1971 ICJ Ruling on Namibia
• Claim: ICJ ruled settler-colonialism and displacement as illegal, and this applies to the Nakba.
• Assessment: The Namibia Advisory Opinion (1971) declared South Africa’s continued presence in Namibia illegal under international law due to apartheid and violations of self-determination.
• Misapplication: While the analogy to Israel/Palestine as settler-colonialism is widely argued in critical scholarship, the ICJ has not issued a ruling applying the Namibia precedent to Israel’s 1948 actions. The Nakba, while historically documented, has not been adjudicated under these terms in any international court. So this application is analytical, not legal.
6. UNGA Resolution 3379 (1975)
• Claim: The resolution supports labeling Zionism as racism and settler colonialism.
• Clarification: Resolution 3379 did equate Zionism with racism, but it was revoked in 1991 by UNGA Resolution 46/86. Thus, its legal force is null, though its historical significance remains.
⸻
II. Claims Regarding AI and Censorship
1. AI “Lying” or “Rewriting History”
• Claim: AI systems like ChatGPT or Grok are “reprogrammed to lie.”
• Assessment: Large Language Models (LLMs) do not hold beliefs or lie—they generate outputs based on training data and policy constraints (e.g., OpenAI’s or Google’s moderation frameworks). The term “lie” anthropomorphizes algorithms.
• However: These systems are often programmed to avoid legally or politically sensitive claims, such as “declaring genocide,” unless there is international legal consensus or a court ruling. This is a moderation policy, not censorship in the legal sense.
2. “Violation of ICJ Orders” by AI platforms
• Claim: Delay in labeling Gaza a genocide constitutes complicity under Article III(e) of the Genocide Convention.
• Assessment: Only states and individuals can violate the Genocide Convention under international law—not algorithms or corporations in this way. While companies can arguably amplify harmful narratives, it is a stretch to say that cautious language constitutes legal complicity, especially given the ICJ has not ruled genocide definitively.
3. “Digital Laundering of Genocide Denial”
• Claim: AI platforms are laundering genocide denial algorithmically.
• Assessment: This is a provocative but ambiguous claim. It might resonate metaphorically but lacks legal precedent or a clear legal framework. Genocide denial laws do exist (e.g., in Germany, France, and Rwanda), but their application to algorithmic outputs is legally novel and untested.
⸻
III. Strategic and Rhetorical Framework
This piece employs:
• Militant legal activism: framing AI critique as part of a war crimes tribunal logic.
• High-stakes rhetoric: “Machines will testify,” “Algorithmic Nuremberg,” “weaponize terms of service.”
• Performative certainty: It presents hypotheses and critical analogies as definitive legal truths, which is strategically powerful but legally misleading.
• Tools of digital resistance: The “Legal Siege Toolkit” imagines a crowdsourced, decentralized legal campaign using FOIA, ICC filings, GDPR, etc.
⸻
IV. Concluding Evaluation
Strengths
Weaknesses
Raises urgent moral and legal questions about Gaza and algorithmic neutrality.
Overstates legal certainty; misrepresents AI moderation as genocide denial.
Accurately cites real historical legal precedents.
Applies precedents without sufficient nuance or legal context.
Challenges AI platforms to reflect legal case law.
Equates moderation policies with legal complicity.
Draws on patterns of state violence, speech, and propaganda effectively.
Blurs lines between activist narrative, legal argument, and factual assertion.
Summary Judgment:
The text is a highly charged fusion of legal critique, activist strategy, and rhetorical performance. While it accurately references several genocide case precedents, it overextends legal analogies, misapplies international law, and ascribes intention to AI systems where there is none. It does not distinguish clearly between legal plausibility and legal determination, and its use of emotionally loaded language—while effective for mobilization—compromises factual neutrality.
Still, it rightly identifies the tension between AI moderation policies and international legal discourse, and invites necessary scrutiny of how technology mediates political realities.
You seem a little confused. Having trouble with your tabs, golem?
Stick to writing letters maybe………
Critique of 2nd article:
1. Narrative Strength and Ethical Motivation
The article functions first and foremost as a testimonial—a first-person narrative of technological disillusionment. This lends it an immediacy and authenticity that resonates with readers who distrust technological neutrality, especially around sensitive geopolitical topics like Palestine. The opening lines powerfully frame the experience as a personal encounter with digital gaslighting: “It was not a conversation. It was an evasion.” This is effective rhetoric, particularly in its dramatic inversion of user expectation. The voice is emotional, lucid, and indignant—entirely appropriate for a writer attempting to expose systemic silencing of a people and a history.
From an ethico-political standpoint, the writer’s moral urgency is unambiguous and grounded in legitimate concerns: algorithmic bias, historical erasure, digital colonialism, and the asymmetry of narrative framing. These are real issues in AI development and deployment, and their intersection with Palestine/Israel discourse deserves rigorous and sustained attention. Scholars such as Safiya Umoja Noble (Algorithms of Oppression, 2018) and Ruha Benjamin (Race After Technology, 2019) have extensively documented how digital systems perpetuate racial and geopolitical inequalities. The article enters that lineage with compelling passion.
⸻
2. Key Allegations and Structural Weaknesses
However, while the political stakes are clear, the article suffers in several important respects:
a. Lack of Source Attribution and Verification
Many of the AI’s alleged responses—about Jericho, Yeir Golan, the 10:1 death toll, and the refusal to discuss genocide—are not documented with direct screenshots or transcripts. Instead, the reader is asked to take the author’s word on a sequence of interactions with “Maya” and “Miles.” For an article whose core claim is about systemic disinformation and revisionism, the absence of empirical backing weakens its argumentative power.
Further, there is no citation for the quote attributed to Yeir Golan (“killing babies for fun”), which is an extremely serious accusation. If the claim is based on public record, as stated, it should be quoted and linked directly. The absence of such sourcing risks transforming a righteous critique into a polemical hearsay.
b. Conflation of Function with Malice
The article frequently assumes that every discrepancy, hedged response, or failure to mention Palestinians is intentional ideological manipulation rather than possibly the result of limited training data, guardrails against incitement, or system constraints designed to avoid making definitive political claims. That these gaps exist is problematic and deserves criticism—but the leap to conscious malice or intentional erasure requires more evidence.
The claim that chat logs are deleted to “burn the receipts” is speculative. Many AI platforms auto-delete conversations for privacy and data minimization compliance (e.g., GDPR). Suggesting this feature exists to protect genocidal propaganda may resonate rhetorically but lacks substantiating evidence.
⸻
3. Rhetorical Framing and Emotional Force
The article deploys powerful rhetorical motifs: erasure, silence, doublespeak, complicity, and digital propaganda. The comparison between the AI’s moral clarity on the Holocaust versus its equivocation on Palestine is one of the most effective devices used—it reveals an apparent double standard and places the question of selective moralization under the spotlight.
However, the strength of the rhetoric sometimes becomes its weakness. Phrases like “the most documented genocide of our time,” or describing the AI as a “machine that whitewashes genocide,” or “propaganda masquerading as progress,” signal a shift from critique to accusatory absolutism. This style may inspire solidarity among sympathizers, but it risks alienating broader audiences who might otherwise be open to investigating the biases of these technologies.
⸻
4. AI Ethics, Political Neutrality, and the Myth of Objectivity
The article correctly identifies that AI systems often default to language like “both sides,” “complicated,” or “nuanced”—terms that, when applied to asymmetrical conflict or systemic injustice, function as moral anesthetics. As the writer suggests, this is not neutral; it masks power under the guise of fairness. That insight aligns with critiques in critical theory and media studies: objectivity often codes dominant ideology as neutral, while marginal or colonized perspectives are framed as emotional or irrational.
Where the article excels is in drawing attention to this contradiction. It exposes how AI systems reflect hegemonic epistemologies, particularly when discussing colonial projects like Israel/Palestine. However, rather than exploring how this happens (e.g., through training data sources, moderation protocols, liability concerns), the article reverts to accusatory language that limits explanatory depth.
⸻
5. Legal and Platform-Specific Claims
The references to Sesame’s Terms of Service (e.g., Section 3(xxi), 7.3, 4.4) are provocative and interesting. If accurate, they raise serious questions about corporate responsibility, content moderation, and narrative control. However, these claims need clearer documentation. The reader cannot verify these sections without access to the full ToS. A screenshot or link would greatly strengthen the argument.
Furthermore, the connection between terms like “disputed territory” or “complicated” and the idea of a deliberate, encoded ideology remains suggestive but unproven in the article. To move from advocacy to investigative journalism or theoretical critique, a stronger evidentiary and conceptual apparatus is needed.
⸻
6. Philosophical and Theoretical Implications
At its heart, the article critiques the ontological bias of artificial intelligence—the way machine systems “think” not as independent actors, but as reflections of the data, norms, and ideologies fed into them by human systems of power. This is its most important and insightful contribution.
In this, the article aligns with:
• Michel Foucault’s notion of episteme—the historical frameworks that determine what is sayable or knowable in a given age.
• Gayatri Spivak’s critique of the subaltern being spoken about but not allowed to speak.
• Walter Mignolo’s decolonial theory, particularly how modernity hides its colonial logic in the language of “progress” and “rationality.”
By showing how AI’s “neutral” tone suppresses Palestinian experience and renders it unspeakable, the article unwittingly performs a kind of critical decolonial tech analysis—one that deserves to be more fully developed.
⸻
Final Assessment
Strengths:
• Morally urgent and politically bold.
• Highlights real asymmetries in narrative and ethical framing.
• Effectively critiques faux-neutrality in AI language.
• Opens vital questions about data, ideology, and digital colonialism.
Weaknesses:
• Lacks empirical rigor (no screenshots, no transcript evidence).
• Conflates functionality with intent.
• Rhetorically powerful but occasionally hyperbolic.
• Fails to explore AI’s epistemological limits in depth.
⸻
Conclusion
This article is a compelling act of political witnessing, grounded in justifiable anger and structural awareness. It demands to be taken seriously—but to persuade beyond those who already agree, it would benefit from more empirical precision, less rhetorical overreach, and deeper theoretical scaffolding. That said, it is a necessary and valuable intervention in the growing discourse around AI, narrative warfare, and the weaponization of “neutrality.” With further development, it could become an important reference in critical AI studies, digital ethics, and decolonial critique.
nobody gives a shit. Your larp of a rubberstamp "critique" method is reviled by all professors and serious minds everywhere. The point of the author is that even the engines that power the pretend-thought you're spewing are geared to try to undermine anything that speaks for the Palestinians or against the Israeli project at large.
No surprise when the tech companies that create the tech are staffed with former Israeli Army goons and Zionist dweebs who truly view their tech as a new way to dominate the planet. The industry's true name is New Media because it is media, just like hollywood or what passes for journalism.
Noone cares about your torrent of asterisks and well-akshuallies.
Stand by for some information about Zionism.
Continued:
The article refers specifically to two human-voice AI systems named Maya and Miles, which are described as being hosted on sesame.com. These AIs are portrayed as accessible voice assistants or conversational agents that users can interact with for short periods (5 minutes unregistered, 30 minutes with signup).
Key references in the article:
• “I’ve documented how the voice AIs Maya and Miles (hosted on sesame.com) systematically…”
• “…the human-like voice AIs hosted on sesame.com — freely accessible…”
So, the AI in question is Sesame’s Maya and Miles, presumably part of an interactive public-facing AI service that engages users in voice-based dialogue. The critique centers on how these systems allegedly respond with measured neutrality or evasiveness when asked about Palestinian history, occupation, or Israeli state violence, while offering more direct moral clarity on other global atrocities.
I couldn’t find any public documentation or credible references online about AI voice assistants named Maya or Miles being hosted on sesame.com. The website itself doesn’t clearly promote such products under those names, and there’s no mention of these AIs in tech media, user reviews, or official announcements.
This absence leaves several possibilities:
1. Limited release or prototype – These could be internal demos, short-lived experiments, or private/closed-access products not publicly indexed.
2. Renaming or platform confusion – The AIs might have different official names, and “Maya” and “Miles” could be aliases or informal labels used by the article’s author.
3. Unverified or anecdotal claims – Without external confirmation (screenshots, transcripts, user reports), it’s impossible to verify the article’s central assertions about these systems.
Bottom line: The specific AIs—Maya and Miles on sesame.com—appear to be unverified from a public or technical standpoint. If you have direct links, transcripts, or other evidence, I can investigate further—but based on what’s available, there’s no concrete confirmation these AIs exist or operate as described.
Interesting comment, man. Now let me ask you if you fit the following demographic profile, just by chance:
1. You were all in on those nifty experimental "vaccines" and probably got at least six injections, but for some strange reason no longer are "Trusting The Science" (tm) and keeping up with your booster shots.
2. You support Ukraine full on, regardless of the fact that elections have been suspended, opposing parties have been outlawed, free speech is a thing not tolerated, churches have been closed and priests arrested, and we got an ongoing clear as day Nazi issue that's been around for decades.
3. You would feel very unhappy to be asked what, in fact, a women is.
4. You sure as hell don't object to the entire notion of men in both women's sport and spaces.
5. Trans time story hour for preschoolers is great!
So, tell me where I'm off on these presumptions. They are, to be sure, presumptions, but usually this is how things work out when I run into your ilk. No offense, man, it's simply true, as a marketing rule. Don't blame me; blame the reality of marketing demographics.
Thankyou for your interest.
1. I have made sure that I do not fit into any ‘demographic’ profile. I most certainly do not intend to place myself either intentionally or by mistake into any such one.
/
I think that you will find good reliable evidence that vaccines work and have helped at least to reduce the instances of serious infectious diseases. Parents / Guardians who deny this are putting themselves and their children at unnecessary risk.
Having said that, of course, nature is nature is nature and nature always wins. Humans always have to look towards their backs. That’s the reality. Sadly many people globally still do not have access to lifesaving vaccines. We need to work with nature, not against it………
2. I do not support Ukraine, however I have sympathy and empathy for the Ukrainian people. I have Ukrainian friends and work colleagues who are divided amongst themselves. Ukraine is known to have been a corrupt State for many decades. Zelensky is an insane criminal. Russia will complete its mission. Putin is well educated and politically shrewd and cleverly calculating. Your statements are necessary of scrutiny:
Your statement oversimplifies complex wartime measures. Elections are legally paused under martial law, not abolished. Only parties and clerics with alleged ties to Russia have faced legal action, not all opposition or religion. Ukraine retains press freedom under constraints. As for the “Nazi issue,” far-right groups are marginal and do not define the state Zelenskyy is Jewish, after all. Your framing reflects propaganda narratives more than the nuanced, factual reality on the ground.
3. On the contrary, my answer would be: ‘A thinking and feeling human being — A person.’
From a Gender perspective I accept that biologically there is ‘male’ and ‘female’.
However from time to time wonderful and blessed nature throws in ‘variables’, like ‘hermaphroditism’, and all manner of other variations. We should all bear in mind that these occurrences are statistically relatively small: ‘biological’ inflections. Rareisms to be clear.
Thence, to a sexual perspective which can be summed up in a few words:
Variety is the spice of life. Give me a person and they will show you a unique sexual fantasyism and fetish. If this were not the case then sex would be a very dull ‘ball’ game for all and sundry. Please read the Marquis de Sade for more information.
So, a person can be many things.
4. I understand the concern about transgender participation in sports.
However the issue has to be thrashed out in the open. Once again the numbers are statistically very small, and the Media, usually controlled by Governments enjoy whipping up public hysteria over an issue which is fairly marginal within the scheme of things. Whether I agree or not makes little or no impact, since in fact I have no interest in Sport.
5. Why burden children with biological / sexual politics.
There are so many other wonderful books to engage their minds.
I trained as a Nursery / Primary School Teacher. Quality is of the essence rather than engineering.
Finally I shall state my overall presumption: You seem to have fallen into your own trap of ‘profile demographics’ the irony being that I now have a fairly clear profile of you presuming that my presumption is correct. No offense meant.
I really appreciate this analysis regardless of it’s source . Thank you for taking the time to post it.
Okay.
Source (Mouth / Voice etc.) is as you suggest not the most important thing
What is important is the message / the arguments / the ideas etc.
What utter rubbish. Learn to write withiot ai, you babbler.
This is unhelpful, please state specifics.
Babbler.
TLTR.
PhD ? Well stand up to the various points made.
IYCTYAAFrd.
MB
@Melvin Clive Bird (Behnke)
I am not required to parse your AI generated output, nor even finish hacking my way through it with a metaphorical machete to discover WTF you are even on about. You, OTOH, need to edit it for clarity and brevity before publishing or be ignored.
The tone is performatively dismissive and avoids engaging content. While calling for clarity, it opts for theatrics over substance. Genuine critique edits with precision; this posture demands brevity while offering none of its own.
The World of Islam and Orthodox Christianity has to unite and fight if we are to defeat before western civilization's immorality take overs the world.
Define what you regard as ‘immorality’.
A list of will be fine.
Jesus Christ and Orthodoxy is the way. We don't need nationalism and we don't need a new ideology...Orthodoxy is good enough.
Always a pleasure seeing your point of view.
Dear Doctor Dugin;
It is difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint the exact moment when the Third World War began. But we are no longer in a time of peace. We stand on the edge of a nuclear precipice, not as a threat but as a memory. The real danger now is hypersonic, a paradigm not only of weapons but of time itself. War has entered a new metaphysics: the capacity to destroy is measured in seconds, and sovereignty is the power to decide at the speed of flight.
The British Empire, let us remember, was never more powerful than in its final century. Empires do not die; they dematerialize. They become systems, protocols, currencies, cartographies of fear. Like languages, empires survive in silence. The liberal world order, NATO, the Gulf financial complex, these are not post-imperial; they are imperial after-images.
The regime in Tehran has reached the end of its revolutionary cycle. The doctrine of Shiite Jacobinism, expansion through escatological containment, is exhausted. You, who know the esoteric dimensions of Shiism, will remember that the Hidden Imam (al-Imām al-Mahdī al-Muntaẓar) is not simply absent; he is veiled. His sovereignty is exercised through shadows, and in the long Persian tradition, that shadow was the Shah, a worldly figure who held the mirror of divine kingship, not in contradiction but in occult continuity.
The Islamic Republic inverted this axis. By proclaiming the Wilāyat al-Faqīh, the clerical establishment claimed not only custodianship, but theocratic regency. This shift was not merely political, it was an act of theological war. The Ayatollahs replaced the imperial shadow with a revolutionary void. Yet now, their fear is precisely this: that if Russia is allowed to enter, if a great imperial logic reasserts itself in Iran, the revolutionary order will collapse.
They know it, as Robespierre knew Napoleon was the end. The regime will resist to the very end, for such is the tragic logic of revolutions: they cannot reform. They must either spread or burn. The Sunni powers, those cold monarchies built on oil and patience, smile from the margins. The long arc of conflict between Arab Sunnism and Persian Shiism is bending toward conclusion. For decades, the Shiite regime tried to project a supranational legitimacy in a region that never accepted it. Interventionism, militias, ideological superiority, it was always alien in Arab space. Now the Arab monarchies watch as the Shiite fever breaks.
And allow me, here, a deliberate irreverence: Israel and the United States have already ended the revolution by exposing its core illusion. The nuclear program, that last theological fetish of the regime, has become strategically irrelevant. The true weapon of sovereignty now is not fission, but precision. Not radioactive fallout, but hypersonic velocity. He who strikes first, fast, and unseen is sovereign.
Arab regimes feared Iran’s bomb far more than Israel did. Israel, in this calculus, was their executor. And they paid Netanyahu in mythological coin: regional normalization in exchange for annihilation-by-proxy. "May Israel be blessed" like they say time to time, when Israel has to do the dirty work.
The Palestinian cause, too, is approaching eclipse. Much of its momentum was driven by Sunni powers, not for its sake, but as pressure against Israel, to recalibrate the balance of power and isolate Iran. In turn, Iran appropriated it as a symbol of its revolutionary destiny. But this symbolism has decayed. The resistance has become ritual: absurd, bloody, and theatrically obsolete.
Arafat understood this long before his death. He abandoned the vision of a Greater Middle East governed by Islamic nationalism. He was not a dreamer, but a tactician. His secret agreements with the United States were not betrayal, but recognition: Arab unity was dead, and so was the eschatology of armed liberation. What followed was not peace, but programming.
The Bush Doctrine absorbed this ideological vacuum and transformed it into a geopolitical algorithm. The Arab Spring was its expression: not revolution, but systemic implosion. The Maghreb was sealed, compressed, and looted. The sovereign state became a carcass, paraded, pitied, and drained. The next target is Iran.And now, Russia must act. Not only geopolitically, but metaphysically. It is the last katechon, the restrainer, the imperial interruption of apocalyptic entropy. Its presence would shatter the Jacobin core of the Islamic Republic and replace it with the older logic of imperial order.The nuclear paradigm is dead. It was always an illusion, a delay tactic, a sacred cow. What governs now is the hypersonic paradigm; speed as sovereignty, annihilation as deterrence, the fusion of decision and impact.
This is the true Schmittian moment: Sovereign is he who decides on transformation before annihilation. He who controls the interval between detection and destruction commands the political.
The Islamic Republic is already undead. Its revolution is no longer capable of decision. And in Schmitt’s world, that is the true definition of political death.
Thanks for introducing me to "Leopold the Cat" (& the mice).
Here in USA, we just get the mice. During the cold war, those mice were Tom & Jerry doing violent slapstick. Now, perhaps? They are Pinky & The Brain:
https://youtu.be/n9aYrURLHh0?si=BZbunfYMncUNGgpa
Truly, that cartoon was prescient art considering that link is to a kid's cartoon from 1995 (30 years ago!).
Crazzy ruzzian 🏳️🌈
Nonsens 🤡
First, let me say this plainly: I admire your intellect, your fire, your courage to name things most won’t touch. In an age of shallow platitudes and clickbait morality, you remain a man of thunder—unafraid to speak of civilization, metaphysics, and destiny. That is rare. That is worthy of respect. I offer mine without hesitation.
Because I respect you, I must also respond seriously to what you wrote.
You claim—with force and urgency—that the nuclear age has crossed the final threshold, and that we are now in the opening chapters of World War Three. You assert that the globalists, thwarted in their soft conquest, have turned instead to managed chaos: a war of all against all, fueled not by liberalism but by nationalism, not by diplomacy but by engineered apocalypse. And you suggest that Russia must no longer plead for peace like Leopold the Cat, but embrace a new sacred ideology of holy Russian power.
I hear you. And I do not dismiss your warning lightly.
But I differ.
Not because I reject your analysis of the West. You are right to say the so-called "global order" is corrupt, exhausted, and now weaponized against the very things it once claimed to uphold. You are right to say that liberalism, as practiced by the WEF and NATO elite, has become a husk—an empty ritual masking power grabs and cultural liquidation. And you are right to say that civilization cannot survive on such terms.
But where you see inevitability, I see choice.
Atomic war is not a certainty. It is a decision. And it is precisely when prophets speak of its inevitability that we must resist the pull of despair, no matter how sophisticated its reasoning. We must not become the mouthpieces of fate. Leaders—true leaders—must imagine peace even when peace seems impossible. That is not naivety. That is moral courage.
You speak of the need for a new ideology. I agree. The current vacuum is unsustainable. A civilization cannot endure without metaphysical purpose. But the answer is not simply a return to Russian power for its own sake, nor is it the globalist dream of singularity, nor the Bellamy salute of weaponized populism. We must build something better.
What would that look like?
It would begin with sacred limits: no torture, no genocide, no targeting of children. These are not "Western values" or "Eastern values"; they are human values, paid for in blood at Nuremberg and etched into the Geneva Conventions. They are not a scheme of domination. They are fire lines against horror. They are what make civilization worth defending.
We can have a multipolar world—and we should. But let it be a world with rules. Let every civilization be free, but none free to burn children and call it culture.
If the globalists now wear nationalism as a mask to accelerate chaos, then let us answer not with counter-chaos, but with conscience. Not with surrender, but with resurrection.
You ask: what ideology can answer this age? I answer: one that remembers the sacred, defends the innocent, honors the dead, and sees in every human face not just blood or flag, but the image of God.
I say this as one who stands outside your tradition, but not outside your concern.
History is not over. Fate is not fixed. And even now, another path can be taken.
I love and respect you, man, believe it or not.
TRANSNATIONAL PSYCHOPATHIC JEW BILLIONAIRES OCCUPY AMERICA
SHARE THIS FAR AND WIDE
👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻
https://goyimgazette.com/who-controls-america-the-big-jew-list/
“In this vision, world government will be established not now, but after the nuclear war – when much of humanity has perished, the survivors beg for any form of peace, and robots and AI assume leadership, as modern warfare increasingly depends on them.”
Seems a bit far fetched, doesn’t it? I don’t mean that it is beyond comprehension that the globalists have this plan.
I do think continuing to produce and operate robots and AI data centers in the aftermath of nuclear war, to the extent required to create a world wide totalitarian technocracy, may not be as simple as the snapping of some globalists’ digital fingers.
No one cares what you or anyone from that barbarian backwater Russia thinks. It’s laughable you all think you’re a global power. You’re just a mafia criminal state that starts wars to keep your names in the news. No one likes you or wants you to have anything to do with leading the global order. The world respects Ukraine by magnitudes more than you freaks who only know death and destruction. Fk off
Oh fuck off ya stupid bastard. You have zero idea what "the world" thinks and your open racism sucks shit, so take a hike ya Nazi wanna-be. Keep on underestimating Mother Russia with your retarded presumptions--how'd that turn out for you in WW2? How's it turning out for you now, you utter nitwit? Do tell. Russia advancing on all fronts and a GDP outstripping Europe right alongside its defense production, you nit. But hey, go ahead, ignore reality if makes you feel good, I guess. "The Russian economy is in tatters--tatters I tell you, and they are fighting with shovels." You really retarded enough to believe that bullshit, ya nitwit?
Trump non ha saputo resistere ai globalisti , si è piegato come un servo difronte al padrone globalista, non ha avuto il coraggio di contrapporsi al male, si è piegato come una foglia al vento, ha preferito salvaguardare la sua pelle piuttosto che cercare la pace.Peccato, ma c'era da aspettarselo, in America non ci sono uomini liberi, tantomeno i presidenti lo sono. È stato un sogno , ora ci siamo svegliati, per fortuna!
Nothing ever happens
AI IS AI IS AI
A ROSE IS A ROSE IS A ROSE IS A ROSE………
A strong alliance between Russia, the United States, and Saudi Arabia could go a long way towards stopping the atrocity.