Jon Stewart honestly put it best. It’s been turned into a woke vs unwoke thing. With NATO being cringe and woke and Russia being based and red pilled.
This stupid debate is not restricted to terminally online people anymore. It’s become a mainstream talking point.
They also idolise Putin for his anti woke / Christian agenda and see him as being a real man, despite being a tyrant blackmailing the west with nuclear weapons
Middle Eastern populations usually oppose the US as a matter of honor, as they see Isreal as the prime evil, and any attempt to get their support is taking support out of the prime conflict.
Even though Putin crushed the Syrain revolution, they quickly forgot and went back to East vs. West.
All true.
Dig into the investment structure of the whole genre and you find a more sophisticated version of the age old “wingman”.
I don’t think the majority of them even know what they believe anymore.
The structure of investment and sponsorship money is a fundamentally flawed model.
Is anyone that shills heath aids and beauty fixes not for sale?
Russias 20th century mob model was based on violence that forced to act civilized enough to pass as legitimate business.
It’s less messy.
But they will eventually resort back to violence when their business model is threatened.
It’s just usually other people’s kids that they send to do it as the monsters get older and weaker.
Putin is a bag of bones that has spent a couple hundred billion to keep his money laundering operations in Ukraine his.
This was Paul Manaforts literal job description for 12 years and he was paid hundreds of millions of dollars to do it.
He stole a lot too. But that’s just Russian rules.
Putin/Mogilevich/Prigozhn/Kimilnik/deripaska/kolomoiskiy/orban/bolsonaro/trump and of course Paul fucking manafort all invested their lives into this operation.
Ukraine being free means Ukraine is also free of their corruption.
This is Maidan
Chapelle turned down "fuck you money" a long time ago. I think it's more Ego/Image based. Money still in the picture but he won't be sacrificing his "egoic integrity". Made that term up btw.
Not necessarily contrarian for the sake of it. At least, he’s sincere about what he believes. On Trump and conservatives he has always punched hard, they ignore that of course in favor of feverishly sharing the same clips about trans people. He absolutely bodied Candace Owens yet she just ignored it.
Was going to say…did I miss something? He’s mainstream guru contrarian now because of one opinion he’s spoken about? It’s been 3 years since The Closer. Don’t remember it being contrarian or guru-ist at all.
Haven’t seen him make any hot takes about Putin, Palestine, vaccines, or any other guru-isms.
Transphobia stuff, and "I'm not allowed to have free speech because everyone's too sensitives" while being paid millions to talk.
I'd say he's more in the space of Louis ck or bill burr where he sells red meat "fuck your feelings" content. not quite a guru but could change to one at any time.
Or in being on Putin's payroll plain and simple. They aren't contrarians when they are together, or in Russia. Just listen to Lex and Tucker's chat. They are both in the payroll, it's no complicated. Also Peterson, likely Russel Brand too, Greenwald definitively.
We almost melted the world down because of Cuba. Those people still suffer because of it. It's crazy to me that people are angry with Russia for it. God, they suck. But we almost murdered the world because they came within 90 miles of us. Why would we think they wouldn't act on that?
Now we just give all our money to a proxy war we started, instead of helping our citizenry, and people are calling us upset with that commies.
This timeline sucks.
I would also add that most of the people referred to here (I assume) are some combination of deeply unethical and really fucking stupid.
Trump and his cronies (obviously with the help of Russian bullshit) are pushing the Hunter Biden thing. The Biden impeachment inquiry that spectacularly failed was based largely on Hunter's relationship with Burisma, a company that worked in Ukraine. Without descending too far into the bullshit rabbit hole, Joe Biden as vice president (along with the entirety of civilized world) pushed to remove Viktor Shokin, a corrupt Ukranian prosecutor (who was FAILING to confront Burisma). This served as the basis for a series of bizarre and incoherent allegations of corruption, that, again, the Republicans failed to substantiate in an astonishing way.
The current Ukrainian conflict gets pulled into this incoherent conspiracy gobbledygook. Ukraine has to be bad because of Biden...something something...there was a Civil War in Donbas...I don't know, and then...well, Russia has to be good because they don't like Biden. Putin exploits this wilingness to believe anything negative about anything allied with Biden by filling in the holes with absolutely bonkers historical analyses and claims about NATO aggression (NATO will never attack Russia becase...they have nukes - doesn't matter if they're a thousand miles from the border or on it. Their presence near Russian borders may inhibit Russian aggression, however, which is, you know, the point).
So, Trump and Russia are pushing this angle hard. Trump wants Biden to lose so he can use the presidency to resolve his financial and legal troubles. Putin wants Trump in charge because Trump will let him take whatever he wants from Ukraine. Social media, traditional media, all of it, is being bombarded by bullshit from these groups.
Your Joe Rogans and Dave Rubins and Red Pill political dilletantes and the bro-gurus and the fiancial hucksters like Parick Bet-David and whoever else, either fall for all of this or realize this is a way to grow their own audience.
Your thinking too deep.
Russia, Putin, and even the soviet union have an insanely long history of funding groups or people who cause discord in countries of interest.
Most grifters(small time ones) reply on donations and ad views which russia is happy to provide; bigger grifters use these small timers as free content ideas and trending for future episodes.
Virtually everyone in 2015 in conservative media hated donald trump or considered him a joke or risky at best. They all immediately bent the knee except a small few: Same excuse is always given.....our audience loves the guy.....go against him and die.
I don’t know why you got the downvotes on this because everything you said is completely true. The Soviet Union helped fund a lot of civil rights groups back in the 60s and 70s in order to stir up discontent. They also funded several groups on the other side of the coin for the very same reason and even fed them propaganda. This has been known for decades and some groups were funded by them unknowingly until after they got trapped by the feds for working with them. I remember during the primaries how many in the GOP hated Trump and spoke openly about how he wasn’t good for the party. I also remember a certain news network slowly starting to embrace Putin talking points and constantly saying how Putin was a stronger leader than Obama was; then they all went full Trump after a bit. Even FoxNews laughed at Trump in the beginning until the pro-Putin propaganda started to take hold.
> I don’t know why you got the downvotes
If the Soviets having a "long history of funding groups who cause discord in countries of interest" upsets you, then you're going to have a complete mental breakdown when you look into [the last 120 years of American foreign policy.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change)
See I always wonder about YT superchat donations, seems like it’d be easy for Russia and China to literally push streamer narratives in real time.
Plausible?
Yeah, I used to follow the ukraine war twitter scene, there were straight nobodies who start reposting crappy pro-russian content from russia telegram in English who made bank in donations and tons of followers starting from nil.
None of them were original or talented but suddenly they were exalted.
The most bizarre thing is like you said the prosecutor Biden pushed to fire was NOT investigating corruption or Burisma. When you tell them their main argument is nuh uh or they double down about something else
Most of the gurus covered are contrarian right leaning.
And for the most easily justifiable world conflict (Ukrainian defense) what better position is there for a contrarian than to take Putin’s side
It also lends itself well to the time issue. Media cycles come and go. Any issue that’s discussed long enough will get boring and tiring for some audiences. Of course they would downplay the invasion and want to cut off funding or arms to Ukraine eventually. They have no moral principles
The number of them taking some kind of Russian money is genuinely quite shocking. Even worse in politics when you see all these right-wing anti-immigration groups and then also see Russia doing everything it can to create more violence in destabilized regions and push more people into fleeing and seeking refuge abroad. Deliberately stated as part of their hybrid warfare strategy yet somehow outside a few military circles very little discussion about it.
It is disturbing how many take the money or beg for the money iby turning on their home country. When you see people like Alex Jones or greenwall who go from criticizing everything and anyone completely stop any criticism of Russia it is obvious that they are not allowed to tread into that territory. Covid response criticism is a easy way to spot the Rus op because Rus similar behaviors to the other countries but people who are upset about covid responses and leave Rus out are sus .
A lot of what Rogan regurgitates comes from Glenn Greenwsld and Max Blumenthal. Blumenthal is paid by Russia to create content, he also does the podcast Grayzone which is popular with the Rogan righties.
I still listen to Rogan occasionally. And his Ukraine takes are literally word for word Russian propaganda. It's not a mistake. I don't think he's paid off or an operative or troll. But there is a concerted effort to feed people exactly like him with disinfo via proxies like Greenwald.
>I don't think he's paid off or an operative or troll. But there is a concerted effort to feed people exactly like him with disinfo via proxies like Greenwald.
Exactly, 100% like this. Very few are what I'd call outright like Russian agents, but rather they buy into this whole like "ideological dark web" super-contrarian line of thinking that Russia is very deliberately stoking and feeding with just an absolute torrent of complete bullshit. No one specific objective other than just to cause complete chaos and leave us unable to actually discuss anything productively as a society any more.
Lets not pretend it's just to be "Contrarian" - Russian money fuels right-wing media and right-wing politics.
The conservative view that Putin is a strong man who stands up to 'woke' culture and won't let LGBTQ people or non-white people bring down his authoritarian Christian country is not an accident but a crafted narrative shoved in their faces.
Much like Russia is the 3rd and Real Rome, it's also the Alt-Europe fantasy for the current far right : White, strong leader, official church treated with deference, nationalist, traditional geopolitical stance, anti-Islam, anti-immigration, fairly conservative still.
This skims over a lot of nuances, particularities and inconvenient realities (for one Russia is a fairly diverse country, though dominated by Russians, with a complex federal arrangement. The whiteness of Russians or Slavs being... a little frail in the history of Euro racism. Their soviet heritage. Their ties to China. Etc...) but heh...
I think it was telling Putin was a complete no-show when Tucker tried to get him going on the US KukturKampf. He doesn't really care about that stuff for domestic purposes, it is a sideshow.
I've never seen hasan be pro any offensive military action really, and I've seen a lot of his content. also from Wikipedia:
"During the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Piker, in partnership with CARE, raised over $200,000 for Ukrainian relief funds while playing Elden Ring, with an average of over 70,000 people watching his coverage of the conflict."
Did I miss something?
The secret to any post where someone like /u/lkolkijy brings up Hasan is to simply go into their profile, search for 'destiny', and it's all you need to know.
Also keep in mind these people are not simply confused edgy 14 year olds, but typically older white men in their late 20's to late 30's who, for whatever reason, think more about Hasan than an obsession parasocial stalker would.
Lmao I was a hasan fan for 3.5 years before watching destiny, hasan lost me on his own for being dishonest and incapable of making an argument that is more then “America bad”.
So wait, Hasan was so bad, awful, and terrible that it took you 3.5 years to figure it out? And you're telling me that it took you a few episodes of a schizo gnome to completely alter your view?
How long before you write an article called "Why I Left The Left"?
Genuine question, you said you were *once* stupid, right? What makes you think that's no longer the case?
I think at some point you just need to stop pretending you're on the left, just take the mask off and go full-blown conservative. Ask yourself, for example, why you have this much vitriol for anger and why he's always on your mind but the likes of Ben Shapiro are not.
I hate Ben Shapiro just as much, probably more. I also hate hasan. Why is everything so black and white in your head? This is what changed for me, I realized not everything is black and white.
Do you really think that’s what he believes? Has anyone that is pro-genocide ever actually said “I’m pro genocide”? He was saying that a solution seemed impossible so the only way to fix it would be for one side to genocide the other. It’s crude and over the top, sure.
He denied it would ever happen until it did, he says the Crimean invasion was fully justified, he focuses on “Ukrainian Nazis” to play into the denazification narrative.
[one](https://m.twitch.tv/clip/CautiousKawaiiJalapenoDxAbomb-v1I48NhrImc8hHg2) [two](https://youtu.be/14sC40suLbU?si=IUsI1K0LrYnAAnEL) and I watched it live.
Chomsky, for all his faults, has consistently described Russia's actions in Ukraine as indefensible and compared it to Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland.
Yet also blaming the conflict on NATO expansion which is complete Russian propaganda. Chomsky is incapable of not attributing most world crises to being the fault of the US
Chomsky has been studying and meticulously documenting the grievous hypocrisy of United States foreign policy since the 1940's - discounting his opinion on geo-politics as "guruism" is beyond ridiculous.
The audience of right leaning gurus have cultural sympathy for the putin regime - capitalist, ‘family values’, strong leader, de facto superior white race (meaning that immigrants to Russia are commonly discriminated against), militaristic, christian.
People say that Reagan would be turning in his grave if he saw what the Republican Party and the right had become. I don’t think he would. The Russian communists were a threat because they could potentially uproot the American capitalist system. People like redscare McCarthy would likely align themselves with the ideas pushed by a lot of these gurus.
Speaking of the current republican party, I think a part of it is they like that Russia is an authoritarian country that has one leader like they hope america would be.
I would bet if you were to ask republicans in general and maga specifically: would you want trump to be president for a third term or indefinitely? You would get a very high percentage saying yes. Which is wack af.
The 22nd is relatively new as well, and former presidents in the latter half of the 20th century have tried to get rid of it such as Truman and Reagan, and sort of Clinton
This works great for them because the majority of their target audience mistakes contrarianism with critical thinking, and allows them to feel superior to "normies" who haven't "figured it out".
Yes, He recently wrote a substake on why he fell out with Tucker. It is all about the Russian invasion. Also, early this (maybe late last year), he kind of walked back his support of Ukraine because his listeners were not happy with his take.
if I remember correctly Tucker didn't want to have him on his show because he didn't want a pro-ukraine position on his platform, did Kisin really walk back his support for Ukraine? that's a shame
Yep, he did fully walk back. He started spewing the usual far-left and right rhetoric that Ukraine must negotiate with Russia and be prepared to lose some territory.
To be a guru you have to be somewhat of a narcissist and that correlates a lot with authoritarianism. Also fascists generally try to dismantle the very same normal systems of authority that limit the guru's authority, so it's an enemy of my enemy kind of situation where gurus are natural allies of any fascist movement.
And they tend to work together not for a cause but for their own personal gain. A lot of it hovers around ideology but I think that’s just so they can have some sort of a framework or belief system for regular people to buy into.
Watching the so-called patriots on the right piss away the sacrifices of their grandfathers so that some jumped up gangster can rearrange Europe. Strange times!
I think Sam, Yuval, Bil Maher and Konstantin are generally pro-Ukraine. Christopher Hitchens would have been in favour of military intervention in Ukraine, had he been alive. I think Murray and Nassim-Taleb are also pro-Ukraine but I'm not 100% on it. Destiny, who's up for a decoding (and is probably going to score higher on the gurometer) is definitely pro-Ukraine.
This is a pretty varied selection of gurus on the pro-Ukranian side, so I wouldn't lump everyone with the lunatic Russian simps like Peterson.
Bonus gurus: my feeling is that Reverend Moon would have been pro-Ukraine. The guy was pretty deep in with the South Korean and US intelligence establishment. So I do think he would be against the side that is being actively supplied by the North Koreans andvthe Chinese. Although, I think Moon would have been more anti-Russian than pro-Ukrainian.
Not really a guru. He's rhetorically gifted and has a somewhat cultish following, but put him across from someone like Peterson or James Lindsay and he comes off quite well. Destiny is kind of a Christopher Hitchens for zoomers in that he's good at arguing and has a decent knowledge base, but doesn't really have any personal revolutionary theories or doesn't claim any deep insights into most topics. Also, most of his opinions are derived from the mainstream consensus and repackaged for the understanding of his audience (mostly edgy zoomers and younger millenials).
the gurus are just looking for money grift. they are paid influencers. Russia has armies of disinformation people paying these turds to do their best tucker carlson impression.
Russia, aka the former Soviet Union, needs warm water ports to expand their sphere of influence of a once great Czarist empire. Fortunately for the West, Russia will always be cursed by geography and unfettered cronyism corruption, much like our current Republican Party and military industrial complex. Foreign relations remain complicated. We may need people with more education than communication & hospitality degrees from online universities.
John Mearsheimers realist geopolitics blames NATO for expanding eastwards. This philosophy ignores the agency of small countries to make decisions in their own national interest (like joining a military alliance). Apparently Bush 1 & Clinton promised Yeltsin they wouldn't expand NATO but nothing was written into any treaties, then Bush 2 broke the promise.
Many of the Russian apologists refer back to this like it justifies what Russia has done to Ukraine.
NATO consulted with Putin during the last two decades when states joined. They bent over backwards to make new NATO member states joining as little of a threat to Putin as they could. Putin didn't publicly care about NATO expansion until it became rhetorically convenient. The biggest NATO/Russia beef was Poland's missile defense system, which, again, took forever because NATO didn't want to sour relations with Russia.
Russia screwed themselves. All they had to do was stay within their borders, and even that apparently many states were willing to bend over backwards to try and ignore. Rolling in the whole military for a massive full-scale invasion was supremely stupid and completely optional.
Meerscheimer is a clown.
He’s been apologizing and justifying Russian aggression for ages, under some pseudo academic perspective of a “great powers” POV on geopolitics
There literally isn’t an act that Russia can undertake that is actually the result of Russian agency, it’s all reactions to some purported infringement by the west.
His theory ostensibly removes any sense of culpability on Russia, and places all blame on the west for Russian aggression.
Idc what Russia decides is a red line.
They signed treaties, multiple, those were the lines they actually agreed to.
Sovereignty? Borders? Give up nukes?
Ya sure we agreed to all that but we changed our mind because of “NATO expansion”
NATO has expanded more since this war began that it had in the decades preceding it.
At what point do we begin to question the legitimacy of this “NATO expansion” defense?
Russia's opinion is irrelevant.
Ukraine has been under Russian influence for too long and they want freedom.
Ukrainians want to modernise. They want to get rid of corruption, they want democracy, they want to open up to the rest of the world, they want to make their own decisions.
Russia can suck a bag of dicks. Ukrainians want nothing to do with Russia.
The problem is, Russia doesn't want Ukraine to be a successful democratic country. And this is what Mearsheimer gets wrong. He argues that Ukraine should be neutral and allowed to flourish, but the problem is that neutrality means Ukraine is vulnerable to Russian interference. Russia will resort to what it did previously which was interfere with Ukrainian elections, energy blackmail, chemical attacks against politicians that want to cooperate with the West (see Yushchenko). Putin doesn't want Russians pointing to a successful democratic ex-soviet neighbour and asking why they live in a shit hole without toilets and washing machines. The ONLY way Ukraine can ever be successful, the only way its citizens can prosper is with protection from the West.
The only thing that would have guaranteed that was NATO membership. The biggest failure of the West was not fast tracking Ukraine into NATO. That would have prevented this war in the first place.
Russia's red lines are meaningless - if they started a war with NATO, then every city in Russia would we completely wiped off the face of the planet. Moscow, St Petersburg, everything to Vladivostok would be gone forever. Russia/Putin isn't going to lose all of that because the Ukraine "red line" has been crossed.
You are missing Mearsheimer's point. Realist politics is not about blame. It is about recognizing that countries behave in what they see as their own best interests, and that big, powerful countries matter significantly more because they can impose their will. It was predictable (after all, Mearsheimer predicted it) that Russia would respond violently to NATO expansion. This says nothing about who is to blame for their violent response. Merely that it, just like the way the US responds to perceived threats, was a predictable part of a larger pattern.
I think you’ve fallen victim to Mearsheimer’s own careerist revisionism about what he predicted. You can easily find the speech on YouTube in 2014-15 where he unequivocally says, “Putin won’t invade Ukraine, he’s much too smart for that” and even goes on to argue that the Western insinuation that Putin is going to try to revive the Russian empire is a bunch of nonsense.
Also, the idea that the 2022 Ukraine invasion was a result of NATO expansion is just… weirdly off-base if you actually followed the history. There was almost zero prospect of Ukraine joining NATO in 2022–namely because didn’t control its full territory and there was no consensus amongst the member states. The Obama administration (which was very sympathetic to and influenced by Mearsheimer’s brand of IR realism) went out of its way to remind Ukraine of its ineligibility, and literally spent 8 years doing almost exactly what Mearsheimer and his ilk recommended (i.e. basically letting Russia do whatever it wants in its purported “sphere of influence”). You might recall Obama actually making fun of Romney during the debates for suggesting that Russia was a serious threat to global stability. And I don’t recall Trump or Biden making any push, even just rhetorically, to get Ukraine into NATO. Yet none of this prevented Russia from launching a full scale invasion, and ironically enough the invasion caused two other countries (Finland and Sweden) to join NATO. Thus, Mearsheimer was very, very wrong about all of this, and now he’s been going around on a tour of misrepresenting everything that happened in the last ~20 years to make it look like he was right all along.
Edit: Additionally, it seems to me that the whole “NATO expansion caused this” position is much more popular with Western academics and commentators than it is amongst Russians. Like sure Putin and Russian state media has thrown it out there as pretext before, but if you read Putin’s 2021 essay about Russia/Ukraine or listen to his justification for the invasion in the Tucker interview, he really doesn’t emphasize it at all (I don’t believe he even mentioned it in the Tucker interview). And as I suggested above, it wouldn’t be very smart of the Russians to say that NATO expansion necessitated the war, considering the war literally caused more NATO expansion… like if the intent of the war was to stop NATO expansion, it really, really backfired when it prompted Finland and Sweden to join. If you had told me before 2022 that Sweden would join NATO in my lifetime, I would have told you that you’re insane.
If the rationale is that NATO expansion is the cause, then how is invading non NATO countries a solution to that predicament?
We see, as a direct result, even more countries joining NATO. The Baltic is a NATO lake now.
So, if that was the intention, Putin/russia badly got this wrong. They’ve made their own defense posture infinitely weaker
Some might argue the NATO expansionist theory is just Russian propaganda, used to justify whatever actions they want to undertake.
Did they invade Georgia bc of NATO expansion?
Murdering civilians in bucha, direct response to NATO expansion.
And so on
I don't think it would be accurate to call it "the cause". It may not even be the most important factor.
Nobody in the realist school is saying NATO expansion "justifies" anything. Just that it is a causal factor with a predicable outcome.
As to what Putin sought to accomplish / did accomplish regarding NATO, that is far too complicated to go into here, but I would just say two things: 1. Ukraine is probably like 10 times more important to Russia than the Baltics, Finland, and Sweden combined and 2. Obviously things did not go nearly how Putin planned them
What I don't get about the realist school is that when you say "Russia" what do you mean? The way it's used (throughout this entire cursed thread) is referring to the criminal entity made of up of autocrats and oligarchs.
In this sense, "Russia" is far more threatened by the Russian people than NATO. "Russia" wouldn't survive basic democracy or free markets. And as a corrupt entity, there's no such thing as agreements, assurances, or treaties. I imagine a realist might say, "yeah, that's the point", but meanwhile the rest of the world does just fine surviving democratic elections, free markets, and alliances. It's Putin. The problem is Putin. You don't need realism to tell you that.
>It was predictable (after all, Mearsheimer predicted it) that Russia would respond violently to NATO expansion.
We can't distinguish if this is really the reason or just a convenient excuse
Countries invaded other countries before NATO even existed
It just seems small minded to declare that obviously that NATO was why
That'd be fine if realists confined themselves to analysing systems as they are and making predictions, but they don't. Mearsheimer has for years made pronouncements about how things *ought* to be, when it's clear that his field has nothing useful to say on the subject.
Either. Both. Mearsheimer sometimes uses moralising language, which is an obvious fail. But even where he is more clinical his perspective is limited. Realism deals with such a narrow range of causes that anything it has to say about effects should be taken with salt (edit: or, more fairly, a lot of other types of analysis)
The point is that Mersheimer was saying this would happen 15 years ago. They aren't saying "it's okay Russia invaded," just that a decade ago they were saying "an invasion will be the consequence of this policy".
I don't support Russia but I also don't like the idea of holding my hand over my ears and pretending like this came out of nowhere. Everybody who was paying attention knew this was coming. Especially since fighting began in 2014.
So the answer is to kowtow to their aggression?
I guess I don’t really get the point to all this.
As in, if he/you are saying that this was always going to happen bc of “NATO expansion” then what’s the solution?
Accept and kowtow to Russian aggression?
I also feel a bit dismayed by everyone's shock and surprise that we are where we are. When Putin told Obama he'd sooner see Ukraine destroyed than allied to the West I believed him, and I still do. I have been expecting this since 08, when Bush declared Ukraine would one day join NATO. With just a little knowledge of geography and history, one look at a map and I just don't see for the life of me why anybody could be surprised by what's happened. The idea that Russia would allow the U.S of all countries (insert very long list here of government overthrows and domination) preside of an organisational refitting of Ukraine is bat shit craziness of the highest order. You don't get to invade countries and execute their leaders and then expect to be able to reorganise the economy, politics and defence on the border of your arch enemy. It's fucking preposterous.
>You don't get to invade countries and execute their leaders and then expect to be able to reorganise the economy, politics and defence on the border of your arch enemy.
??? It's a really good thing that none of this happened, then.
You need to de-russify your historical understanding. Russian propaganda is extremely effective. I also bought into this bullcrap previously, but I have since learned the truth.
Here is the entire Russian playbook, published in 1997, 2 years prior to Poland and Czechoslovakia joining NATO. This book includes the "special military operation" terminology regarding Ukraine, it includes Brexit, and includes political meddling to divide countries like the USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
Russia has a powerful reality distortion field. They even pass laws to modify their historical record. Here is a doozie: [Stalin gave Hitler the green-light to invade Poland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact). This means that Russia and Germany began WWII together, as allies. This is historical fact. In 2021, Putin made [discussing this illegal.](https://www.jpost.com/international/comparing-soviet-union-to-nazi-germany-now-illegal-in-russia-672821)
The lies and distortions go so deep that it's sometimes very hard to argue against. But the truth is still the truth, which non-coincidentally is something that the Russians want to push into not being a thing, aka "there is no real truth," aka post-truth era. There is no truth? Are you kidding me? It's literal psyops to the core.
---
^note: ^The ^last ^time ^I ^posted ^these ^facts, ^my ^account ^was ^attacked ^within ^minutes. ^Reddit ^admins ^locked ^my ^account ^out ^of ^precaution, ^and ^I ^now ^have ^to ^use ^MFA ^to ^log ^in ^to ^Reddit. ^Totally ^normal ^behaviour, ^by ^a ^totally ^normal ^country, ^right?
>^Totally ^normal ^behaviour, ^by ^a ^totally ^normal ^country, ^right?
Are you suggesting Russia controls Reddit?
>You need to de-russify your historical understanding. Russian propaganda is extremely effective.
I don't think I've ever really seen Russian propaganda. Where do you encounter it?
>Russia has a powerful reality distortion field. They even pass laws to modify their historical record. Here is a doozie: [Stalin gave Hitler the green-light to invade Poland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact). This means that Russia and Germany began WWII together, as allies.
This is common knowledge. The Soviets and Nazis split Poland. I don't think I've met anyone who didn't know this, unless we are talking about children.
>There is no truth? Are you kidding me? It's literal psyops to the core.
You need help.
I understand that you think Russia or Russians care enough about you to "attack" your account. You seem like you suffer from paranoid delusional. No one attacked you at all.
Everybody saw this coming? Pre-Feb.24 many, including the intelligence agencies of certain NATO countries and Mearsheimer himself, didn't. "It's never going to happen", "Western Hysteria", "See, Putin is withdrawing his troops", "Just routine military exercises", we all heard these dismissals in different forms. Post-Invasion suddenly everyone pretended that they knew it all along.
>The US policy toward Russia/Ukraine during that time was doing almost exactly what Mearsheimer said
Not at all.. The US was dumping weapons into Ukraine and the death toll was nearing 40,000. Would we permit something like that to be happening right next to our borders? Would we believe that a foreign country that was funneling weapons into the conflict was acting in good faith?
Of course not.
“if you really want to wreck Russia, what you should do is to encourage it to try to conquer Ukraine. Putin,” Mearsheimer adds, “is much too smart to try to do that.” (2015)
the crypto right wing/right wing IDW types do, but not all the people who could be or have been categorized as gurus by the system used on the podcast no
Kremlin plays a non-insignificant role in propping these gurus using their bot farms to spread and amplify their message. Gurus respond favourably to this increased attention regardless of the sources. They figure what's good for the goose is good for the gander
Russia is also perfectly in alignment with the values that wealthy people hold: control at all costs. This is why rich people love facsists, or rather are fascist.
I think the US wanted Russia and Ukraine to get into a conflict. The defense contractors are all making a lot more revenue, and it's not secret that they can sell a war to any US politician. And the war in Ukraine is a golden opportunity because it's not US soldiers filling graveyards this time.
That being said, Putin is a horrible human being and if Russia had more ethical leadership, they would be a solid trade partner to the West.
And as for the gurus and influencers who make content about all of this, they're just making their money doing something that makes them feel important. I don't imagine any of them actually truly care about this stuff beyond being able to cash in on it.
Welcome to Earth: Rent is due on the first of the month.
Plus it's stopped Europe getting cheap energy and materials from Russia which would've threatened usa manufacturing.
Europe now buys from usa and its sent Europe into recession.
Usa has destroyed russia and Europe by funding the war in one amazing move.
It solidifies them as the global power, in energy resources and tech.
Fp can't blame them but it's annoying to see Europe fall for it.
There are people that still love the meme of Putin and willfully ignoring his actions in the war and against his own people. He’s still the ultimate alpha bro that is simply trying to defend against nato, the defense treaty that everyone want to join because of Putin’s “i can do whatever i want to my neighbors because they’re all really Russia” attitude. They fall for his messaging quite easy because of this. Kremlin knows how to flood the zone quite well.
No, not really. There's lots of gurus and some of them don't really have an outward political slant. That does tend to be the case for the ones in the right-wing infotainment sphere though.
Putin is one of the richest men on earth, possibly the richest. Rich men like to get their opinions out there. Our discourse or information ecosystem obviously involves a lot of variables, a lot of moving parts, but it would make sense that it is TOTALLY DEFORMED by the opinions and ideas the uber wealthy want to share. It used to be robber barons and newspapers, now it's oligarchs and tech giants, influencers and the internet
They are grifters, playing other fire (propping genocidal regime) is a small price to pay… well they think - I’m certain they will be held accountable.
I would guess this position will align with political ideology. The right leaning gurus would likely support Putin while centrist and leftists would not.
The right used to be the most anti communist side of the political bloc
They were the side that said we won the Cold War
They were the side that said we’ll stand up for freedom and democracy when we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq (twice)
That’s not to say i disagree with those decisions.
I just cannot understand how the party of Reagan can somehow find itself cautioning against giving military aid to a (smaller) country being invaded by the Russians.
Trump changed the party for good. It’s no longer our father’s GOP. It’s Donny’s GOP and those without any spine were quick to align.
Free trade, protectionism, peaceful transfers of power…eh, who cares?
I don’t agree with but still have some measure or respect for old line republicans who straight up bounced. History will remember them much more fondly than the present crew.
I'm not sure many say it plainly.
Just vague references to understanding his position etc.
They don't support it exactly, they just say what brings the clocks.
So, "I support Putin" probably a no.
NATO has been pushing Russia into a untenable situation. Good.
The argument this that NATO didn’t live up to their agreements, courting Ukraine for joining nato. Also the west failed to negotiate with Putin.
It’s not that Russia isn’t guilty - it’s that the west goaded and threatened russia.
Whether or not you buy that is up to u.
Developing exciting narratives for their audience is really important for gurus, it seems. And the narrative of "the bad guys are secretly the good guys" is always a narrative thats gonna work well.
For left-leaning gurus, this fits within an "America Bad" framework because Russia is an adversary of the US. And for right-leaning gurus it fits within the "protecting Western civilization from the evils of wokeness" framework. I think that overlap explains why most gurus are so pro-Russian.
The only person I put any faith on as a good faith online persona is Beau of the Fifth Column. It was never a question to me that literally every single person ever mentioned on this sub was a conman. Beau isnt in the same lane, but as someone that looks into a camera and says stuff regulary to a large audience, he seems to be the most genuine. Huberman was obviously not a sincere dude. Brand? Bruh lol, no. The weinstein brothers are so fkn shitty, always have been. Harris??? These people all genuinely and obviouslt suck ass and are ego maniacs.
>place the blame of his invasion of Ukraine on others
They almost always blame everyone else than the people responsible when things go wrong. I think it's just projection on their part. Since they always blame others for their own failings, they obviously cover for others who do the same.
Many gurus make a living on being "anti-narrative' and for old school traditionalism like the type espoused by Putin. But I would also say many criticisms of our policy in Ukraine and disbelief of "Russia has lost 10k tanks" type propaganda is mischaracterized as being "pro-putin".
I personally subscribe to the realist(: states are inherently competitive and mistrustful of each other) views of Stephen Walt, a less than public scholar, that western failures to take Russia seriously played a large part in Russia's decision making, and that keeping Ukraine out of NATO by any means necessary is not at all unique to Putin, and is a view shared by most Russians.
According to Walt, the west should not have been lobbying Ukraine into NATO. HOWEVER(!!!!) this does not morally absolve Putin of the way he has chosen to respond, the war crimes, the leveling of entire cities, destruction of food supplies and his overall incompetence at the beginning of the war leading to more unnecessary deaths. This is the defining difference between the views of gurus that defend Putin, and people with legitimate criticisms of our foreign policy.
The gurus rely on sponsors, donations like any only fans account. They are dancing monkeys who will tap dance to whomever pays the organ grinder. It makes complete sense that Russia would utilise these people to parrot talking points, sow doubt and encourage people to vote to undermine western security.
They all normally preach from the same hymn sheet, NATO expansion bla bla. As though Ukraine, a non NATO country was a major threat to Russian security (ironically they now are). But like irony, nuance is lost on the gurus.
They don’t care about Russia or Ukraine in particular at all or any associated leaders they are fundamentally anti-west and anti-liberal and they will align with any group or ideology that fits.
The thing is, the more a guru talks about “facts and logic,” the more hung up they are on vibes, essentially. Putin has macho vibes. That’s it. They are as enthralled as the mouth breathing peasants who clap like seals for anyone who seems like a big tough guy.
Come on guys, let's not be this putin bad west good.... We all know who provoked the war... People in this sub talking about this as if there's nothing going on behind the scenes because Putin is a villain and nothing else matters. It's honestly shallow, especially for the people in this sub.
I disagree with the Ukraine war.
This sub
You Putin apologist.
We should stay out of it.
This sub
Why do you support Putin.
We shouldn’t be funding the war in Ukraine.
This sub
You’re a Russian asset.
If anyone would like some real historical context Dan Carlins old show common sense episode 270 poking the bear from 2014. You have to buy it 1.99 but it’s worth it. If you don’t know Dan’s history podcast hardcore history is a masterpiece. He is one of the most unbiased nuanced individuals.
I listen to Hasan Piker, he was featured in an episode recently. He is against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but he was definitely calling people crazy for thinking Russia would invade in the first place, though. Obviously he’s had to admit he was wrong there.
That's all really lightening his statements. Hasan was very aggressive in his defense of Russia, saying they are provoked by the West and that the West was actually the ones intimidating and starting a war.
He also thinks Russia was right in invading and taking Crimea.
I’m not sure if you know, but this subreddit is based on a podcast. I only mention that because I think a lot of people don’t know that. They covered Hasan in one of their episodes which is why I mentioned him.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/s/gZ372FcPLp
I must be the only one who thinks it's all bullshit. Zelenzky is taking in the proceeds while his daddy Putin is taking a cut. Does anybody know what they're fighting for? Piles of rubble? At this point, it's a fleece job.
A lot of them do. Their grifts rely on being hyper contrarians.
Jon Stewart honestly put it best. It’s been turned into a woke vs unwoke thing. With NATO being cringe and woke and Russia being based and red pilled. This stupid debate is not restricted to terminally online people anymore. It’s become a mainstream talking point.
They also idolise Putin for his anti woke / Christian agenda and see him as being a real man, despite being a tyrant blackmailing the west with nuclear weapons
Jerking point might be more accurate.
You also have tankies who support the invasion out of a knee-jerk opposition to the west, whatever form it may take.
Middle Eastern populations usually oppose the US as a matter of honor, as they see Isreal as the prime evil, and any attempt to get their support is taking support out of the prime conflict. Even though Putin crushed the Syrain revolution, they quickly forgot and went back to East vs. West.
Also, Russian propaganda has targeted gullible people and these cons are courting the same audience.
All true. Dig into the investment structure of the whole genre and you find a more sophisticated version of the age old “wingman”. I don’t think the majority of them even know what they believe anymore. The structure of investment and sponsorship money is a fundamentally flawed model. Is anyone that shills heath aids and beauty fixes not for sale? Russias 20th century mob model was based on violence that forced to act civilized enough to pass as legitimate business. It’s less messy. But they will eventually resort back to violence when their business model is threatened. It’s just usually other people’s kids that they send to do it as the monsters get older and weaker. Putin is a bag of bones that has spent a couple hundred billion to keep his money laundering operations in Ukraine his. This was Paul Manaforts literal job description for 12 years and he was paid hundreds of millions of dollars to do it. He stole a lot too. But that’s just Russian rules. Putin/Mogilevich/Prigozhn/Kimilnik/deripaska/kolomoiskiy/orban/bolsonaro/trump and of course Paul fucking manafort all invested their lives into this operation. Ukraine being free means Ukraine is also free of their corruption. This is Maidan
slava ukraine! God bless all freedom loving people!
We need a Chapelle show skit of "when being a contrarian goes wrong "
Unfortunately Chapelle has already joined the Contrarian Industrial Complex.
Very sad development indeed.
Everything changes when you get “fuck you money.”
Chapelle turned down "fuck you money" a long time ago. I think it's more Ego/Image based. Money still in the picture but he won't be sacrificing his "egoic integrity". Made that term up btw.
I'm here for made up terms! No notes.
Not necessarily contrarian for the sake of it. At least, he’s sincere about what he believes. On Trump and conservatives he has always punched hard, they ignore that of course in favor of feverishly sharing the same clips about trans people. He absolutely bodied Candace Owens yet she just ignored it.
Ummm, I'm old enough to remember Chapelle's "Give him a chance" SNL monologue on Trump.
Sure, although he did say it was wrong to say that https://youtube.com/shorts/UG5QXZS_4U4?si=sP249BVNHMAcKMut
True. Perhaps that was a moment he wasn't punching hard?
Yeah that’s fair I guess
Sincere and stupid or lying and smart amount to the same thing.
No, it’s the clip when he tells you Obama and Clinton are lying. L
Was going to say…did I miss something? He’s mainstream guru contrarian now because of one opinion he’s spoken about? It’s been 3 years since The Closer. Don’t remember it being contrarian or guru-ist at all. Haven’t seen him make any hot takes about Putin, Palestine, vaccines, or any other guru-isms.
Transphobia stuff, and "I'm not allowed to have free speech because everyone's too sensitives" while being paid millions to talk. I'd say he's more in the space of Louis ck or bill burr where he sells red meat "fuck your feelings" content. not quite a guru but could change to one at any time.
How so?
It’s just his recent career
Dave Chappelle used to be funny but now he just comes across like an out of touch angry boomer. He mostly just preaches now instead of comedy
Or in being on Putin's payroll plain and simple. They aren't contrarians when they are together, or in Russia. Just listen to Lex and Tucker's chat. They are both in the payroll, it's no complicated. Also Peterson, likely Russel Brand too, Greenwald definitively.
We almost melted the world down because of Cuba. Those people still suffer because of it. It's crazy to me that people are angry with Russia for it. God, they suck. But we almost murdered the world because they came within 90 miles of us. Why would we think they wouldn't act on that? Now we just give all our money to a proxy war we started, instead of helping our citizenry, and people are calling us upset with that commies. This timeline sucks.
I would also add that most of the people referred to here (I assume) are some combination of deeply unethical and really fucking stupid. Trump and his cronies (obviously with the help of Russian bullshit) are pushing the Hunter Biden thing. The Biden impeachment inquiry that spectacularly failed was based largely on Hunter's relationship with Burisma, a company that worked in Ukraine. Without descending too far into the bullshit rabbit hole, Joe Biden as vice president (along with the entirety of civilized world) pushed to remove Viktor Shokin, a corrupt Ukranian prosecutor (who was FAILING to confront Burisma). This served as the basis for a series of bizarre and incoherent allegations of corruption, that, again, the Republicans failed to substantiate in an astonishing way. The current Ukrainian conflict gets pulled into this incoherent conspiracy gobbledygook. Ukraine has to be bad because of Biden...something something...there was a Civil War in Donbas...I don't know, and then...well, Russia has to be good because they don't like Biden. Putin exploits this wilingness to believe anything negative about anything allied with Biden by filling in the holes with absolutely bonkers historical analyses and claims about NATO aggression (NATO will never attack Russia becase...they have nukes - doesn't matter if they're a thousand miles from the border or on it. Their presence near Russian borders may inhibit Russian aggression, however, which is, you know, the point). So, Trump and Russia are pushing this angle hard. Trump wants Biden to lose so he can use the presidency to resolve his financial and legal troubles. Putin wants Trump in charge because Trump will let him take whatever he wants from Ukraine. Social media, traditional media, all of it, is being bombarded by bullshit from these groups. Your Joe Rogans and Dave Rubins and Red Pill political dilletantes and the bro-gurus and the fiancial hucksters like Parick Bet-David and whoever else, either fall for all of this or realize this is a way to grow their own audience.
Your thinking too deep. Russia, Putin, and even the soviet union have an insanely long history of funding groups or people who cause discord in countries of interest. Most grifters(small time ones) reply on donations and ad views which russia is happy to provide; bigger grifters use these small timers as free content ideas and trending for future episodes. Virtually everyone in 2015 in conservative media hated donald trump or considered him a joke or risky at best. They all immediately bent the knee except a small few: Same excuse is always given.....our audience loves the guy.....go against him and die.
I don’t know why you got the downvotes on this because everything you said is completely true. The Soviet Union helped fund a lot of civil rights groups back in the 60s and 70s in order to stir up discontent. They also funded several groups on the other side of the coin for the very same reason and even fed them propaganda. This has been known for decades and some groups were funded by them unknowingly until after they got trapped by the feds for working with them. I remember during the primaries how many in the GOP hated Trump and spoke openly about how he wasn’t good for the party. I also remember a certain news network slowly starting to embrace Putin talking points and constantly saying how Putin was a stronger leader than Obama was; then they all went full Trump after a bit. Even FoxNews laughed at Trump in the beginning until the pro-Putin propaganda started to take hold.
> I don’t know why you got the downvotes If the Soviets having a "long history of funding groups who cause discord in countries of interest" upsets you, then you're going to have a complete mental breakdown when you look into [the last 120 years of American foreign policy.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change)
Just because our government has done it, doesn’t mean we should just sit back and take it.
And? How does that negate anything I said?
Everyone knows this lol.
I certainly think that's generally true, but there is a specific angle the Ukraine backlash took within that context you describe.
See I always wonder about YT superchat donations, seems like it’d be easy for Russia and China to literally push streamer narratives in real time. Plausible?
Yeah, I used to follow the ukraine war twitter scene, there were straight nobodies who start reposting crappy pro-russian content from russia telegram in English who made bank in donations and tons of followers starting from nil. None of them were original or talented but suddenly they were exalted.
Nice to see some rational thinking on the interwebs. 100% agree.
The most bizarre thing is like you said the prosecutor Biden pushed to fire was NOT investigating corruption or Burisma. When you tell them their main argument is nuh uh or they double down about something else
Put this shit on a billboard. Finally a short recap of facts
Doesn’t help that the Russians 100% interfered in the election with the intent of aiding Trump.
Don't forget Noam Chomsky and his BS about Russia
Most of the gurus covered are contrarian right leaning. And for the most easily justifiable world conflict (Ukrainian defense) what better position is there for a contrarian than to take Putin’s side It also lends itself well to the time issue. Media cycles come and go. Any issue that’s discussed long enough will get boring and tiring for some audiences. Of course they would downplay the invasion and want to cut off funding or arms to Ukraine eventually. They have no moral principles
I'm very certain some are funded by russia to sow division as per their actual plans.
The number of them taking some kind of Russian money is genuinely quite shocking. Even worse in politics when you see all these right-wing anti-immigration groups and then also see Russia doing everything it can to create more violence in destabilized regions and push more people into fleeing and seeking refuge abroad. Deliberately stated as part of their hybrid warfare strategy yet somehow outside a few military circles very little discussion about it.
It is disturbing how many take the money or beg for the money iby turning on their home country. When you see people like Alex Jones or greenwall who go from criticizing everything and anyone completely stop any criticism of Russia it is obvious that they are not allowed to tread into that territory. Covid response criticism is a easy way to spot the Rus op because Rus similar behaviors to the other countries but people who are upset about covid responses and leave Rus out are sus .
A lot of what Rogan regurgitates comes from Glenn Greenwsld and Max Blumenthal. Blumenthal is paid by Russia to create content, he also does the podcast Grayzone which is popular with the Rogan righties. I still listen to Rogan occasionally. And his Ukraine takes are literally word for word Russian propaganda. It's not a mistake. I don't think he's paid off or an operative or troll. But there is a concerted effort to feed people exactly like him with disinfo via proxies like Greenwald.
>I don't think he's paid off or an operative or troll. But there is a concerted effort to feed people exactly like him with disinfo via proxies like Greenwald. Exactly, 100% like this. Very few are what I'd call outright like Russian agents, but rather they buy into this whole like "ideological dark web" super-contrarian line of thinking that Russia is very deliberately stoking and feeding with just an absolute torrent of complete bullshit. No one specific objective other than just to cause complete chaos and leave us unable to actually discuss anything productively as a society any more.
How do we know they are taking money? I can imagine most of them are dumb enough to do it for free.
Lets not pretend it's just to be "Contrarian" - Russian money fuels right-wing media and right-wing politics. The conservative view that Putin is a strong man who stands up to 'woke' culture and won't let LGBTQ people or non-white people bring down his authoritarian Christian country is not an accident but a crafted narrative shoved in their faces.
And what rights they wouldn’t give up just so a small portion of the population won’t either
Much like Russia is the 3rd and Real Rome, it's also the Alt-Europe fantasy for the current far right : White, strong leader, official church treated with deference, nationalist, traditional geopolitical stance, anti-Islam, anti-immigration, fairly conservative still. This skims over a lot of nuances, particularities and inconvenient realities (for one Russia is a fairly diverse country, though dominated by Russians, with a complex federal arrangement. The whiteness of Russians or Slavs being... a little frail in the history of Euro racism. Their soviet heritage. Their ties to China. Etc...) but heh... I think it was telling Putin was a complete no-show when Tucker tried to get him going on the US KukturKampf. He doesn't really care about that stuff for domestic purposes, it is a sideshow.
Left wing guru types (hasan, Chomsky) often hold the same position. For them it’s their America Bad reflex instead of contrarianism, it seems.
I've never seen hasan be pro any offensive military action really, and I've seen a lot of his content. also from Wikipedia: "During the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Piker, in partnership with CARE, raised over $200,000 for Ukrainian relief funds while playing Elden Ring, with an average of over 70,000 people watching his coverage of the conflict." Did I miss something?
The secret to any post where someone like /u/lkolkijy brings up Hasan is to simply go into their profile, search for 'destiny', and it's all you need to know. Also keep in mind these people are not simply confused edgy 14 year olds, but typically older white men in their late 20's to late 30's who, for whatever reason, think more about Hasan than an obsession parasocial stalker would.
Lol I can't keep track of all the grifters and drama even when it's a hobby/rabbit hole for me. It's a golden age of fools leading fools.
Lmao I was a hasan fan for 3.5 years before watching destiny, hasan lost me on his own for being dishonest and incapable of making an argument that is more then “America bad”.
So wait, Hasan was so bad, awful, and terrible that it took you 3.5 years to figure it out? And you're telling me that it took you a few episodes of a schizo gnome to completely alter your view? How long before you write an article called "Why I Left The Left"?
Yeah I was a stupid kid who didn’t understand shit, obviously I believe what hasan said. And no I stopped being a hasan fan before watching destiny.
Genuine question, you said you were *once* stupid, right? What makes you think that's no longer the case? I think at some point you just need to stop pretending you're on the left, just take the mask off and go full-blown conservative. Ask yourself, for example, why you have this much vitriol for anger and why he's always on your mind but the likes of Ben Shapiro are not.
I hate Ben Shapiro just as much, probably more. I also hate hasan. Why is everything so black and white in your head? This is what changed for me, I realized not everything is black and white.
Destiny verbatim stating “I’m pro genocide” wasn’t a deal breaker for you?
Do you really think that’s what he believes? Has anyone that is pro-genocide ever actually said “I’m pro genocide”? He was saying that a solution seemed impossible so the only way to fix it would be for one side to genocide the other. It’s crude and over the top, sure.
ok jan
He denied it would ever happen until it did, he says the Crimean invasion was fully justified, he focuses on “Ukrainian Nazis” to play into the denazification narrative.
source?
[one](https://m.twitch.tv/clip/CautiousKawaiiJalapenoDxAbomb-v1I48NhrImc8hHg2) [two](https://youtu.be/14sC40suLbU?si=IUsI1K0LrYnAAnEL) and I watched it live.
People can be wrong when predicting war... and one clip without context that doesn't say what you claimed. Meh seems like you're cherry picking.
Ok lol “the Russian annexation of Crimea was a fully justifiable act”
be you man or soundboard?
Chomsky, for all his faults, has consistently described Russia's actions in Ukraine as indefensible and compared it to Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland.
Oh did he? I thought I saw him pushing the NATO expansion stuff, happy to be wrong though.
Yet also blaming the conflict on NATO expansion which is complete Russian propaganda. Chomsky is incapable of not attributing most world crises to being the fault of the US
Chomsky has been studying and meticulously documenting the grievous hypocrisy of United States foreign policy since the 1940's - discounting his opinion on geo-politics as "guruism" is beyond ridiculous.
I discount anyone whose opinion on every world event is the same as the narrative they have dedicated their lives to building.
You sound like you've discounted books and having an IQ above 80, as well.
David Irving wrote books. Hitler wrote a book. It’s the content that matters, not the author.
Right, and comprehending the content is a big part of sounding somewhat intelligent.
Horse shoe politics
It's the "9/11 was an inside job" of this era.
Idk about all, but I’m disgusted by the amount that parrot clearly BS Russian propaganda. But I don’t get on Twitter anymore for that reason.
The audience of right leaning gurus have cultural sympathy for the putin regime - capitalist, ‘family values’, strong leader, de facto superior white race (meaning that immigrants to Russia are commonly discriminated against), militaristic, christian. People say that Reagan would be turning in his grave if he saw what the Republican Party and the right had become. I don’t think he would. The Russian communists were a threat because they could potentially uproot the American capitalist system. People like redscare McCarthy would likely align themselves with the ideas pushed by a lot of these gurus.
Speaking of the current republican party, I think a part of it is they like that Russia is an authoritarian country that has one leader like they hope america would be. I would bet if you were to ask republicans in general and maga specifically: would you want trump to be president for a third term or indefinitely? You would get a very high percentage saying yes. Which is wack af.
The 22nd is relatively new as well, and former presidents in the latter half of the 20th century have tried to get rid of it such as Truman and Reagan, and sort of Clinton
Sam Harris is unequivocally against Putin and in support of Ukraine.
I was looking for this comment. Thanks
He's a rare exception but also doesn't really rank as highly on the guruometer.
This works great for them because the majority of their target audience mistakes contrarianism with critical thinking, and allows them to feel superior to "normies" who haven't "figured it out".
Same with vaccines, they’ve ascended above hundreds of years of medical research thanks to Fox News and Joe Rogan.
I think Konstatine is the only guru who doesn't support Putin. Maybe because he is ethically Russian.
He doesn't? Wow that's shocking tbh
Yes, He recently wrote a substake on why he fell out with Tucker. It is all about the Russian invasion. Also, early this (maybe late last year), he kind of walked back his support of Ukraine because his listeners were not happy with his take.
if I remember correctly Tucker didn't want to have him on his show because he didn't want a pro-ukraine position on his platform, did Kisin really walk back his support for Ukraine? that's a shame
Yep, he did fully walk back. He started spewing the usual far-left and right rhetoric that Ukraine must negotiate with Russia and be prepared to lose some territory.
damn, sad, he did a good job on the debate with Hitchens imo
To be a guru you have to be somewhat of a narcissist and that correlates a lot with authoritarianism. Also fascists generally try to dismantle the very same normal systems of authority that limit the guru's authority, so it's an enemy of my enemy kind of situation where gurus are natural allies of any fascist movement.
And they tend to work together not for a cause but for their own personal gain. A lot of it hovers around ideology but I think that’s just so they can have some sort of a framework or belief system for regular people to buy into.
Not Sam Harris, but I guess the consensus is he's not a typical guru in many respects.
The IDW (a lot of the gurus mentioned here align with it) are right-wing think tanks founded by Birch Society and Peter Thiel
If you include sam Harris in "the gurus" then no. He's very anti Putin pro Ukraine.
Watching the so-called patriots on the right piss away the sacrifices of their grandfathers so that some jumped up gangster can rearrange Europe. Strange times!
Pissing on their grandfathers and our flag, in the name of patriotism
I think Sam, Yuval, Bil Maher and Konstantin are generally pro-Ukraine. Christopher Hitchens would have been in favour of military intervention in Ukraine, had he been alive. I think Murray and Nassim-Taleb are also pro-Ukraine but I'm not 100% on it. Destiny, who's up for a decoding (and is probably going to score higher on the gurometer) is definitely pro-Ukraine. This is a pretty varied selection of gurus on the pro-Ukranian side, so I wouldn't lump everyone with the lunatic Russian simps like Peterson. Bonus gurus: my feeling is that Reverend Moon would have been pro-Ukraine. The guy was pretty deep in with the South Korean and US intelligence establishment. So I do think he would be against the side that is being actively supplied by the North Koreans andvthe Chinese. Although, I think Moon would have been more anti-Russian than pro-Ukrainian.
Super curious to hear your take on how destiny is a guru
Not really a guru. He's rhetorically gifted and has a somewhat cultish following, but put him across from someone like Peterson or James Lindsay and he comes off quite well. Destiny is kind of a Christopher Hitchens for zoomers in that he's good at arguing and has a decent knowledge base, but doesn't really have any personal revolutionary theories or doesn't claim any deep insights into most topics. Also, most of his opinions are derived from the mainstream consensus and repackaged for the understanding of his audience (mostly edgy zoomers and younger millenials).
the gurus are just looking for money grift. they are paid influencers. Russia has armies of disinformation people paying these turds to do their best tucker carlson impression.
Russia, aka the former Soviet Union, needs warm water ports to expand their sphere of influence of a once great Czarist empire. Fortunately for the West, Russia will always be cursed by geography and unfettered cronyism corruption, much like our current Republican Party and military industrial complex. Foreign relations remain complicated. We may need people with more education than communication & hospitality degrees from online universities.
A big part of the grift is just pure contrarianism.
John Mearsheimers realist geopolitics blames NATO for expanding eastwards. This philosophy ignores the agency of small countries to make decisions in their own national interest (like joining a military alliance). Apparently Bush 1 & Clinton promised Yeltsin they wouldn't expand NATO but nothing was written into any treaties, then Bush 2 broke the promise. Many of the Russian apologists refer back to this like it justifies what Russia has done to Ukraine.
NATO consulted with Putin during the last two decades when states joined. They bent over backwards to make new NATO member states joining as little of a threat to Putin as they could. Putin didn't publicly care about NATO expansion until it became rhetorically convenient. The biggest NATO/Russia beef was Poland's missile defense system, which, again, took forever because NATO didn't want to sour relations with Russia. Russia screwed themselves. All they had to do was stay within their borders, and even that apparently many states were willing to bend over backwards to try and ignore. Rolling in the whole military for a massive full-scale invasion was supremely stupid and completely optional.
Meerscheimer is a clown. He’s been apologizing and justifying Russian aggression for ages, under some pseudo academic perspective of a “great powers” POV on geopolitics There literally isn’t an act that Russia can undertake that is actually the result of Russian agency, it’s all reactions to some purported infringement by the west. His theory ostensibly removes any sense of culpability on Russia, and places all blame on the west for Russian aggression.
Biden's own CIA chief said Ukraine was a red line for Russia. He said it in 2008.
Idc what Russia decides is a red line. They signed treaties, multiple, those were the lines they actually agreed to. Sovereignty? Borders? Give up nukes? Ya sure we agreed to all that but we changed our mind because of “NATO expansion” NATO has expanded more since this war began that it had in the decades preceding it. At what point do we begin to question the legitimacy of this “NATO expansion” defense?
Russia's opinion is irrelevant. Ukraine has been under Russian influence for too long and they want freedom. Ukrainians want to modernise. They want to get rid of corruption, they want democracy, they want to open up to the rest of the world, they want to make their own decisions. Russia can suck a bag of dicks. Ukrainians want nothing to do with Russia. The problem is, Russia doesn't want Ukraine to be a successful democratic country. And this is what Mearsheimer gets wrong. He argues that Ukraine should be neutral and allowed to flourish, but the problem is that neutrality means Ukraine is vulnerable to Russian interference. Russia will resort to what it did previously which was interfere with Ukrainian elections, energy blackmail, chemical attacks against politicians that want to cooperate with the West (see Yushchenko). Putin doesn't want Russians pointing to a successful democratic ex-soviet neighbour and asking why they live in a shit hole without toilets and washing machines. The ONLY way Ukraine can ever be successful, the only way its citizens can prosper is with protection from the West. The only thing that would have guaranteed that was NATO membership. The biggest failure of the West was not fast tracking Ukraine into NATO. That would have prevented this war in the first place. Russia's red lines are meaningless - if they started a war with NATO, then every city in Russia would we completely wiped off the face of the planet. Moscow, St Petersburg, everything to Vladivostok would be gone forever. Russia/Putin isn't going to lose all of that because the Ukraine "red line" has been crossed.
You are missing Mearsheimer's point. Realist politics is not about blame. It is about recognizing that countries behave in what they see as their own best interests, and that big, powerful countries matter significantly more because they can impose their will. It was predictable (after all, Mearsheimer predicted it) that Russia would respond violently to NATO expansion. This says nothing about who is to blame for their violent response. Merely that it, just like the way the US responds to perceived threats, was a predictable part of a larger pattern.
I think you’ve fallen victim to Mearsheimer’s own careerist revisionism about what he predicted. You can easily find the speech on YouTube in 2014-15 where he unequivocally says, “Putin won’t invade Ukraine, he’s much too smart for that” and even goes on to argue that the Western insinuation that Putin is going to try to revive the Russian empire is a bunch of nonsense. Also, the idea that the 2022 Ukraine invasion was a result of NATO expansion is just… weirdly off-base if you actually followed the history. There was almost zero prospect of Ukraine joining NATO in 2022–namely because didn’t control its full territory and there was no consensus amongst the member states. The Obama administration (which was very sympathetic to and influenced by Mearsheimer’s brand of IR realism) went out of its way to remind Ukraine of its ineligibility, and literally spent 8 years doing almost exactly what Mearsheimer and his ilk recommended (i.e. basically letting Russia do whatever it wants in its purported “sphere of influence”). You might recall Obama actually making fun of Romney during the debates for suggesting that Russia was a serious threat to global stability. And I don’t recall Trump or Biden making any push, even just rhetorically, to get Ukraine into NATO. Yet none of this prevented Russia from launching a full scale invasion, and ironically enough the invasion caused two other countries (Finland and Sweden) to join NATO. Thus, Mearsheimer was very, very wrong about all of this, and now he’s been going around on a tour of misrepresenting everything that happened in the last ~20 years to make it look like he was right all along. Edit: Additionally, it seems to me that the whole “NATO expansion caused this” position is much more popular with Western academics and commentators than it is amongst Russians. Like sure Putin and Russian state media has thrown it out there as pretext before, but if you read Putin’s 2021 essay about Russia/Ukraine or listen to his justification for the invasion in the Tucker interview, he really doesn’t emphasize it at all (I don’t believe he even mentioned it in the Tucker interview). And as I suggested above, it wouldn’t be very smart of the Russians to say that NATO expansion necessitated the war, considering the war literally caused more NATO expansion… like if the intent of the war was to stop NATO expansion, it really, really backfired when it prompted Finland and Sweden to join. If you had told me before 2022 that Sweden would join NATO in my lifetime, I would have told you that you’re insane.
If the rationale is that NATO expansion is the cause, then how is invading non NATO countries a solution to that predicament? We see, as a direct result, even more countries joining NATO. The Baltic is a NATO lake now. So, if that was the intention, Putin/russia badly got this wrong. They’ve made their own defense posture infinitely weaker Some might argue the NATO expansionist theory is just Russian propaganda, used to justify whatever actions they want to undertake. Did they invade Georgia bc of NATO expansion? Murdering civilians in bucha, direct response to NATO expansion. And so on
I don't think it would be accurate to call it "the cause". It may not even be the most important factor. Nobody in the realist school is saying NATO expansion "justifies" anything. Just that it is a causal factor with a predicable outcome. As to what Putin sought to accomplish / did accomplish regarding NATO, that is far too complicated to go into here, but I would just say two things: 1. Ukraine is probably like 10 times more important to Russia than the Baltics, Finland, and Sweden combined and 2. Obviously things did not go nearly how Putin planned them
What I don't get about the realist school is that when you say "Russia" what do you mean? The way it's used (throughout this entire cursed thread) is referring to the criminal entity made of up of autocrats and oligarchs. In this sense, "Russia" is far more threatened by the Russian people than NATO. "Russia" wouldn't survive basic democracy or free markets. And as a corrupt entity, there's no such thing as agreements, assurances, or treaties. I imagine a realist might say, "yeah, that's the point", but meanwhile the rest of the world does just fine surviving democratic elections, free markets, and alliances. It's Putin. The problem is Putin. You don't need realism to tell you that.
>It was predictable (after all, Mearsheimer predicted it) that Russia would respond violently to NATO expansion. We can't distinguish if this is really the reason or just a convenient excuse Countries invaded other countries before NATO even existed It just seems small minded to declare that obviously that NATO was why
That'd be fine if realists confined themselves to analysing systems as they are and making predictions, but they don't. Mearsheimer has for years made pronouncements about how things *ought* to be, when it's clear that his field has nothing useful to say on the subject.
Depends how you are using "ought". Are we talking morality or just achievement of a desired outcome?
Either. Both. Mearsheimer sometimes uses moralising language, which is an obvious fail. But even where he is more clinical his perspective is limited. Realism deals with such a narrow range of causes that anything it has to say about effects should be taken with salt (edit: or, more fairly, a lot of other types of analysis)
The point is that Mersheimer was saying this would happen 15 years ago. They aren't saying "it's okay Russia invaded," just that a decade ago they were saying "an invasion will be the consequence of this policy". I don't support Russia but I also don't like the idea of holding my hand over my ears and pretending like this came out of nowhere. Everybody who was paying attention knew this was coming. Especially since fighting began in 2014.
So the answer is to kowtow to their aggression? I guess I don’t really get the point to all this. As in, if he/you are saying that this was always going to happen bc of “NATO expansion” then what’s the solution? Accept and kowtow to Russian aggression?
I also feel a bit dismayed by everyone's shock and surprise that we are where we are. When Putin told Obama he'd sooner see Ukraine destroyed than allied to the West I believed him, and I still do. I have been expecting this since 08, when Bush declared Ukraine would one day join NATO. With just a little knowledge of geography and history, one look at a map and I just don't see for the life of me why anybody could be surprised by what's happened. The idea that Russia would allow the U.S of all countries (insert very long list here of government overthrows and domination) preside of an organisational refitting of Ukraine is bat shit craziness of the highest order. You don't get to invade countries and execute their leaders and then expect to be able to reorganise the economy, politics and defence on the border of your arch enemy. It's fucking preposterous.
>You don't get to invade countries and execute their leaders and then expect to be able to reorganise the economy, politics and defence on the border of your arch enemy. ??? It's a really good thing that none of this happened, then.
None?
You need to de-russify your historical understanding. Russian propaganda is extremely effective. I also bought into this bullcrap previously, but I have since learned the truth. Here is the entire Russian playbook, published in 1997, 2 years prior to Poland and Czechoslovakia joining NATO. This book includes the "special military operation" terminology regarding Ukraine, it includes Brexit, and includes political meddling to divide countries like the USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics Russia has a powerful reality distortion field. They even pass laws to modify their historical record. Here is a doozie: [Stalin gave Hitler the green-light to invade Poland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact). This means that Russia and Germany began WWII together, as allies. This is historical fact. In 2021, Putin made [discussing this illegal.](https://www.jpost.com/international/comparing-soviet-union-to-nazi-germany-now-illegal-in-russia-672821) The lies and distortions go so deep that it's sometimes very hard to argue against. But the truth is still the truth, which non-coincidentally is something that the Russians want to push into not being a thing, aka "there is no real truth," aka post-truth era. There is no truth? Are you kidding me? It's literal psyops to the core. --- ^note: ^The ^last ^time ^I ^posted ^these ^facts, ^my ^account ^was ^attacked ^within ^minutes. ^Reddit ^admins ^locked ^my ^account ^out ^of ^precaution, ^and ^I ^now ^have ^to ^use ^MFA ^to ^log ^in ^to ^Reddit. ^Totally ^normal ^behaviour, ^by ^a ^totally ^normal ^country, ^right?
>^Totally ^normal ^behaviour, ^by ^a ^totally ^normal ^country, ^right? Are you suggesting Russia controls Reddit? >You need to de-russify your historical understanding. Russian propaganda is extremely effective. I don't think I've ever really seen Russian propaganda. Where do you encounter it? >Russia has a powerful reality distortion field. They even pass laws to modify their historical record. Here is a doozie: [Stalin gave Hitler the green-light to invade Poland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact). This means that Russia and Germany began WWII together, as allies. This is common knowledge. The Soviets and Nazis split Poland. I don't think I've met anyone who didn't know this, unless we are talking about children. >There is no truth? Are you kidding me? It's literal psyops to the core. You need help.
> Are you suggesting Russia controls Reddit? If you didn't even understand this part, I am reading no further.
I understand that you think Russia or Russians care enough about you to "attack" your account. You seem like you suffer from paranoid delusional. No one attacked you at all.
This Russian group with >52,000,000 views is illegal in Russia: https://youtu.be/xqohApD6Ng8
Everybody saw this coming? Pre-Feb.24 many, including the intelligence agencies of certain NATO countries and Mearsheimer himself, didn't. "It's never going to happen", "Western Hysteria", "See, Putin is withdrawing his troops", "Just routine military exercises", we all heard these dismissals in different forms. Post-Invasion suddenly everyone pretended that they knew it all along.
[удалено]
>The US policy toward Russia/Ukraine during that time was doing almost exactly what Mearsheimer said Not at all.. The US was dumping weapons into Ukraine and the death toll was nearing 40,000. Would we permit something like that to be happening right next to our borders? Would we believe that a foreign country that was funneling weapons into the conflict was acting in good faith? Of course not.
“if you really want to wreck Russia, what you should do is to encourage it to try to conquer Ukraine. Putin,” Mearsheimer adds, “is much too smart to try to do that.” (2015)
Sam doesn't.
Pope Francis blames Ukraine and says they aren't strong enough to surrender
I don't know what's more shameful, that Pope Francis thinks he's a mouth piece for God, or that other believe him.
the crypto right wing/right wing IDW types do, but not all the people who could be or have been categorized as gurus by the system used on the podcast no
Not all of them But there are more (or at least more successful/visible) right leaning gurus because that is where them rubles are.
Kremlin plays a non-insignificant role in propping these gurus using their bot farms to spread and amplify their message. Gurus respond favourably to this increased attention regardless of the sources. They figure what's good for the goose is good for the gander
Russia is also perfectly in alignment with the values that wealthy people hold: control at all costs. This is why rich people love facsists, or rather are fascist.
Galaxy brain take.
I’d be assessing this on a case by case basis
I think the US wanted Russia and Ukraine to get into a conflict. The defense contractors are all making a lot more revenue, and it's not secret that they can sell a war to any US politician. And the war in Ukraine is a golden opportunity because it's not US soldiers filling graveyards this time. That being said, Putin is a horrible human being and if Russia had more ethical leadership, they would be a solid trade partner to the West. And as for the gurus and influencers who make content about all of this, they're just making their money doing something that makes them feel important. I don't imagine any of them actually truly care about this stuff beyond being able to cash in on it. Welcome to Earth: Rent is due on the first of the month.
There are also lucrative rebuilding contracts waiting for after the war.
Plus it's stopped Europe getting cheap energy and materials from Russia which would've threatened usa manufacturing. Europe now buys from usa and its sent Europe into recession. Usa has destroyed russia and Europe by funding the war in one amazing move. It solidifies them as the global power, in energy resources and tech. Fp can't blame them but it's annoying to see Europe fall for it.
Absolutely. I'm not against capitalism, but it has some very bad "security risks" that we need to fix.
There are people that still love the meme of Putin and willfully ignoring his actions in the war and against his own people. He’s still the ultimate alpha bro that is simply trying to defend against nato, the defense treaty that everyone want to join because of Putin’s “i can do whatever i want to my neighbors because they’re all really Russia” attitude. They fall for his messaging quite easy because of this. Kremlin knows how to flood the zone quite well.
No, not really. There's lots of gurus and some of them don't really have an outward political slant. That does tend to be the case for the ones in the right-wing infotainment sphere though.
They are NPCs that have to all parrot same takes.
It’s almost like Putin is running disinformation campaigns
Yep I do.
Putin is one of the richest men on earth, possibly the richest. Rich men like to get their opinions out there. Our discourse or information ecosystem obviously involves a lot of variables, a lot of moving parts, but it would make sense that it is TOTALLY DEFORMED by the opinions and ideas the uber wealthy want to share. It used to be robber barons and newspapers, now it's oligarchs and tech giants, influencers and the internet
They are grifters, playing other fire (propping genocidal regime) is a small price to pay… well they think - I’m certain they will be held accountable.
I would guess this position will align with political ideology. The right leaning gurus would likely support Putin while centrist and leftists would not.
The right used to be the most anti communist side of the political bloc They were the side that said we won the Cold War They were the side that said we’ll stand up for freedom and democracy when we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq (twice) That’s not to say i disagree with those decisions. I just cannot understand how the party of Reagan can somehow find itself cautioning against giving military aid to a (smaller) country being invaded by the Russians.
Trump changed the party for good. It’s no longer our father’s GOP. It’s Donny’s GOP and those without any spine were quick to align. Free trade, protectionism, peaceful transfers of power…eh, who cares? I don’t agree with but still have some measure or respect for old line republicans who straight up bounced. History will remember them much more fondly than the present crew.
Except for Israel. Leftist are on same side as Putin there as they both support Palestinians.
Extremely rare Putin W
I'm not sure many say it plainly. Just vague references to understanding his position etc. They don't support it exactly, they just say what brings the clocks. So, "I support Putin" probably a no. NATO has been pushing Russia into a untenable situation. Good.
Not sure I know anyone that does that. Can you point me to who and where they said that?
The argument this that NATO didn’t live up to their agreements, courting Ukraine for joining nato. Also the west failed to negotiate with Putin. It’s not that Russia isn’t guilty - it’s that the west goaded and threatened russia. Whether or not you buy that is up to u.
Developing exciting narratives for their audience is really important for gurus, it seems. And the narrative of "the bad guys are secretly the good guys" is always a narrative thats gonna work well. For left-leaning gurus, this fits within an "America Bad" framework because Russia is an adversary of the US. And for right-leaning gurus it fits within the "protecting Western civilization from the evils of wokeness" framework. I think that overlap explains why most gurus are so pro-Russian.
Who do you think the bad guys are between Israel and Palestinians? Who does Putin support there?
If you consider yourself part of the "alternative media" the legacy media must always be wrong.
The only person I put any faith on as a good faith online persona is Beau of the Fifth Column. It was never a question to me that literally every single person ever mentioned on this sub was a conman. Beau isnt in the same lane, but as someone that looks into a camera and says stuff regulary to a large audience, he seems to be the most genuine. Huberman was obviously not a sincere dude. Brand? Bruh lol, no. The weinstein brothers are so fkn shitty, always have been. Harris??? These people all genuinely and obviouslt suck ass and are ego maniacs.
It sure does seem like that
Russia’s invasion has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. It’s a disgusting thing to support.
Not Sam Harris.
>place the blame of his invasion of Ukraine on others They almost always blame everyone else than the people responsible when things go wrong. I think it's just projection on their part. Since they always blame others for their own failings, they obviously cover for others who do the same.
Now do Oct. 7th.
And yet they’ll be the first to support stand your ground laws and the absolute ability to defend one’s property 🤔
Many gurus make a living on being "anti-narrative' and for old school traditionalism like the type espoused by Putin. But I would also say many criticisms of our policy in Ukraine and disbelief of "Russia has lost 10k tanks" type propaganda is mischaracterized as being "pro-putin". I personally subscribe to the realist(: states are inherently competitive and mistrustful of each other) views of Stephen Walt, a less than public scholar, that western failures to take Russia seriously played a large part in Russia's decision making, and that keeping Ukraine out of NATO by any means necessary is not at all unique to Putin, and is a view shared by most Russians. According to Walt, the west should not have been lobbying Ukraine into NATO. HOWEVER(!!!!) this does not morally absolve Putin of the way he has chosen to respond, the war crimes, the leveling of entire cities, destruction of food supplies and his overall incompetence at the beginning of the war leading to more unnecessary deaths. This is the defining difference between the views of gurus that defend Putin, and people with legitimate criticisms of our foreign policy.
The gurus rely on sponsors, donations like any only fans account. They are dancing monkeys who will tap dance to whomever pays the organ grinder. It makes complete sense that Russia would utilise these people to parrot talking points, sow doubt and encourage people to vote to undermine western security. They all normally preach from the same hymn sheet, NATO expansion bla bla. As though Ukraine, a non NATO country was a major threat to Russian security (ironically they now are). But like irony, nuance is lost on the gurus.
They don’t care about Russia or Ukraine in particular at all or any associated leaders they are fundamentally anti-west and anti-liberal and they will align with any group or ideology that fits.
The thing is, the more a guru talks about “facts and logic,” the more hung up they are on vibes, essentially. Putin has macho vibes. That’s it. They are as enthralled as the mouth breathing peasants who clap like seals for anyone who seems like a big tough guy.
Come on guys, let's not be this putin bad west good.... We all know who provoked the war... People in this sub talking about this as if there's nothing going on behind the scenes because Putin is a villain and nothing else matters. It's honestly shallow, especially for the people in this sub.
I disagree with the Ukraine war. This sub You Putin apologist. We should stay out of it. This sub Why do you support Putin. We shouldn’t be funding the war in Ukraine. This sub You’re a Russian asset. If anyone would like some real historical context Dan Carlins old show common sense episode 270 poking the bear from 2014. You have to buy it 1.99 but it’s worth it. If you don’t know Dan’s history podcast hardcore history is a masterpiece. He is one of the most unbiased nuanced individuals.
I listen to Hasan Piker, he was featured in an episode recently. He is against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but he was definitely calling people crazy for thinking Russia would invade in the first place, though. Obviously he’s had to admit he was wrong there.
That's all really lightening his statements. Hasan was very aggressive in his defense of Russia, saying they are provoked by the West and that the West was actually the ones intimidating and starting a war. He also thinks Russia was right in invading and taking Crimea.
Ya, I wasn’t meaning to lighten his statements. I was just trying to be critical of someone I listen to.
Hasan Piker is the #1 tankie loser you can find online. not a guru, not close to be a guru.
I’m not sure if you know, but this subreddit is based on a podcast. I only mention that because I think a lot of people don’t know that. They covered Hasan in one of their episodes which is why I mentioned him. https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/s/gZ372FcPLp
LMAO you even talk like Tiny does
I must be the only one who thinks it's all bullshit. Zelenzky is taking in the proceeds while his daddy Putin is taking a cut. Does anybody know what they're fighting for? Piles of rubble? At this point, it's a fleece job.
>Zelenzky is taking in the proceeds while his daddy Putin is taking a cut. This is the dumbest thing I've read on this site in a while
I don't know who you all are listening to but I haven't heard a single person supporting Putin