GarbageShoot

Because if anyone has incentive to say he was assassinated, it's Ukraine, so we can be pretty sure they're telling the truth.

Tell us about their "anti-corporate bias" next. I was just making fun of the same page you cite when I was discussing this site other day.

Literally not a fallacy, your reasoning hinges on Great Man Theory. The two most popular parties (the second being the communist party) both mainly support the war and the assassination of a sitting President would not, in fact, make the country more dove-ish. It's a cartoon view of the conflict that the war spawned from Putin's brain and is his personal pet project that he is subjecting the rest of Russia to.

I think Kautsky was really the first and also a somewhat closer comparison other than that Kautsky once had value.

That's the one!

Let's be fair etc. I can't find the one that is specifically (I think) an SS soldier with motion blur to suggest being tossed into the Barbara Pit, but you get the idea.

We'd need to go back to conducting raids for that.

Any time

Let me rephrase: The western front would have opened either way, but the War on Two Fronts situation would have been radically diminished if the Nazis invaded the Soviets earlier, as it was openly the plan of western reactionaries to pit the Nazis against the Soviets and then deal with whoever won after (hence their resistance to an antifascist alliance). The Pact (1939) was useful in stalling for time in an absolute sense, certainly, but it also helped prevent the Soviets from being effectively the sole focus of the Nazis (who, in the meantime and in their need for expansion, invaded other countries, including Britain in 1940), as Operation Barbarossa only started in 1941 (still earlier than the Soviets planned, but a delay nonetheless).

So my point is that the strain of handling these conflicts simultaneously was one of the major factors in the Nazis being defeated, but westerners were actively planning on preventing such a situation from arising, hence a need for the Pact to stall the Nazis (along with the more broad use of industrial development, etc.)

I've read that article a few times and it's stuck with me. What I don't get, however, is why so much money is spent on "persuasion" messaging if that stuff in theory doesn't work?

The essay discusses this, but so do I:

Incidentally, since survival strategies are based on one's environment, the best way to spread survival strategies (besides really getting to know someone's conditions) is seeking to change the environment.

The cool thing about being tremendously rich and holding sway in media companies is that you can change the environment of tens of millions of people nearly at will by not merely giving them an input but a saturation of inputs, which crowd out what most of the tiny voices are able to accomplish. Between this and the fact that the overwhelming bulk of the ideology behind those ads is in bipartisan agreement, this seems pretty understandable.

Only few people are really swayed to a new position by some stupid ad, but you can impact their enthusiasm, you can change what they are used to and what they see as normal, there is quite a lot that you can do to a population when you embrace more indirect types of influence. The man on the TV can't dictate to you what to think, good arguments or no, but he is like a common "friend" to you and everyone you know who is happy to influence each of you individually just like your other friends do, not to do what they say but to think in terms more like theirs.

It's an overwhelming reason that personal advocacy is such an uphill struggle that it's competing with the superstructure of ideology that is bankrolled by the millions like this from public schools to political campaigns to every park and monument and song and TV show and commercial. You can't yell louder than a thousand of those voices and all you'll do is fuck up your relationships and isolate yourself if you try. You wouldn't even need to raise your voice if you just had a billion dollar microphone, though.

(though also those campaigns are just stuffed with money-laundering, but that's beside the point)

It's genuinely exhausting keeping track of the figurative logic circuit needed to interpret this, but I think you can get a coherent [not correct] statement from this. They oppose abortion, so they dislike Fascism for [supposedly] protecting it and support anarchism for [supposedly] opposing it. I think it's probably because of some un-deconstructed "Planned Parenthood = Eugenics" brainworms but jesus christ this poor kid.

The ones that want to stay inside are. The ones that don't can be forgiven, they just need to be kept inside.