¿Has Newsweek always been shit? I happened to stumble ’pon an article that seemed fine by itself, just reporting news o’ a Republican calling for lynching a black secretary o’ state — you know, typical Republican fascist stuff, nothing new — but then saw to my right a bar full o’ news items that were a feast for stupidity, accompanied by goofy-looking faces that I refuse to believe belong to real human beings. ¿Is this where The Onion gets their main inspiration for their weird “American Voices” section with those same faces o’ the woman with the pursed lips & the drunk man?

Since I know all you hip Zoomers, Moomers, & no-longer-hip Xoomers like tier-lists, we’re going to be placing these on tiers.

1st we have “The State Should Never Have the Power to Kill People”, said next to a face that is giving an honest-to-god Dreamworks smirk, as all the serious pundits give. It’s a nice sentiment, but 1 that the state is unlikely to take him up on ’cause as it turns out they care mo’ ’bout power than being good — shocking, I know.

This article, as it turns out, is a high-school level debate essay ’bout the death penalty. It includes such wacky irrelevant hedging points, like that this doesn’t apply if Hitler’s ghost is coming @ you with a gun. In that case, then I guess killing is OK. Nowhere in these 2 short paragraphs does he mention any statistics or note that Europe has done ’way with the death penalty decades ago & has far less crime than the US, nor does he bring up the fact that a huge proportion o’ death penalty victims are black people charged under questionable evidence, many cases o’ which have been o’erturned after the exonerated has already been toasted. ¡Whoopsie! I should probably provide links to back up those bold statements I just made; but this guy didn’t e’en provide any statistics, e’en made up 1s, so this wacky blog still somehow has higher standards than Newsweek, & middle school debate classes have higher standards than both o’ us. That’s why you need to stay in school, kids not reading this ’cause only ol’ people read blogs anymo’: otherwise you’ll be some junky writing blogs like this or @ Newsweek.

Tier: D

But for balance, under this we have smiling sitcom dad saying that, no, “The Death Penalty Is Appropriate for Proven Killers”, &, holy fucking shit, it makes the previous article look like ’twas written by James Baldwin.

For 1, he doesn’t seem so strong on his opinion, mo’ that it’s a question whether killing suspected criminals necessarily prevents murder, ’cause “you would need apples and apples”, & we only have apples, not both apples & apples. ¡That’s too many apples! You would also need to “hop into a time tunnel” & see if removing the death penalty in this alternate reality would reduce the murder rate — or just not increase it, since, by definition, ending the death penalty would decrease the murder rate if all else is equal, since, you know, it involves murdering people. ’Course, you could also just try removing the death penalty in the reality we currently exist in & see if that increases the murder rate or just compare to Europe; — a strange land that neither op-ed writer seems to know exists — but I think this op-ed writer is just very excited by the potential o’ jumping in time tunnels, ¿& who am I to dampen their dreams?

The next paragraph sputters on that nobody knows what’s good or not, but that it’s definitely true that in some unknown circumstances, killing is permissible. Perhaps we need to create a save state in real life, kill someone, record the results, & then load state, & then compare the results to see whether or not said killing was permissible. What this op-ed writer does know, howe’er, is that blanket statements like “thou shalt not kill” — a phrase only ol’ cranks would use, since the vast majority o’ Christians use modern Bibles that are written in contemporary English & don’t mix up Easter & Passo’er like that filthy English monarch, James’s, Bible, no matter how low the dumb apostles’ who forgot how Jesus magically created fish from nothing after they already saw him do it’s standards were — doesn’t count, ’cause there exists “biblical” killing, so whate’er vague moral reason one has for being gainst the death penalty, it can’t be “biblical”. What this “biblical” killing is is vague. The Ol’ Testament certainly has plenty o’ places wherein God tells Jews to throw rocks @ people who have sex outside o’ marriage & God himself has no problem killing people ’cause they made him shitty fire, but I was under the understanding that Jesus amended that rule & said that only people who ne’er sin can throw rocks @ people. ¡But he didn’t say anything ’bout lethal injection! ¡It’s not uncommandmental!

Tier: F

Next we have some nerd who can’t e’en comb his fucking hair before he took his picture, tho he did have his photographer crop his hair so that it looks like a spaghetti monster, declare, “Hungarian Election Results Defy Easy Narratives”. That’s startling news: it’s almost as if Hungarians are complex human beings & not stereotypical robots.

But the other articles I’ve read have lowered my standards so much that this turns out to be the least bad o’ them so far. Perhaps I should praise him for pointing out something perhaps obvious to well-educated people, but not to Newsweek readers.

Tier: B

Anyway, we need to move onto something much dumber, “Why Is Biden Waging War on Charter Schools That Benefit His Base?”. I had no idea Biden’s base were religious nuts who are ’fraid o’ their children being possessed by the Satanic dinosaur bones o’ the theory o’ natural selection & the spectre haunting America, CRT, or “Communist Reality Tanning”.

No, apparently that base is poor people & minorities, who are badly taught by underfunded public schools, so it makes sense to take funding ’way from public schools so charter schools can teach minorities how slavery was awesome. This writer does, a’least, post evidence ’hind their claim that charter schools have mo’ black teachers & principals. Unfortunately, the evidence doesn’t actually claim that charter schools have mo’ black teachers, only that black students are mo’ likely to have black teachers, & the writer doesn’t mention that these statistics come from a right-wing think tank, not a genuine, peer-reviewed study. In fact, all the references this writer uses are blatantly anti-Democrat think tanks, such as this study propaganda article that starts with evil quotes from Democrats, including Biden himself, who he should apparently be gainst — I mean, he’s a Democrat, so we can assume he hates himself. So apparently Biden’s base are Republicans. That’s probably true; but unfortunately, they will ne’er vote for Biden e’en if he lets McDonalds run everyone’s schools & mandates morning prayers to Jesus in all schools. Howe’er bad public schools may be, I can’t help but notice that the 1 I went to in high school would have standards too high for this writer’s caliber so far, as they would surely grade this down for such sloppy sourcing.

As for the deductive points he makes, well…

But competition helps everyone.

Um, ’cept for the people, who, you know, lose said competition, genius ( which is always poor people ).

In fact, the market is terrible for education, since in the market the customer is always right, whereas in education, by definition, the customer is wrong; if they were right, there would be nothing for them to learn, since being “right” means you know everything. This is why market solutions to education, rather than correcting people’s misconceptions, merely back up their biases — just like how newspapers like Newsweek fail to challenge their middle-class readers’ sheltered political delusions, but, rather, repeat them back. If those being educated don’t like certain “facts” being taught to them they can take their money to a source that gives them “facts” they do like; & since, by definition, since they need schooling, these are uneducated, & thus ignorant, people, they don’t e’en know if they’re shooting themselves in the foot, since they’re too uneducated to tell reality from bullshit.

Or do they just think that they can do what they want because they believe that we’re all stupid?

They can do whate’er they want, which means they’ll probably renege on their attacks on charter schools if said charter schools kick up money to them, & you are stupid, so I don’t know why you’re criticizing them for having an accurate reflection o’ reality.

I love how this writer talks ’bout obvious trickery & believing their audience is stupid when this writer tries to claim that capitalist markets lead to equitable outcomes. I guess that’s why the US has such economic equality, unlike Finland with their stupid high level o’ general happiness & well-being & their 100% public schools.

Still, he is right ’bout American public schools failing Americans: this is the only explanation for why so many Americans would believe in such a stupid solution like charter schools. What he fails to realize, ’cause he’s an American, & therefore stupid, is that American public schools aren’t failing ’cause o’ socialism, they’re failing ’cause they’re run by Americans: much as you can’t have inmates run the asylum, you can’t have idiots educate idiots. There’s an obvious solution, but 1 that’s politically impossible ( given that Americans are too stupid to realize they’re stupid & too prideful to accept such a solution ): the US should hire teachers & education administration only from highly-educated countries like Finland or Japan to completely control the US public education system ( for a good price, ’course, since Finlandians & Japanese are too smart to babysit Americans for free ) so that some o’ their education spreads to us, & then, once we’ve become mo’ educated, we’ll be able to try public schools run by Americans themselves ’gain.

On 1 hand, this writer’s logical arguments are simplistic & laughably counterintuitive; on the other, they were a’least savvy ’nough to make their lies look convincing with deceptive statistics that are likely to trick the average Newsweek reader. While a teacher — who we can ignore, anyway, since they work @ filthy socialist public schools, & thus are pro sending your black children to the gulag — would grade this essay down for neglecting to bring up relevant controversies, such as the lack o’ standards leading to natural-selection-denialism wackiness ending up in charter schools; but that’s only applicable if we were judging this as informational, which it clearly isn’t, since this essay delivers no information. It is clearly a work o’ propaganda, & in such circumstance, not mentioning such debilitating problems — as it turns out, education only works well if it’s based on, you know, reality — wherein the writer definitely has no good defenses is the best solution, given the target audience, who are too uneducated to realize these omissions, being poorly-educated Americans & all.

So, o’erall, 1 o’ the better essays. I hope this writer received a good check from whate’er think tank hired him for his efforts.

Tier: C

Next we have the world’s most generic face next to the article, “With a Russian Veto, the U.N. Security Council is Not Fit for Purpose”, an article which demonstrates its writer’s sweet-summer-child ignorance that Russia is the only country on the UN Security Council that has e’er invaded ’nother country. In truth, the UN Security Council has only e’er been a frivolous joke, so whether or not Russia is part o’ it is irrelevant. Somehow I doubt if Russia were to be kicked out it’d magically make Russia’s army slink back to Russia like a shrinking erection; but it will make the delusional adult children that are American “centrists” feel good to know ’nother useless puppet organization is representing their tilted, inconsistent perspective on good & bad.

Grotesque and vile, these were the two words that came to mind when I was watching a recent U.N. Security Council meeting on Ukraine.

In your defense, considering all the terrible things happening in Ukraine right now, I think you can be forgiven for having grotesque & vile words come into your mind. Shit, I have grotesque & vile words come into my mind every time I wake up with a sore throat. I’m just curious to know what these juicy 2 words were — clearly too grotesque & vile to print.

The problem is, even allowing Russia to make such claims on one of the most important global platforms in the world, is an embarrassing complicity in their actions. It gives Russia, as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky astutely pointed out to the entire council, the right to vote in favor of killing Ukrainians.

bUt tHaT’s cAnCeLCulTurE

In Ukraine’s defense, a’least they got a vote. Iraq didn’t get shit.

In the council meeting, the American ambassador, supported by the U.K., stated that she would like to see Russia removed from the U.N. Human Rights Council. This has thankfully now happened, but neither country is brave enough to state plainly that Russia should not have a veto, let alone that it should not have a seat at one of the most important decision-making tables in the world.

The US president basically said he wanted Putin to be found with 2 self-inflicted gunshots to the back o’ his head, but, sure, the US is totes too scared to say mean things ’bout Russia, their bestest bud.

Intermission:

Halfway thru this riveting article I encountered this video titled, “Everyone Who Believes In God Should Watch This. It Will Blow Your Mind”. Luckily, I don’t believe in God, so I don’t need to watch this video. In fact, showing me Nancy Pelosi’s mummy face just before melting after looking @ the Ark while ol’ turtle man has a laughing seizure ’hind her is the least likely thing in the world to make me believe in God.

Anyway, back to the article:

When Hannah Arendt coined the term “banality of evil,” she was referring to the way in which bureaucrats, who dutifully obey orders, are perpetuating the evil system that they occupy.

That was referring to Germans, not, say, the League of Nations, which are a better comparison. The UN Security Council aren’t perpetuating Russias evils, since they have no input on what Russia does, anyway, whether they let Russia into their li’l clubhouse or put up a “No Russians” sign ( “¿But what ’bout Navalny?” “We said ‘No Russians’” ).

It was almost Kafkaesque —

By allowing Russia to continue being a veto member of the U.N. Security Council, we risk playing into this very system.

If you want to prove you’re not a part o’ your system, you just need to throw Russia on the ground, just like in that Lonely Island song. Problem solved. ¿Why aren’t you paying me ’stead o’ these high-school dropouts? ( Just kidding: there’s no way these interns are being paid jack shit ).

This essay was nothing but a clustering o’ clichés. It didn’t deliver any informational content, nor did it succeed in making me hate Russia mo’. In fact, it made me almost feel a li’l bad ’bout hating the Russian government since it makes me, in some way, similar to this writer, which is a terrible thing to acknowledge.

Paul Grod is president of the Ukrainian World Congress.

I hope that’s just a frivolous organization Ukraine set up to make Paul Grod feel good ’bout himself. If not, then I don’t have high hopes for Ukraine winning their war… Well, ’less the Russian World Congress essay on Newsweek is e’en worse.

Tier: E

Next we have “Why Africa Doesn’t Jump Into the Fray on Ukraine”, wherein we get an answer to the stupidest question in the world. I think “why doesn’t a continent that has nothing to do with Eastern Europe & has had a negative history with Europe” is the last question that was on my mind during this war.

Africans have learned the hard way that, as one of their proverbs puts it, “When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.” Now that the East and the West are clashing again, many outside the continent fail to understand why Africa—an important part of “the rest” of the world—is reluctant to join the fray.

I somehow think Africans don’t have such low self-respect to describe themselves as mere grass compared to the west & east.

Other than that, tho, he does bring up way mo’ facts & logical arguments than necessary for an admittedly easy, tho absurd, prompt. He e’en has the awareness to realize that Africans are mo’ likely to be skeptical o’ the same US that claimed Iraq had WMDs & France who apparently were still doing some good ol’ fashioned imperialism as late as 2011, which is rare in US media, where everything is from the US or the general west’s narcissistic perspective wherein they imagine themselves to be the center o’ the world, when they’re, in fact, the west, duh.

Tier: A

I’m skipping “Russia-Ukraine War Makes Georgia’s Security Imperative” ’cause it’s the 1 article whose title doesn’t promise stupidity, &, indeed, as expected it’s just a perfectly competent news item. The guy’s face isn’t e’en funny to make fun o’.

Tier: B

Ah, now we’re back to dogshit with “The Great Sovereignty Reclamation Movement”, by a man, who, fittingly, looks like he’s drunk. This article is a jumble o’ incoherent comparisons o’ various elections & historical events, recent & rather distant, as well as to irrelevant issues like trans rights, & “what criteria we should look for in prospective immigrants”, which seems to be based on the delusion that immigrants are hired by countries after an interview process, rather than that they sneak in when their US-backed dictator hasn’t worked as well as the US advertised — truth in advertising, as they say.

But some of our other most politically urgent and galvanizing disputes revolve less around substantive questions, such as the nature of justice, than they do around one of the oldest procedural questions in the history of political science: “Who decides?”

A look around the world at this present juncture suggests an emerging consensus: We the people, through our own internal deliberations and our own political processes, should decide the fate of our own nation-states.

This is such a laughably longwinded way to say what is obvious: that a country’s decisions are made by, well, that country. In fact, that doesn’t answer anything, since that question usually revolves round which people in that country, since it’s taken for granted that the entire country isn’t a borg &, in fact, have differing opinions, &, given different political systems & circumstances, different opinions have different levels o’ power.

Thruout this article the writer keeps talking ’bout the “liberal imperium”, which sounds like tinfoil-hat shit; &, indeed, doing a cursory Google search gave me such juicy finds, such as a news article ’bout “Rothschild, FDR, & the Liberal Imperium”.

Finally, in Israel this week, member of Knesset Idit Silman formally left Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s ragtag governing coalition, which had been comprised of a bare 61-59 parliamentary majority. Silman’s departure means the Knesset is now split evenly 60-60, and the coalition will require at least one vote from the Likud/Benjamin Netanyahu-led opposition to advance any legislation. Bennett’s coalition, which consists of everyone from purported right-wing Zionists (such as Bennett himself) to Muslim Brotherhood-aligned anti-Zionists such as Mansour Abbas, was always extraordinarily fragile. Crucially, due to the coalition’s presence of Abbas’ Ra’am party, the erstwhile national conservative Bennett permitted anti-Zionists to thwart the Israeli national interest on core issues, such as the Iranian nuclear threat and the territorial dispute over Judea and Samaria.

The key lesson from Israel: A proud, self-governing people will only tolerate for so long a parliamentary (or congressional) coalition in which subversive fifth column actors, perhaps in cahoots with external NGOs, wield veto power.

This is a particularly interesting point: a “self-governing people”, which is not what Israel is, since it’s a republic, not a direct democracy, will only tolerate a parliamentary system ( said republic ) so long as it’s not infiltrated by “subversive fifth column actors”. But nowhere in this 1st paragraph is there any evidence o’ anyone in “cahoots with external NGOs”, ’cept that some hold “anti-Zionist” ( read: anti-theocratic ) views. It couldn’t be that Israelis have become better educated & decide they no longer care which made-up god rules o’er them ( it doesn’t matter: Jews & Muslims worship the same made-up god ). Either way, they better start caring ’bout that made-up god, or else I’d hate to see what happens to that mighty fine parliamentary system they have there.

For Americans who seek forward-looking inspiration, the lesson is simple: The nation-state, and the tangible flourishing of the nation-state’s people, must always come first. There is no more important lesson for a decadent, late-stage republic to imbibe.

Fun political language lesson: when someone uses the terms “decadent” & “late-stage” when describing western countries, they’re either Marxists or fascists; if they talk a lot ’bout the importance o’ “nation-states”, then we can narrow it down to fascist.

Tier: 🤪

“What Makes for A Qualified Supreme Court Nominee?”.

Trick question: the Supreme Court is an inherently undemocratic institution & thus there is no legitimate nominee, since the whole institution is a tyrannical sham.

But gone are the days of assessing potential justices on the basis of book smarts, pedigree and days spent on the job. The obvious defining factor today is judicial philosophy, which is why Republicans not named Romney, Collins or Murkowski voted not to confirm Jackson.

This is wrong & this writer must lack a basic understanding o’ high-school-level US history to think this. The Supreme Court has been partisan since the very beginning, when John Adams packed the court with Federalist judges as a last-ditch effort to keep the waning Federalist party in power ( basically the same thing Republicans are doing now ). These judges later in the frivolous case o’ Marbury v. Madison contrived for themselves power o’ judicial review, which went unchallenged ’cause they deliberately voted in the opposition president, Jefferson’s, favor so Jefferson couldn’t disobey the Supreme Court’s ruling, & thereby delegitimize it.

There are also many other cases wherein the Supreme Court has made partisan & disastrous decisions thruout history, such as the infamous Dred Scott case, which was heavily influenced by then president James Buchanan, also known as the worst president in US history.

As it turns out, when you have judges appointed by partisans, those judges will be partisan, too. The only difference is that since they’re appointed ’stead o’ elected, the public will give them less scrutiny; & this & lifetime appointments give Supreme Court justices the ample position to be as corrupt & arbitrary as they wish, which is why Clarence Thomas is able to vote on issues, such as withholding Trump’s documents from the 1/6 panel, despite conflict o’ interests with his wife’s political involvement, since he knows there’s no chance anyone will be able to enforce any laws on him. The fact is that the Supreme Court is effectively ’bove the law.

But, anyway, please continue with your sloppy analysis:

Overwhelming Democratic opposition to Republican nominees is fueled by the same instinct. No one can argue that the three Trump nominees—Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett—or the George W. Bush ones—Roberts and Alito—lacked the background to be considered worthy.

This is false, & it’s striking that this writer doesn’t mention Biden being gainst Clarence Thomas’s appointment, which was ( before the aforementioned conflicts o’ interests ) similar to Democrats’ complaints gainst Kavanaugh, but without the qualification concerns. Many, in fact, did dispute Barrett’s qualifications, noting her meager judicial experience.

The writer than spews out reams o’ historical revisionism, wherein he essentially claims that Democrats started it, which is on the same level o’ honesty as saying Democrats supported slavery, as it ignores the fact that Democrats, both conservative & liberal, dominated the legislative branches for most o’ the 20th Century, including during both o’ Bill Clinton’s appointments, in 1993 & 1994. For instance, while he brings up Ted Kennedy’s “incendiary rhetoric” gainst the same Robert Bork ’hind Nixon’s corrupt “Saturday Midnight Massacre” to try covering up the Watergate scandal, he fails to bring up that Republicans attacked Thurgood Marshall as a “judicial activist”, which came long before his examples.

But despite his attempt @ “both-sidesing”, like all fake centrists, this writer reveals their bias @ the end:

But let the difference be understood: while Republicans oppose Democrats’ picks because they waver from the Constitution, Democrats oppose Republicans’ picks because they adhere to it.

Mo’ accurately: the difference is that Republicans oppose Democrats’ picks ’cause their interpretation o’ the Constitution wavers from the fantasy theocratic version that exists in Republicans’ heads ( or perhaps just their propaganda, since considering all the Constitutional violations Republicans have made thruout their tenures, it’s doubtful they truly believe in it @ all ).

Sloppy, lazy logic & a lack o’ references, with many o’ the “facts” brought up mangled or outright wrong. Still, he made an attempt @ a convincing case, & to uneducated readers ( anyone reading Newsweek unironically ), it probably will convince them. Luckily it won’t matter, since nobody votes on senators or representatives based on whether or not they’ll vote gainst opposition Supreme Court candidates, & if they did, they’d base it on getting their favored partisans in the Supreme Court.

Tier: D

Finally we have “Vladimir Putin Must be Tried for War Crimes”, written by a pair that includes a US Lieutenant General, so it’s almost certainly hypocritical, since the US military commits war crimes all the time. But o’erall it’s stupid, since Putin is ne’er going to be tried for war crimes any mo’ than any US president e’er will, so long as Russia still has nukes. Anyone with a shred o’ political savvy knows this. The fact that a US Lieutenant General is this stupid shows how low the US military’s standards are for intelligence.

Clearly, the world will have to go after Vladimir Putin for his war crimes in Ukraine.

They won’t ’cause he has nukes, stupid.

If he isn’t brought to justice, the whole concept of tribunals on behalf of those who have suffered war crimes becomes a farce.

It already is a farce.

And it will confirm the common belief that the world’s most powerful nations can simply have it their way.

It has already been confirmed many times o’er. If this clown had any knowledge o’ US law he’d know that the US outright passed a law allowing them to invade the Hague if they e’er dared to try an American for war crimes, under the W. Bush administration, since they knew they would be committing war crimes in the Iraq & Afghanistan wars.

Regardless of how long it takes, or how much energy is expended, it is essential that the international community get this one right.

Sure. The international community will just add that to the slush pile & get back to you ne’er ¡real soon!

He violates international laws, and in doing so he defiles the moral foundations of many nations.

That would require nations to have any moral foundations in the 1st place, which is a false postulate, so we don’t need to worry ’bout that problem.

This beat Mr. Apples & Apples as worst article o’ them all. A’least that 1 was funny & was debatably right in how the death penalty could be either-or morally. This article is painfully boring & stupid, specially from a Lieutenant General, who should have a better grasp o’ realpolitik than a 5-year-ol’.

Tier: F

Thankfully, that was the last o’ them. Here’s our complete tier list you can hang on your fridge or wall so when anyone else sees it they can ask, <¿Who the hell are these assholes?>.

( Note: as it turns out, the “apples & apples proves we don’t know anything ’bout death penalty” guy is the same as the Supreme Court revisionism guy, so I represented the latter with his face & the former with a picture o’ 2 apples ).

Autumn wanted to ask Dawn how she e’er convinced her to set up a detective agency till she remembered that she already knew how, having been there @ the time. Then she took a sip o’ her coffee.

<This’ll get you out from under the smothers o’ your covers & using your calculator mind for something refreshing for a spin. That’s the problem: you’ve been doing stealing so much that you need to try something else for a while>, Dawn said, as if reading Autumn’s mind, which would be a rude thing to do.

Autumn nodded. Autumn could see why Dawn would think that way, since Dawn tried a million different things & ne’er finished any o’ them. Since Autumn knew this, she wasn’t sure why she thought ’bout it, much as how she wasn’t sure why she wasted time thinking the things she’d already thought multiple times — “Give it up, chump”, “¿Why am I doing this thing I’m going to keep doing e’en after asking?”, & “Perhaps I should stop being a rancid asshole this season”.

Autumn stared @ the rotary phone with 1 hand tapping the rim o’ her coffee mug & the other tapping the table. She didn’t ask why the phone was rotary, tho, e’en in her head. ’Twas better not to ask such things o’ this devilish realm their cruel literary god placed them in like slaves. She didn’t ask why everything was grayscale. For 1, it wasn’t grayscale, but a soupy pea green. She didn’t ask how she knew what color everything was when everything was just words in windows.

Continue story…

Yes, I’m not kidding. This is why I’m 100% justified in hating these o’errated faux-liberal papers — they’re all the worst dregs o’ pretend humanity.

They have the fucking gall to masturbate to this war by proclaiming it a “revitalization” to the “liberal international order”, which sounds like something out o’ an alt-right conspiracy theory. ¿Has James O’Keefe donned his magical pimp disguise once ’gain & snuck in to sneak this gem into The Atlantic’s papers?

But I’m less interested in the laughable combination o’ sociopathy & just plain ol’ social incompetence one must have to cheer o’er dead Ukrainians ( & Russians forced into this war to no benefit to them by their dictator ) ’cause their bloody corpses make westerners look good. These people being morally bankrupt & out-o’-touch is ol’ news, & should be no surprise e’en if ’twere, considering how their sheltered, artificial upbringing must’ve completely starved them o’ any capacity for empathy or compassion with the dirty “NPC”s as they call them while they masturbate to Aaron Sorkin pretending he’s John Galt. No, I’m mo’ fascinated by the way this sheltered upbringing has left these people in an alternate dimension where they think the west — & specially liberalism — looks good in this scenario.

¿What is The Atlantic’s idea o’ “liberalism”, anyway? War isn’t what I consider to be a triumph o’ liberalism, that’s mo’ conservativism’s angle; I consider being able to avoid it a triumph for liberalism. As it turns out, the west failed to do so. In fact, the US didn’t e’en try, but intentionally stokes wars whene’er it can ’cause the US isn’t liberal or democratic @ all, but a far-right empire.

Funny story that The Atlantic doesn’t bring up, ’cause it’s a bit o’ a damper on their sexy party going on here: Ukraine used to have nukes. If they still had them, Russia wouldn’t have invaded them, ’cause if they had, Russia, & probably the rest o’ the world, wouldn’t be anymo’. But then the US, Ukraine, & Russia all made a happy agreement to take ’way Ukraine’s nukes, which I’m sure made Christopher Reeves’s Superman happy, but is probably making the thousands o’ Ukrainians now dead much less happy. Part o’ this agreement was “security assurances”, wherein Ukraine could cry to the Security Council if, say, Russia should be “aggressive” toward them, which in my humble opinion invasion sounds a lot like, & then the US & the rest o’ Europe can laugh & tell Ukraine to eat a dick. Many westerners are quick to raise their fists @ Russia for their obvious breach o’ this contract, as if Russia cares ’bout their opinion or this dumb, meaningless memorandum, but say nothing ’bout the US’s own breaching by doing jack shit to provide security assurances to Ukraine after the US encouraged Ukraine to leave themselves vulnerable to invasion. To be fair to Russia ( so we’re good “centrists”, we need to look @ both sides, both the tyrannical invader & the victim, just as we had to look @ “both sides” when discussing the Vietnam War ), the US also gave some vaguely informal promise to Gorbachev to not expand NATO into former Soviet countries, which the US also broke, tho, to be fair, that was voluntary on those former Soviet countries’ parts & maybe the US & Russia shouldn’t be cooking up agreements ’mong themselves revolving round other countries.

¿This is a triumph o’ the “liberal order”? — which, laughably, includes the US, a country that has done several much worse illegal invasions, which any normal person outside the US would call “fascist”, not liberal. Just recently I was exposed to a fascinating experiment on doublethink on my own soil when I saw the US president say “Putin cannot remain in Power” ( but then also said he wasn’t talking ’bout regime change, e’en tho that is exactly what it is, ’cause he, like just ’bout all US politicians, is a drooling senile, who, like many Americans spewing aimless vitriol, would make better use o’ his time going back to playing as Luigi in Mario Kart, which he was much better @ than doing this whole leading a country thing ) & witnessed the stampede o’ fake liberals — not self-described conservatives, tho with their nationalistic flag heiling & Russophobia it’s hard for me to distinguish them — cheer him on. Yes, it’s a sentiment I agree with by itself, but from him it’s like praising Stalin for attacking Hitler. Apparently I’m 1 o’ the few Americans with memory longer than a goldfish’s who can remember that this same president voted yes on an illegal invasion that killed hundreds o’ thousands, or it’s just considered rude by a political class, who, just like conservatives, find it unfathomable that one can oppose multiple parties gainst each other ( ’gain, anyone with sanity would’ve had to when Stalin & Hitler were duking it out ), criticizing any mention o’ Biden & the rest o’ the US government’s war crimes as “whataboutism”, which is when someone’s crazy ’nough to believe in consistently-applied principles. As true as it would be that the world would be safer with Putin gone, it’s an unquestionable fact that the world would be much safer if the US government were o’erthrown. This is considered a truism in most o’ the world, specially the “3rd world”; only someone completely brainwashed by American propaganda — which is almost all Americans & mostly just Americans — would deny this. ( Note, tho, that I am most certainly not talking ’bout regime change, but just expressing my moral outrage @ a country that has been mass murdering primary non-white populations for its entire existence & nobody should take it serious, guys, which is why I felt the need to say it, since saying things that apparently have no meaning is the smartest use o’ words ).

& yet how many o’ these chickenhawks masturbating to such violent language when its some filthy foreigner far off would cheer on such a thing on their own soil? Obviously very few, since they don’t cheer it on ’cause they have any semblance o’ morals, — we’ve just established that The Atlantic are all sociopaths who cheer on dead Ukrainians when it makes them look good rather than show sadness like actual human beings would — but ’cause it makes them look good ’mong all the others in the US circlejerk to jerk each other off. That’s all this article is: sad masturbation from a newspaper rightfully losing legitimacy right ’long with the country it stays devoted to, which is also, rightfully, losing legitimacy, not the least ’cause o’ its incompetent handling o’ this whole situation. Yes, you “liberals” are so brave & strong shaking your fist & doing nothing else gainst a dictator who has no power o’er you. You’re totally going to o’erthrow Putin & make Russia a rich ( well, for 1% o’ the population; we must keep 99% o’ its population relatively poor, since doing otherwise would be vile communism — so basically, what Russia is already ) “liberal” “democracy” with your inane articles, just like how I’m totally going to o’erthrow the US government & bring ’bout sexy anarcho-communism with my mean blog posts. I’m sure the families o’ dead Ukrainians will feel good that a’least their sacrifice made some empty “liberal order” that has done nothing for them look good to a bunch of o’erfed morons in the US.

This isn’t e’en getting into how stupid Biden’s statement was, disregarding squishy morality, just in terms o’ realpolitik: Biden accomplished nothing but turning himself into a Russian strawman, as if Putin wrote his speech to make him look bad. Which is why Biden had to sputter out that fine print afterward. He knew he fucked up — just like that time he fell off Choco Mountain & ended up in 8th place.

Maybe you could say it’s Ukraine’s fault for trusting the US, a country notorious for breaking contracts. Maybe they should’ve asked some Native Americans how valuable a pinky promise from the US is. But if so-called liberals like The Atlantic are truly so furious @ what’s happening to Ukraine as they pretend to be, maybe they shouldn’t be praising a “liberal order” that intentionally provoked Russia for decades, & yet, hilariously, left Ukraine in a vulnerable spot. If the US’s goal was to keep Russia from invading Ukraine, the only rational conclusion is that the US are dumbasses. ¡I mean, the west’s hands were tied! Ukraine took too long to join NATO, & by the time they wanted to, they had already lost land to Russia in an invasion, which, for reasons that could only be considered cowardly, precludes countries from joining NATO in their rules. NATO is an organization that exists, ostensibly, to defend people who need it, but refuses to help precisely those who actually need it, ’cause they might actually have to do their job & defend. People like to raise their fists @ Putin for this vile trick — ’gain, ignoring the fact that Putin hates them & doesn’t care ’bout their opinion — but say nothing o’ a stupid or apathetic west that made it so easy for Putin to pull off such a basic trick that several commentators & pundits were talking ’bout long before the result that everyone expected happened.

¡But look @ what a triumph o’ liberalism we have! Ukrainians are dying & their country is being blitzed; Russia’s economy is being strangled by sanctions so hard that they’ll probably ne’er recover; — which means Russia will probably ne’er get e’en western oligarchy’s conception o’ “liberal democracy”, since economic ruin is hardly conductive to healthy governments — Europe’s cut off from Russia’s economy, further dividing Europe; & the US is on the verge o’ a fascist takeo’er heavily influenced by Russian misinformation. That in a year when no one thinks the Democratic Party won’t get demolished in the midterms — which means the legislative branch will probably be filled with people sympathetic to Putin, which I’m sure will work well for that “liberal order” you have — The Atlantic proclaims triumph for “liberalism” is astoundingly delusional.

No, I know exactly what this war will bring; the same thing every war brings: greater authoritarianism from governments all round the world that have a “security” ’scuse for greater restriction o’ liberties & greater poverty for the poorest, while the richest still make lots o’ money selling weapons to a poor Eastern European country they fucked o’er ( like always, whether a triumph for the west or Russia, Eastern Europe gets fucked by both, as they have always gotten thruout history ). But The Atlantic aren’t real liberals, — they have ne’er cared ’bout poor people or the rights o’ anyone but rich white people — so they’re not concerned. Granted, they should be, ’cause if that aforementioned fascist takeo’er does happen in the US, their asses are getting the chopping block just like everyone else, & nobody will say anything, ¿’cause who the fuck cares if someone kills The Atlantic? They’re the fucking Atlantic — they used to pretend Scientology advertisements were news stories ( ¡Ne’er live it down, guys! ).

Bonus Shocking News: Ordinary Americans Are Terrible People, Too

I’ve mostly been focusing on the big boys in government & in the papers, but ’cause I hate myself, I’ve also been looking thru what the average moron thinks on places like r/worldnews & r/politics, & immediately regret it each time when I learn that what they think is a hive mind o’ ignorant racism & myopia. It’s fascinating in a horrifying way & gives a warning to what the future for the US holds: these people ne’er gave 2 shits ’bout Ukraine or probably e’en knew it existed, — they certainly ne’er cared when ’twas invaded back in 2014 & the west did jack shit then, either — but now that whate’er media they’ve been swallowing uncritically have become the 24/7 Ukraine channels & have drilled into them that any minor quibble gainst the US or Biden or Europe is pro-Putin, no matter how much one supports the sanctions or e’en outright military intervention ( which the US & Europe haven’t e’en done — nonetheless we must accept that this incoherence is what is right & put trust in our masters like good servants ).

This is nothing new. I saw the same insanity — in fact, e’en mo’ insanity — after 9/11. It’s a reminder why the US is on the verge o’ fascist takeo’er: the average American people have always been totalitarian-spirited.

For instance we have a thread wherein Redditors get pissed to the point o’ wanting to sanction, invade, & e’en nuke Switzerland — yes, that’s right, Switzerland — ’cause they dared to keep to their historical neutrality ( which they broke, anyway, presumably after the west pressured them to get in line ). My favorite part is the few times some Swiss person deigns to respond to the hilarious & clever jokes ’bout chocolate & Nazi gold by casually mentioning how better standing round while others die is to actively killing people & the American babbles out incoherently how they’re better ’cause they acknowledge the bad things they do… which the Swiss guy does, too…

& then we have discussion surrounding an article pointing out that Africans have been having deadly wars fore’er & nobody cares ’cause they’re not white like Ukrainians. What I love most ’bout most o’ the comments is how they reveal the bizarrely inhuman way most Americans think. The article is clearly asking for nothing beyond cheap sympathy & maybe @ the most some money, but most o’ the responses are this kind o’ petulant, <Well, ¿what are we s’posed to do ’bout it? ¿Intervene? Then everyone will say we’re dictators. We can’t win no matter what we do. ¡Americans have it so hard! ¡What do these whiny Ethiopians have to complain ’bout when they don’t have to suffer hearing people say mean things ’bout my country while screwing round on the internet all day ’stead o’ actually working?>. It’s not the narcissism & pity party they’re throwing for themselves that’s surprising — that’s just humanity in general; I expect no different from any other rich people. No, it’s the inescapable implication that in their minds news o’ civil wars are only useful insofar as they say who Americans should kill or not kill; the idea o’ telling someone a sad story simply so they can express empathy or give help that doesn’t involve violence is foreign to Americans, who lack any form o’ empathy whatsoe’er, & operate under a caveman mentality that violence is the option to everything. This is why our solution to school shootings is giving mo’ people guns, since the only way to stop kids shooting people is to shoot those kids 1st, & the US would rather spend trillions on military to prevent a 9/11 maybe every century or so, but not e’en a fraction o’ that on health care to prevent the same # o’ deaths every year. Since you can’t shoot cancer ( well, ’less you’re a German donating to Games Done Quick ), heart disease, diabetes, or mental illness ( tho you can shoot mentally ill people or throw them in prison, which is the usual recommended procedure ), Americans aren’t interested in solving these unsexy problems.

& then we have this amazing subthread wherein a racist “racial realist” gives a totally scientific explanation — lacking any form o’ references & contradicting what mainstream historians, who are not racists “racial realists”, but they’re just saying these things as part o’ the conspiracy, so we can ignore what they say & only listen to ideas that correspond to his as authority, which, conveniently, makes it impossible to falsify his arguments — o’ how Africans wouldn’t have had medicine or roads without white people, which can be totally proved by… C’mon, guys. ( Ne’er mind that much o’ this had to be built by Africans & was mainly enjoyed by white people for a few centuries before white people were nice ’nough to let them have some o’ their own handiwork after using it for a few centuries ). These totally not sloppy stereotypes out o’ minstrel are just “serious facts”, & if you guys are so obsessed with this morality thing — which is the core topic here — then maybe you should talk to 1 o’ your silly superstitious priests ( you know, the people s’posedly civilized white people followed while creating all that medicine & all those roads ).

Ne’er change, fellow Americans. ( Please do: you’re an embarrassment ).