A strategy which could perhaps work if you bothered to use citations so that we know that what you're asserting is, in fact, actual historical fact. How can you think you'll ever gain the advantage testing random assertation against random assertation?
The fact you think that just because you can cite something it is neccesarily a historical fact is itself a problem. Historical fact is not a question of citation, historical fact is a question of logical coherency with existing accepted historical facts. You can create false credibility for things by creating long claims of citation that ultimately lead back to a single, essentially unsupported claim made somewhere but people won't follow the chain.
Most of the stuff I was saying is just stuff on Wikipedia really, but yes I should cite more often though the problem is that real sources are typically hidden behind paywalls so both expensive and no point. It was really amazing how much damage I could do without actually having to use any specific Russian media claims that would of course be dismissed as propoganda. A lot of my position is based upon my recollection of western media sources 2014, before the censorship curtain fell and their reporting of facts was reasonably neutral, though the facts were reported in a biased fashion naturally.
Certain things I suspect, but don't know for certain like the extent of the loss of Ukrainian territory during the 2014 revolution was far greater than the Donbass+Crimea, because the Ukrainans being distracted by having lots of other places to conquer allows three places in particular time to fortify their position, amusingly having the Ukrainians *only* lose control of those places requires the Ukrainian army to be really incompetent, especially to not conquer in particular Crimea. We now know the Ukrainian army is not incompetent, so it seems to logically be the case that the territorial fragmentation of Ukraine was much greater than just those three provinces.
Even within the madness there’s no logical consistency.
People support democracy because it undermines the authority of rulers (put in place by democracy!) but they are always on board when someone rebels against democracy (which does not apply to Ukraine, Yanukovuch was ousted by democratically elected parliamentarians after they voted for closer ties to Europe and he opted to completely ignore that and attempt to tie the country to Russia) because folk in the West are culturally predisposed to support rebels, because of the OG Star Wars trilogy.
This of course has no corroborating evidence, and (at the risk of de-railing the thread) ignores the reality of things like Trump’s recent attempts to challenges the results of the 2020 election through various means, which only similarly mad people accepted as reasonable.
He also mentioned at some point that the president of Ukraine and their parliament (or whatever they’re called) should be considered equal, but absolutely refuses to consider Yanukovuch unilaterally deciding to completely ignore what parliament vote for and do his own thing as a problem. He even suggested at one point that Ukraine is more similar to the USA’s form of government… but forgets that the legislature there has the power to impeach the executive, which is exactly what happened in Ukraine.
A point you aren't getting here is that Ukraine did not operate under a Parliamentery system like Britain. The President of Ukraine *does not* answer to the Parliament of Ukraine and there is no legal requirement that the President abide by the parliament's chosen course of action regarding foreign policy; they both answer directly to the People through seperate elections, similar to how it is in the USA. Neither can overthrow the other without defying the will of the people and indeed were the Parliament to do so *it* would lose it's democratic legitimacy but the President would not. The Revolution of Dignity is a crystal clear Anti-Democratic act, but that some people do not realise this took me as an example of how WS is not the same as Democracy. The Western Satanist among the democrats will side with WS even if it involves overturning democracy, they are true wolves in sheep's clothing.
Western Satanism is not an organised group and it is not a conspiracy to achieve a particular definite end. It is an ideology whose believers are loosely organised and who frequently clash with eachother, though they are rather united against their enemies, for instance Putin. Their very loose organisation I shall describe later on, it is basically one group indoctrinates a second group which indoctrinates a third group, with these groups not actually being organised or unified very much at all.
I also frankly need a better name for them. I could call them the Rebellion Cult, but that doesn't work because the Rebellion Cult is really the second tier of the ideology and a passive beneficiary of the ideological power of the tier above them. The tier above them are people who seek not to rebel specifically (because they are already in power, sort of), but to pursue any means of weakening the authority of the rulers of the country because they are some degree of corrupt and criminal or simply because they do not trust them to respect their powerbase; regardless of the reason, they are threatened by a strong authority. The oligarchs that Putin disposed of when he came to power are an example of this tier being defeated.
Rebellion is supported as a means to undermine Authority, just as they support other more legal means such as term limits or in desperate times installing a corrupt, criminal authority they can blackmail. There is no contradiction for the members of first tier in either backing the government against the rebellion or in supporting the rebellion against the goverment. If the rebellion is crushed (thanks to them) the government now owes them a favour which can be used later on to keep trouble away from their door. If the rebellion wins, then the new government is afraid of going to same way as the previous one and will not dare to step on their toes; this is where Ukraine presently is at the moment.
The third tier are the rebel ideologues. These are the specific ideologies, typically Democratic and Socialist ones used to rally forces by the 2nd tier rebel cult. The rebel cultists create parties dedicated to such ideologies and all goes well until they actually succeed in overthrowing the government. The 3rd tier believers actually take seriously the ends of their ideology and will support a strongman leader to implement those ends, but the 2nd tier wants to continue the rebellion to undermine the new post-rebellion government because a weak government is what the 1st tier wants. Typically what then happens is that the strongman leader supported by the 3rd tier will then purge the 1st tier and then reindoctrinate the 2nd tier to serve him as the rather than the 1st tier. This is what the apparently BS argument between Trotskyism and Stalinism is really all about. Stalin is the strongman leader supported by the 3rd tier while Trotsky is the 2nd tier rebel cultist manipulated into opposition by the 1st tier he depends upon.
The confusing thing here is that different Western Satanists of the various tiers can support rival causes because their organisation is so loose. Some of them could quite easily support Trump's ridiculous attempts to overturn the election results, precisely because it so ridiculous and illegal. The resulting Trump is extremely weak and can do nothing against those 1st tier WS that have backed his self-coup and it is now open season for every kind of crime, corruption and atrocity. However should the people simply fall into line and worship Emperor Trump, it would not be great thing for the 1st tier WS at all since Trump could now turn freely against them with popular support, so the 1st tier needs the 2nd tier to still sow unrest against Trump even as it supports Trump.
This is why Christianity is fundermentally opposed to Western Satanism. It says that we should follow Emperor Trump and disregard anything else (particularly laws) because he is the Authority, thus divine since all authorities are. As insane as this position is, it completely destroys the WS aim which is to keep the Authority weak and themselves strong by ensuring there is always plenty of rebellion against that authority, along with preferably other legal limitations. Since victorious Western Satanists destroy nations, this is why Christian societies have ended upon so successful historically, you can see Christianity as a paradoxical form of rebellion against WS simply because it worships Authority as divine.
It is also a continuation of the theme of worshipping the Emperor as a God and on that basis you can see how it is quite logical that the Roman Empire converted to Christianity. When Julius Caeser fought Pompey, he fighting against the efforts of the WS. These efforts result in the god-emperors but the Western Satanists (I really, really need a better name at this point) end up constantly overthrowing them which undermines faith in the cult. The resulting victory of the WS leads to the ruin of the empire but *then* the fact they undermined the Imperial Cult allowed Christianity to take over and beat them.
He also mentioned that the prequel trilogy weren’t liked because it wasn’t about rebelling against authority, rather than it just not being as good as the OF trilogy.
Equally so, having considered this, the prequels are really all about Palpatine’s rise to being the ultimate dictator, and the quite frankly stunning manipulations (yes I know it’s fiction) he engages in to get there over the course of all three films.
Surely Western Satanists would like the movies better because it’s basically showing how right the rebels were in the OG trilogy to actually want to overthrow him? Particularly since the best actor in the those films is the guy playing Palpy.
The OG trilogy are also aweful. The reason people like it is that it is very much a dumbed down 2nd tier WS rebellion cult universe in which the Good rebels fight against the Evil Authority, it is propoganda for an ideology they were indoctrinated to believe in but aren't even aware of, which is cathartic. The prequels instead engage in marginally more world-building but this has the unfortunate consequence of undermining the clear ideological meaning of the works, thus not making it cathartic in the same way.
Palpatine is very much the 1st tier WS in the strategy he uses. He uses the rebellion (the Seperatists) in order to increase his own power by playing the two sides off against eachother while moving forward with his actual plan. Where they are different is that his aim is to gain formal authority while the 1st tier WS aims instead to gain greater impunity in the use of their existing power by avoiding responsibility or accountability. Someone like Palpatine sometimes appears in history (Napoleon, Stalin, Putin) but is regarded as a traitor by the other WS.
The Jedi by contrast are more like what the 1st WS are really like. They hold great power and the Republic is dependent upon them to deal with problems, but they appear quite independent of the Republic. That means the Jedi can basically do as they please without accountability, the whole aim of the WS. Problem is that the Jedi lose and the Emperor wins, so it is really a story about how it is possible to outwit them and destroy them. Star Wars strength is not that it is a properly fleshed out sci-fi story but propoganda for WS, so the WS side (the Jedi) has to win or else it is demoralising to it's target audience.
Does that mean you and Putin are friends?
Also this Western Satanist thing has been very informative and now I wish to join a Satanist cult and start a revolution or something.
I was merely describing the reason behind why we hate Putin's Russia so much, given they aren't Communists anymore. I guess we can put that down to Great Power Rivalry, but we still have to then explain why so many leading powers are all implacably allied against Russia, rather than it just being USA VS Russia because those are the leading great powers. Why does a country like Britain help the USA in opposing Russia, given that we are not actually a subject power of the USA? Why are we helping the EU even though we *left* said thing? Why is the EU and USA on the same side given they are presumably great poer rivals too.
Yes we all claim to be Democracies, but so does Russia. Why do we believe in every single conspiracy theory regarding Russia and use our media to spread it through the airwaves, inevitably being read by Russians and supporting unrest? Because there is an international ideological *thing* behind us that drives our hostility and that thing Putin appears to call Western Satanism.
Author
Topic: Emotional Responses to War in Ukraine - Personal Diary & Mutual Support (Read 119092 times)