Politics

The Ukraine is About to Win the War (Since February 2022)

I am getting a serious cause of (The) Ukraine fatigue. Every time you go to a mainstream news site to get a dose of what NPCs are supposed to think, there is some bullshit article about Russia being on the brink of collapse and The Ukraine working on a counter offensive that is supposed to decidedly defeat Russia, and this time, guys, it is really going to work! The official narrative around this war is about as believable as the Covid story, which is of little surprise since it has been masterminded by the same geniuses.

In order to keep a low profile in real life, I do not comment on politics but, just like with Covid, this does not help much if others think they need to repeat their NPC programming to you. The latest angle is that The Ukraine is willing to negotiate with Russia, but only after their upcoming spring offensive. This idea has been floating in the media for a few weeks now, and it is therefore of little surprise that the NPCs are lapping it up.

It is pointless to discuss the situation in The Ukraine seriously with normies, but it is still illuminating to listen to them. A few weeks ago, I had a business lunch with someone who explained to me that Russia is about to fall “any day now”. I could not help but state that I do not really follow the news, yet wonder if Russia is still clinging on to the territory they have gained since the start of the special military operation. The follow-up went about as well as you can imagine and I learned that this “stalemate” in Eastern Ukraine is clear evidence that Russia is inferior because if they were competent at fighting wars, they would have run over the Ukraine already.

I also know of a few businesses who have jeopardized themselves due to hastily leaving the Russian market. As you may recall, in the beginning of the special military operation, there was a big media campaign targeting companies. In order to stick it to Putin, they were supposed to leave the country. There are companies out there who generated a significant chunk of their profit in Russia, and they sold those subsidiaries for pennies on the dollar. I even know of one company that is on the fast track to bankruptcy thanks to leaving Russia head over heels and their revenues in the Western world cratering due to the currently more difficult economic situation. It is truly a sight to behold.

As a general piece of advice, I think you are well served to keep your distance from NPCs. It is worse when you cannot easily change your employer or country of residence. The West is currently crashing into a wall, with de-dollarization happening at an absolutely breathtaking pace. Yet, we since we fight to the last Ukrainian to bring supposed Western values to that part of the world, all is good. It’s a fucking clown show. The Ukraine is not going to win this war. Instead, it may bring down the entire West with it. If you cannot go anywhere else, hunker down, stack up on supplies, and keep a low profile because the Ukraine is going to keep winning day after day until they fully collapse, and at that point we will probably be in a years-long economic depression.

64 thoughts on “The Ukraine is About to Win the War (Since February 2022)

  1. I think a great depression is highly likely regardless of whatever happens in Ukraine, simply because of a decade and a half of fiat money debasement and unnaturally low interest rates.

    Papering over crisis after crisis with freshly minted money merely kicked the can down the road, but they are running out of road.

    Media made a big show about companies leaving the Russian market, like McDonalds, but over 90% of foreign firms stayed.

    1. It is correct that very few companies left Russia. I recall seeing a figure of ~92%. This makes it even more tragic that some of those who left sealed their economic fate, and others lost significant revenue for nothing in return.

  2. Aaron,

    So a year from now – what do you see happening with this war?

    Based on the events of the past year – do you not see Russia’s army as a paper tiger?

    1. I am not sure if you are joking. Russia is taking on the collective West, and is able to defend the territory it gained. If anything, the war in the Ukraine revealed how weak the Western military is. On a related note, I think that the rapid de-dollarization that is currently on the way is partly a result of the West not being able to repel Russia from the Ukraine. The chess pieces on the world stage are being rearranged. Support for Russian and China is increasing whereas the United States will increasingly be seen as a pariah.

      In terms of the duration of the war, I think that the Ukraine will surrender this year. They have hardly any men left and they are running out of supplies. Western support is furthermore dwindling.

    2. There are very few blogs that I follow. One in particular is decidedly not populated by NPC’s, and the off-topic of the war in Ukraine often pops up. Personally, I don’t do much research and stay out of these discussions because, well, the actual truth about historical events only comes to the surface a long time after the happen and there’s too much propaganda by all sides, and so I tell these guys.

      Some of them are gun and military aficionados and they keep telling the rest that Russia is a joke and they bring up some videos (that may or may not have hit the mainstream news) about some tank or group of soldiers not working as intended as proof. As I said, I’m not educated enough on the subject to give a solid opinion.

    3. Having said that, a cursory review of the events and logical objectives tells me that some of those denigrating the Russian army act as if the goal is to overrun Eastern Europe and invade the West (as if Putin was some sort of modern Genghis Khan), and the clear inexistence of said invasion is proof of abject failure and incompetence.

      Plus, single videos making the rounds on the internet do not necessarily depict a trend. For all we know, they might mostly be cannon fodder thrown to the vanguard with the very oldest equipment.

    4. War in Ukraine is the stalemate. It is now a war of attrition and it is a question of how two sides can throw resources into the battlefield. The one that exhausts first will be the loser.

      At the beginning of March 2022, I thought that Russia would take Kiev soon and the war would soon be over. Yet they failed flat from ever reaching that, despite having a three-pronged attacks against Ukraine. That said, the current aim of Ukraine to retake all lost territories together with Crimea seems far-fetched to me.

      I am on the Ukraine side. But I can see that the US is already too strained due to internal economic problems. I am not sure if NATO could defend themselves. If Russia succeed in bleeding white Ukraine, all other countries will be the next victims.

      1. This war is not a stalemate because Russia holds the advantage. They have gained the territory they initially wanted, and even went a bit beyond that. Also, why do you think that Russia wants to take “Kyiv”?

        I am on the side of Russia as I hope that I live to see Europe getting out from under the yoke the United States have put on it. History will not be kind to the United States at all, and the history of some alleged bogeymen will be rewritten. By the way, why do you think that Russia wants to invade other countries? This is a boomer-tier talking point, which is not rooted in reality.

      2. They have gained the territory they initially wanted, and even went a bit beyond that. Also, why do you think that Russia wants to take “Kyiv”?

        You can find maps of the beginning of this war and look for yourself. There is a prong that departed from Belarus and aimed to descend down to Kiev. Since that was repulsed, the Russians changed plan and withdrew in order to concentrate on those territories she had seized in 2014.

        By the way, why do you think that Russia wants to invade other countries? This is a boomer-tier talking point, which is not rooted in reality.

        If Ukraine fell, Russia could attack any other countries such as Poland or Finland in order to create a “safe zone” between herself and the rest of Europe. Such a war might not happen immediately after Ukraine’s defeat, but might become the reality in the next 10-20 years. After all, Soviet Union used to create the whole Eastern Europe as a sattlelite in post World War 2. Putin has accused NATO of expanding into Western Europe. What does it mean? It means that he viewed the whole Eastern Europe and Balkan as the backyard of Russia. That’s why national security of those countries in Eastern Europe is endangered.

      3. Did it cross your mind that they sent just a few bodies to “Kyiv” to create a distraction so that they could gain ground more quickly in the East? Either way, the fact of the matter is that Russia is holding its ground and advancing. They are fighting NATO in the Ukraine, and I really don’t get the impression that NATO is winning. Russia only ever announced that they want to liberate the Russian speaking parts of the Ukraine, after years of suppression if not downright “ethnic cleansing” of those people.

        Russia arguably only needs the Ukraine as a buffer. NATO did indeed expand into Western Europe, breaking the Minsk agreement, which the Western powers only offered to buy themselves some time to arm the Ukraine. Please do a bit more homework here. The West is the aggressor, once again.

      4. I am on the side of Russia as I hope that I live to see Europe getting out from under the yoke the United States have put on it.

        Without the US, Europe would find the process of recovering from the World War 2 very daunting and protracted. EU benefited from trading with the US. You seem to look at the US influence only from a negative lense.

      5. Alright, the United States bombed Europe to dust, but we should be thankful for them supporting the reconstruction after the war. Could we also apply the same logic to the US, let’s say if Best Korea, Russia, and China wiped out the big metropolitan centers of the country and later on rebuild them, of course not without occupying the country and subverting its culture?

      6. Did it cross your mind that they sent just a few bodies to “Kyiv” to create a distraction so that they could gain ground more quickly in the East?

        No, that was not a diversion. The main objective was to seize Kiev and overthrow Ukraine’s government, establishing a puppet one. When that failed, Russia ran back to the corridor in the East and defended it.

        Either way, the fact of the matter is that Russia is holding its ground and advancing.

        She should be, but the gains were only minimal, considering the massive disparity between both materials and manpower vis-a-vis Ukraine.

        They are fighting NATO in the Ukraine, and I really don’t get the impression that NATO is winning. Russia only ever announced that they want to liberate the Russian speaking parts of the Ukraine, after years of suppression if not downright “ethnic cleansing” of those people.

        In a figurative sense, yes, they were fighting “NATO”, as in fighting against its weapons. But the major forces that they are facing are simply volunteers and Polish fighters dressed in Ukrainian uniforms, aside from Ukrainian soldiers, of course.

        The rest of your spiel is just regurgitating Russian media propaganda.

        Russia arguably only needs the Ukraine as a buffer. NATO did indeed expand into Western Europe, breaking the Minsk agreement, which the Western powers only offered to buy themselves some time to arm the Ukraine. Please do a bit more homework here. The West is the aggressor, once again.

        1. She might be contend with Ukraine for now, but if NATO crumbled due to lack of unity and rifled with self-interest, than nothing could stop her from expanding deeply into the heart of Europe.

        2. Which part of the Minsk agreements (Minsk I or Minsk II) guaranteed that Ukraine promised NOT to join NATO?

        https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/UA_150212_MinskAgreement_en.pdf

      7. Dude, we know that NATO soldiers fight in the Ukraine. Just like with Covid or mainstream history, your perception of the conflict in the Ukraine is warped by you taking the mainstream position at face value. That the Western powers were not honest about the Minsk agreements is now proven beyond doubt as major political leaders have gone on the record about it, so I am not going to waste my time elaborating on this topic. Again, you look at a document and just assume that there is no hidden agenda. Angela Merkel, the former chancellor of Germany, of all people, admitted that Minks was just a cover for buying time for the Ukraine in order to arm it. You can probably find the original German sources easily, or read Chinese coverage here:
        https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202212/1281708.shtml

      8. Dude, we know that NATO soldiers fight in the Ukraine.

        A few photographs, perhaps?

        Just like with Covid or mainstream history, your perception of the conflict in the Ukraine is warped by you taking the mainstream position at face value.

        You don’t know what I am reading so stop making ignorant remarks about the source I read. In fact, I have reasons to believe that I am reading sources with much greater variety than you.

        That the Western powers were not honest about the Minsk agreements is now proven beyond doubt as major political leaders have gone on the record about it, so I am not going to waste my time elaborating on this topic. Again, you look at a document and just assume that there is no hidden agenda. Angela Merkel, the former chancellor of Germany, of all people, admitted that Minks was just a cover for buying time for the Ukraine in order to arm it. You can probably find the original German sources easily, or read Chinese coverage here:

        Reread your original comment to see how you have derailed from your central point:

        NATO did indeed expand into Western Europe, breaking the Minsk agreement, which the Western powers only offered to buy themselves some time to arm the Ukraine. Please do a bit more homework here. The West is the aggressor, once again.

        There was NOTHING written in the Minsk agreements that suggest that Ukraine shall not join NATO in 2014-2015. If Russia decided to sign it, she must a fool. Russia was the aggressor because she violated the sovereignty of Ukraine. Under such a circumstance, joining NATO or receiving more military aids was a justified way to combatting against, say, the Nazi Russians.

      9. Funny how the Russians are “Nazis” now. I wonder when this transformation happened. Also, does the meddling of the US in the affairs of other countries, so-called “regime change”, violate the sovereignty of those countries or is this a special case that is totally different due to some newly made-up terms?

      10. Funny how the Russians are “Nazis” now. I wonder when this transformation happened. Also, does the meddling of the US in the affairs of other countries, so-called “regime change”, violate the sovereignty of those countries or is this a special case that is totally different due to some newly made-up terms?

        Well, it is technically wrong to call all Russians Nazi. But there were Nazi organizations in Russia after the Soviet collapse. Feel free to look up on that.

        Also, does the meddling of the US in the affairs of other countries, so-called “regime change”, violate the sovereignty of those countries or is this a special case that is totally different due to some newly made-up terms?

        Oh, as if this is only the specialty of the US? How about Russian meddling in the internal affairs of post-Soviet countries? And when things don’t turn out well, she use armed force. You see, you are the one who is a fanatical anti-American.

      11. The latter, obviously.

        If the first badly bombed cities — Warsaw, Rotterdam, Belgrade, and London — suffered at the hands of the Germans and not the Allies, nonetheless the ruins of German and Japanese cities were the results not of reprisal but of deliberate policy, and bore witness that aerial bombardment of cities and factories has become a recognized part of modern warfare as carried out by all nations.

        Sir Arthur Harris (30 November 1995). Despatch on War Operations: 23rd February 1942 to 8th May 1945.

        Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II

        “The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naïve theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.

        Robin Cross, Fallen Eagle (London, John Wiley and Sons 1995), p. 78.

        Wiki:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Berlin_in_World_War_II#:~:text=The%20first%20RAF%20raid%20on%20Berlin%20took%20place%20on%20the,effect%20on%20Hitler%20was%20greater

        Britain might bomb Germany first, but Germany bombed Poland and other places. No doubt the British bombed Germany first, but even if that had not occured, Germany would still bomb Britain during its invasion in November 1940, because that was the only way to assault the Island.

      12. Please tell me more about Germany’s plan to invade Britain and maybe add your thoughts on the planned invasion of the United States as well. I’m sure it will make for lovely fiction, roughly on par what our most esteemed mainstream scholars have produced on these topics.

    5. Alright, the United States bombed Europe to dust

      Bombing Europe to dust? Explain to me how that happened when half of that Europe was the intense battleground between the USSR and your own country, Nazi Germany? Spain was neutral?

      Then pointing to me which parts of UK was bombed by the US?

      France was indeed ravaged by two sides, but the damage was limited. It was not because the US desired to bomb France to stone age, but because they were fighting against the Fascist scums.

      It was only German that was subjected to intense bombing, but that was because Germany was the aggressor in World War 2. Aside from sodomising Jews and Slaves, they fought tenaciously without surrendering. It was the Germans who asked for complete destruction themselves.

      Italy, scums as well, was subjected to damages, but if that was too much, we would have seen it in the media.

      The US played a vital role in resurrecting Western Europe.

      1. Believe it or not, but there is not much of a Europe without Germany. Without German taxpayers the dystopian EU project would have collapsed decades ago or never even have gotten off the ground. Regarding your claims, the reason for the war was not the “sodomization of Jews and Slavs”. Instead, it was an example of a rising power, i.e. Germany, wanting to take its fate into her own hands, and England getting its panties in a twist about it. Also, Germany fought to the end because of the US position of wanting to completely destroy German industry and wipe out the German people. Look into the writings of Morgenthau, for instance. Firebombing civilians also had no military purpose. By the way, Churchill wanted to destroy Rome, the cradle of European culture. Britain had the same problem back then which the US have nowadays, i.e. they were fully subverted. WW2 unseated Britain as the undisputed global superpower, turning it into an also-ran and the same will happen to the US in due time.

        By the way, do you still believe in the Covid propaganda or can you now admit to yourself that you were lied to by your elites?

      2. Your slippery grasp of history is showing in clear light now. The way you dishonestly shift your argument is also verging on scandal.

        Believe it or not, but there is not much of a Europe without Germany. Without German taxpayers the dystopian EU project would have collapsed decades ago or never even have gotten off the ground.

        How does this assertion of yours have anything to do with your original claim?

        Alright, the United States bombed Europe to dust

        Before you jump up with your pathetic accusation that I am autistic, perhaps you should better explain yourself here. But remember, not explain yourself AWAY.

        Regarding your claims, the reason for the war was not the “sodomization of Jews and Slavs”. Instead, it was an example of a rising power, i.e. Germany, wanting to take its fate into her own hands, and England getting its panties in a twist about it.

        Oh no, it was not. It was just your hero Hitler’s expansionary policy that sought to invade nations surrounding it and violated their sovereignty. What does “wanting to take its fate into her own hands” have anything to do with annexing France in 1940? It was very clear that Germany wanted to continue her aggressive foreign policy dating back not just to the rise of Hitler, but before 1914. Germany couldn’t deal with the fact that she was wiped out in the first war, thus instigating to start a new war, only to be crushed like a whipped dog.

        Also, Germany fought to the end because of the US position of wanting to completely destroy German industry and wipe out the German people.

        Destroying German industrial capacity was a high time purpose to stop the Nazi war machine from continuing an unholy war. Germany did not capitulate so aiming at industrial capacity was completely rational. As for wiping out German people, why did we have such a fancy German population today? Oh, why Americans, the students of Satan, set up extermination camps to utterly annihilate Germans in the same fashion she was “sodomizing the Jews”?

        Firebombing civilians also had no military purpose. By the way, Churchill wanted to destroy Rome, the cradle of European culture.

        If the Italians fought on, they must be destroyed. Since when when in war we should think of the treasures of the past? How about German Stuka defacing Stalingrad’s buildings? In war, destruction and death was priorities, not the preservation of architectural masterpieces.

        By the way, do you still believe in the Covid propaganda or can you now admit to yourself that you were lied to by your elites?

        Let us not derail from the discussion. You was fumbling around with historical facts, and now you seek to segue into Covid-19, that won’t do.

      3. You have always been accusing others of intellectual dishonesty, like the case of Uber. Now, you are the one who is completely dishonest. You confound your “Europe” with another “Europe living on German taxpayers”, which mismatched in time period.

        It was pretty shameful of you, just to think about it.

      4. Firebombing civilians also had no military purpose.

        On the principle of two wrong doesn’t make on right, I condemn this as a war crime of the Allies, but all wars are crimes. Those bombing had the effect of terrorising the general population and shaking the moral of the Germans. Germany, for example, did not shy away from bombing London during the battle for England in 1940. I am sure there was civilian casualties in those times. Heck, even back in World War 1, the dawn of fighting airplanes, the Germans were not afraid of bombing London as well.

      5. Germany only bombed London to retaliate for the attacks of Britain. The historical record is very clear on this, albeit this part seems to be strangely missing in the mainstream narrative.

      6. Dude, the Americans set up death camps for the Germans:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinwiesenlager
        Don’t worry, this was all fine because instead of “POWs” the United States were dealing with “disarmed enemy combatants”.

        Why don’t you look into the treatment of Soviet POW before parading “death camps” of the US?

      7. Do you realize that by referring to the camps the various combatants had set up you are moving into territory you may not want to enter. You may even realize that concentration camps were not a German invention.

      8. Do you realize that by referring to the camps the various combatants had set up you are moving into territory you may not want to enter. You may even realize that concentration camps were not a German invention.

        The US only established those camps in 1945, according to wiki. It could be because the impression of some of those lovely places American GI visited when liberating Germany from “Jews and Slaves sodomizer” that led them to harden their treatments against the Nazi Germans.

        Show me concentration camps that were destined to kill of millions of Jews (just to avoid the irritating 6 millions that you found so hard to accept) in other nations!

      9. Germany only bombed London to retaliate for the attacks of Britain. The historical record is very clear on this, albeit this part seems to be strangely missing in the mainstream narrative.

        In which year? WW1 or WW2?

      10. Let me phrase it this way: Once the yoke of the US occupier has fallen some supposedly enshrined facts of the mainstream narrative may be revised.

        Too bad, until then, you have no proofs.

        BTW, I wonder why David Irving is your choice, whereas Raul Hilberg is not. Perhaps because the latter is a sadistic, not as all Jews, Jew.

      11. Please tell me more about Germany’s plan to invade Britain and maybe add your thoughts on the planned invasion of the United States as well. I’m sure it will make for lovely fiction, roughly on par what our most esteemed mainstream scholars have produced on these topics.

        I have never heard of an invasion plan of the US.

        As for the invasion plan of Britain, the operation of Sea Lion is the example.

        What are you trying to do? Exposing myself so that you could strike me with your superior source David Irving?

        Oh I see, there are no plans to invade Britain. It must be a hoax created by post-War ally.

      12. BTW, I have been looking at some of the pictures of these “leaked documents”. They look much more colourful than CIA declassified documents during the Vietnam War:
        https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/collection/vietnam-collection

        I’ve gotta say that, as a joke, that US leaders might have lower IQ than their predecessors because there are tons of pictures.

        Sure, technology has long since advanced, but tons of pictures and little details in those reports must lead me to think that most US top officials couldn’t read well.

        I wonder why there aren’t any kind of pictures like these on yandex. I am in VIetnam so I wonder if the US could redirect my search? Perhaps you could chime in and tell me if it is possible.

    6. Here is an article detailing NATO forces in the Ukraine:
      https://www.rt.com/news/574565-nato-special-forces-ukraine-leak/
      There were also reports according to which the US provides intel and also deploys some military commanders.

      I have been looking around on the internet for those 100 documents. Couldn’t find any. Mind you to furnish with a copy of that document or any document among those 100, I’ll be waiting.

      Also, military supervisors don’t usually count towards combatants. I did state that there might be Polish soldiers in Ukranian uniform, so that was it.

      The Soviet had tons of military supervisors in Vietnam, and China certainly did send up to 10,000 supported troops to North Vietnam, yet the world didn’t say the US fought Russia and China there. Only late in war did one Vietnamese leader proclaimed “We fought for China and the Soviet…”

      Russia also said she didn’t send any troops to Donbass and Luhansk, yet military materials and personnels in 2014, despite the contrary truth.

  3. Aaron,

    What do you think/have you heard of Peter Zeihan? He’s a geopolitical analyst who I would say is not “mainstream” and is often quoted on zerohedge. He says Russia and China won’t be around in 10 years because of various geopolitical issues, the most important being demographic timebombs. Curious to hear your thoughts if you come across him.

    1. I can’t really comment on Russia or China, but I sense that the same can be said about the collective West in regards to demographic issues. In fact, I think the situation in the West is arguably much worse considering the migration issues and in the fact that the native populations in these countries have downright hostile governments that seem to be set on genociding them.

      1. Aaron,

        Ya I couldn’t remember if I did – I tried to search but the site is down – when is it back up?

  4. Aaron,

    In regards to your debate with Cuong Quoc Vu, maybe you should just stick to dating advice. You went from regurgitating anti-vaxx stuff like some soccer mom doing research on her cell phone on the toilet to rehashing extreme right wing propaganda. Ya the US may be run by elitists but all take those over the Russian elitists that throw you out of a building when you dare to protest.

    You changed my life with your dating advice – stick with it.

    Over and out.

    Anthony

    1. Anthony, I would recommend you check out the history of this blog. I positioned myself against Covid and later on the vaxx at a point when this was an absolute fringe position. You telling me that I’m “like some soccer mom” is an insult, and enough to get you banned as I find it extremely disrespectful.

  5. If many of you Americans here think that I naively take stance on the Western side, then I simply say no.

    Download all documents including the website that summarises it:

    https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

    You can draw your conclusion about it yourself. I certainly don’t blame Russia alone in this catastrophe. I can hold both sides accountable for war. The reason I support Ukraine is because it is a just war from their perspective. It is also rooted in the common experience between oppressed peoples, which harks back to the Vietnam war.

    1. To the best of my knowledge, I have never been a contrarian in the field of dating.

      I have always voiced my own opinion on Holocaust, Chinese domination, Hitler, that’s it.

      I speak nothing of Covid at all, in here or elsewhere.

    2. lol cqv, you’re literally the most contrarian person I’ve ever seen online, and I’ve been in online communities for 20 years now.

      1. Again, on Holocaust, Chinese domination, Hitler, WW2, etc I have opposing views.

        On dating, none.

        On Covid, none, because I don’t have medical knowledge to say what is right and what is wrong.

      2. To be a contrarian you don’t need to have to have done it on every subject under the sun. It just needs to be super-obvious that the arguments you’re making are always coming from a place of contrarianism.

      3. Then this depends on the nature of this blog.
        What are you guys’ intentions? Forming a sort of forum where a diversity of ideas can be exchanged? Or a more uniformity of opinions and views are expected?

        Look over to some forums like Axis Forum or Greatwar forum. People can often disagree over one another on various issues, while agreeing on others.

      4. I have reserved and restrained from posting opposing views in the past and only focus on issues that we can agree on.

        The recent outburst of discussion is resulted from a difference in perception of the Ukraine War. From there leads to downward spirals of issues related to Holocaust and WW2.

      5. Ah the old “so nobody can disagree?” tactic. Listen, it’s not about disagreeing. It’s about the motivation, and people are very good at detecting when something is done for the sake of contrarianism.

        Fun fact, you might know this. Aaron used to be a leftie. He believed in leftie economics. I disagreed with him on that, and super-hard. But I disagreed with him because I thought he was wrong, not to be contrarian. People can tell the difference, and its insulting to their intelligence to pull the “oh so nobody can disagree and it has to be an echo chamber” card.

      6. This example also runs counter to the claim that I dogmatically embrace my beliefs. I have changed plenty of my old beliefs. Keynesian economics is just one example. Also, when Covid came up, I was wearing a mask as part of a very small minority, and long before any mask mandate. Of course, I quickly realized that this was all a load of bullshit, which I elaborated on this blog and my other one extensively. If my articles led any of you to abstain from the vaxx then I directly protected you from harm. I am not sure how the presumably ultra-vaxxed Uber and his mom are doing nowadays, though.

      7. Hate to say it and look like we’re ganging up on you CQV, but Alek is totally right: it’s usual concern troll behavior to decry that “no disagreement allowed!”. One of these trolls, in a blog whose owner I disagreed with about pretty much everything except for most of his opinions on his subject of expertise, told me I performed Osculum Infame (google it) on the guy, I kid you not.

        I mean, if you want examples of proper disagreements, look for Yarara’s or Karl’s comments sometimes, and how they argue. Hell, I rarely comment as deep as those guys do, yet even I have voiced my disdain for China and derisively call them the DEE (Dog-Eater Empire), but I just state my disagreement and move on.

        As someone who might have a little nephew in the autistic spectrum (not fully diagnosed yet, but it leans to that), I sympathize with you and the work you’re doing at the moment. Just calling them as I see them.

      8. @Alek Novy

        Ah the old “so nobody can disagree?” tactic. Listen, it’s not about disagreeing. It’s about the motivation, and people are very good at detecting when something is done for the sake of contrarianism.

        There is no tactics here. When you consistently label someone as a contrarian, you are singling him out as a victim of ban. From that point onward, I simply think that Sleazy requires you to be in agreement with him all the time.
        How do you know my motivation is not a strong belief that Aaron is wrong. Take, for example, our disagreement on the Holocaust or anti-Semitism? I think he is wrong.

        I have also been vacillating on the issue of anti-Semitism. Some of my comments join force with you guys on this topic on the other blogs. I did my reading, especially of Kevin MacDonald, contacting the guy for a quote on Franz Boas, realising the danger of believing everything in the book. Does this sound like I am a contrarian? Or arguing for the sake of argument?

        . But I disagreed with him because I thought he was wrong, not to be contrarian. People can tell the difference, and its insulting to their intelligence to pull the “oh so nobody can disagree and it has to be an echo chamber” card.

        I think he is wrong insofar as Holocaust is concerned. I do not intend to insult your intelligence by pulling some cards. It seems that you want to paint me as someone who is dishonest by intentionally utilising some rhetorical tactics. It has been one of your damning features of adopting accusatory tone when you are discussing a topic with others.

        Also, your tactics of adopting a bullying tone doesn’t work well with me.

        As someone who might have a little nephew in the autistic spectrum (not fully diagnosed yet, but it leans to that), I sympathize with you and the work you’re doing at the moment. Just calling them as I see them.

        Pretty amusing to see people run diagnosing online.
        I don’t think someone who possesses strong aptitude for foreign languages, being able to speak at the age of 1, recognising Russian letters at the age of 10, playing around with very simple Chinese characters at the age of 11 is an autist.

      9. @CQV:

        What!? Where’s your reading comprehension, dude? You twisted my words of praise into calling you an autist. All this discussion must be making you uneasy, to say the least.

      10. I don’t understand your point.

        Why do you mention your nephew if you don’t want to imply that I am autistic?

        As I have X, I can sympathise with Y.

        This construction directly means that you have enough/sufficient conditions to understand/sympathise with someone, something.

        Example: As a language learner, I can relate to some difficulties you are encountering

        As an anti-Semite, I can identify myself with your intense hatred of Jews.

        So where is my reading comprehension’s problem.

      11. Ah sorry, you must be referring to my current volunteering work.

        You brought it up all suddenly, without any explicit naming. This confused me.

        Please accept my apology.

Leave a Reply to Cuong Quoc Vu Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.