4 ms·

The Man in the High Castle adaption by Amazon was fantastic in this. The Nazi cities were beautiful. They were orderly, clean, everyone was well dressed and n

The Man in the High Castle adaption by Amazon was fantastic in this. The Nazi cities were beautiful. They were orderly, clean, everyone was well dressed and nice. Infrastructure was top notch and there were only very small hints that something was off. It was the type of NIMBY paradise that the rich Californians would kill for. What I have found to be a fantastic guiding principle for fascism in the West is the saying of a Peruvian dictator: "for my friends: anything, for my enemies: the law!". We're seeing this right now as the West has completely re-written the rules of The Game for the sake of hurting Russia and Russians. Going to be an interesting decade as the world re-shapes to adjust for the rule change and the West likely becomes more of an authoritarian fascist totality.

prox 5y ago
Can you explain further? What are these rules and what is “The Game”? You mean the sanctions? Those aren’t anything new afaik, and I don’t understand the connection to how the West will become more authoritarian because of that.
- InvaderFizz 5y ago
  Not OP, but I wonder is he is having the same feeling I am on this whole Ukraine situation. Below is a paste from a conversation I had with a close group of friends: I feel sorry for Ukrainians. I can't help but shake the feeling that they are being used as a pawn for the US to drain the military resources of Russia. I would guess that, the optimal outcome from the neocon/neolib perspective is for Russia to rubblize Ukraine over a period of months to a year, all they while the west says "woe is me", and supplies equipment to decimate Russian armor and aircraft. This makes Russia the indisputable bad guy for the atrocities committed against Ukraine, all the while the west has clean hands in decimating Russia's military power. The end result is hundreds of thousands to millions of dead Ukrainians that the neocons will shed crocodile tears over. Only cost them a few hundred million dollars to do hundreds of billions of dollars in damage to Russia. If there was any legitimate desire to have Russia back off, they would be offering terms such as guaranteeing that Ukraine would never enter NATO as part of a treaty, lifting of sanctions, etc, contingent on a full withdrawal.
  - swagasaurus-rex 5y ago
    It’s true the west does not want to get their hands dirty, and the people of Ukraine suffer all the more because of it. The reason is Nuclear Weapons. Putin is holding the world hostage and saying “don’t get involved or I blow us all to hell.” The blame is on Putin. He invaded. He cried the crocodile tears about NATO while approving unjustified war on the people of Ukraine.
    - InvaderFizz 5y ago
      > The blame is on Putin. Not arguing that point. He made the decision to invade, he has agency of his own and is responsible for his actions. My point is that if people think his Nazi and NATO talk is bullshit, call it by offering terms that completely neutralize those points. It's one thing to say, "Ukraine was never going to be in NATO, trust us." It's a completely different thing to say, "Ukraine will never be in NATO, here is a legally binding treaty stating so, contingent on X actions by Russia."
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > It's one thing to say, "Ukraine was never going to be in NATO, trust us." No one ever said that. Ukraine is going to be in NATO if they want to be in NATO. The claim that Ukraine would eventually be admitted to NATO is not the bullshit. The bullshit is that NATO is offensively directed at Russia; the only reason Russia isn't in NATO and covered by its defensive shield (Russia joined the onramp Partnership for Peace program in 1994) is that Putin decided he didn't want it to be, made known-unacceptable demands to bypass the accession process, was rebuffed as he knew he would be, and used that as a reason to stop any work toward joining.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - johnny22 5y ago
        Maybe they do want to be in NATO though? Either way, it doesn't justify the invasion.
  - 5y ago
SyzygistSix 5y ago
You had me in the first part. No one was interested in hurting the Russians until they invaded Ukraine. And nothing about this makes me suddenly think of my country as the good guys or makes any of the issues with my country any better.

prox 5y ago

Can you explain further? What are these rules and what is “The Game”? You mean the sanctions? Those aren’t anything new afaik, and I don’t understand the connection to how the West will become more authoritarian because of that.

InvaderFizz 5y ago
Not OP, but I wonder is he is having the same feeling I am on this whole Ukraine situation. Below is a paste from a conversation I had with a close group of friends: I feel sorry for Ukrainians. I can't help but shake the feeling that they are being used as a pawn for the US to drain the military resources of Russia. I would guess that, the optimal outcome from the neocon/neolib perspective is for Russia to rubblize Ukraine over a period of months to a year, all they while the west says "woe is me", and supplies equipment to decimate Russian armor and aircraft. This makes Russia the indisputable bad guy for the atrocities committed against Ukraine, all the while the west has clean hands in decimating Russia's military power. The end result is hundreds of thousands to millions of dead Ukrainians that the neocons will shed crocodile tears over. Only cost them a few hundred million dollars to do hundreds of billions of dollars in damage to Russia. If there was any legitimate desire to have Russia back off, they would be offering terms such as guaranteeing that Ukraine would never enter NATO as part of a treaty, lifting of sanctions, etc, contingent on a full withdrawal.
- swagasaurus-rex 5y ago
  It’s true the west does not want to get their hands dirty, and the people of Ukraine suffer all the more because of it. The reason is Nuclear Weapons. Putin is holding the world hostage and saying “don’t get involved or I blow us all to hell.” The blame is on Putin. He invaded. He cried the crocodile tears about NATO while approving unjustified war on the people of Ukraine.
  - InvaderFizz 5y ago
    > The blame is on Putin. Not arguing that point. He made the decision to invade, he has agency of his own and is responsible for his actions. My point is that if people think his Nazi and NATO talk is bullshit, call it by offering terms that completely neutralize those points. It's one thing to say, "Ukraine was never going to be in NATO, trust us." It's a completely different thing to say, "Ukraine will never be in NATO, here is a legally binding treaty stating so, contingent on X actions by Russia."
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > It's one thing to say, "Ukraine was never going to be in NATO, trust us." No one ever said that. Ukraine is going to be in NATO if they want to be in NATO. The claim that Ukraine would eventually be admitted to NATO is not the bullshit. The bullshit is that NATO is offensively directed at Russia; the only reason Russia isn't in NATO and covered by its defensive shield (Russia joined the onramp Partnership for Peace program in 1994) is that Putin decided he didn't want it to be, made known-unacceptable demands to bypass the accession process, was rebuffed as he knew he would be, and used that as a reason to stop any work toward joining.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - johnny22 5y ago
      Maybe they do want to be in NATO though? Either way, it doesn't justify the invasion.
- 5y ago

SyzygistSix 5y ago

You had me in the first part. No one was interested in hurting the Russians until they invaded Ukraine. And nothing about this makes me suddenly think of my country as the good guys or makes any of the issues with my country any better.