Postscript

I’m pretty much done talking about the social network ban in Ukraine. Apparently I did not sufficiently hammer home the point I was trying to make in my last post. My anger in response to this isn’t about what the government did, but rather at the vastly more effective things they don’t do instead. Imagine you’re proud of how you finally trimmed the hedge on your front lawn, but meanwhile half your house is on fire. This would suggest you have a problem with priorities.

I’ve read more refined arguments for the ban since the last post, and while some of them are quite compelling (and some sites and services I agree should be banned, like Kaspersky Labs), but I feel they still fall short because at the end of the day, the ban doesn’t even fucking work. No seriously, it doesn’t. Here’s an excerpt from the link:

“Ukrainian experts also say that blocking the Russian sites is currently technically impossible. The chairman of the Internet Association of Ukraine, Alexander Fediyenko told “Interfax Ukraine”: “As of today, it can not be done.” He also added that the implementaion of the block would take time and large sums of money to upgrade equipment and make network topology changes.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian wireless operator ‘Kyivstar’ and telecom firm ‘Ukrtelekom’ have started preparations to implement the bill. ‘Ukrtelekom’ Director of Corporate Communications Mykhailo Shuranov told Hromadske that it could take from couple of days to a week.

Russian social Media VK has already shared instructions on how to bypass the block to its 20 million users.”

And in case anyone is wondering, I’ve been able to access all of the major blocked sites since this thing went into effect. Obviously a lot of babushki might not be able to figure out how to get around the ban, but the dangerous potential agents of the Kremlin certainly will.

There’s also another disturbing aspect of the ban, which comes right from the mouth of Poroshenko himself:

“I can tell that right after Russia stops its aggression against Ukraine, after the last soldier leaves the sovereign and independent territory of Ukraine, we will be ready to reverse this decision,” he (Poroshenko) said during the press-conference in Strasbourg.”

Think about that for a second. Apart from the fact that Putin, and indeed any likely successor is almost certainly not going to give back the Crimea of his own accord, does this seem just to you? Let’s just huff some paint for a second and imagine Putin did give back the Crimea and pulled all his overt forces out of Ukrainian territory- what then? Everything goes back to normal as Poroshenko promises? Ukrainian and Russian businessmen start making deals on the back of their respective populations again? Russia just gets to invade and occupy the country, kill over 10,000 people, and then just go back to the old status quo without so much as a slap on the wrist? And what would Ukraine get out of this fantasy Russia to guarantee its future safety, a peace treaty recognizing Ukraine’s borders? Yeah those have been so effective in the past! I’m all for reconciliation between Ukrainians and Russians as people, but I think it ought to be painfully clear that there can be no reconciliation between Ukraine and the current Russian regime even if it did reverse all of its actions since 2014.

That out of the way, let me remind readers that I am no naive liberal (or even a liberal at all) who believes in the childish idea of absolute free speech, nor do I believe that all human rights can be granted absolutely at all times (some internationally recognized human rights are actually contradictory, in fact). I’m not so much concerned about some middle-aged person in Kharkiv who will be inconvenienced in accessing their Odnoklassniki account (note that they can still access it) as I am about the idea of alienating millions of Ukrainian citizens while handing the Russians a point in the battle for the narrative in this conflict. This is doubly egregious when this action won’t even do what it’s supposed to do. This is incompetence, plain and simple.

 

War By Other (Ineffective) Means

I don’t normally do two posts in one day, but since I learned about the Ukrainian government’s recent decision to block Yandex, VKontakte (VK), and certain other Russian social networking sites, I can’t keep silent. I don’t really use VK or Yandex anymore, but for other reasons I won’t get into, this really struck a personal chord with me.

Suffice it to say that I have, in recent times, become intimately acquainted with Ukraine’s still Soviet Union-like bureaucracy. At times it has proven even more backward than that of Russia. I will also state that this kind bureaucracy exists in a sphere that is vital to Ukraine’s national security and its ability to defend itself against a certain foreign invasion and occupation (none of this knowledge is even remotely secret or even obscure, just so you know). Without going into detail I will say that Ukraine’s war effort is concretely hindered by such backwardness, just as it is hindered by endemic corruption. So imagine my rage when the latest “patriotic” outburst from the authorities is not in fact a sweeping reform meant to clean up this clusterfuck or any major corruption issues, but rather a very Kremlin-like decision to ban several social networks, including ones people use for their email.

First let me smack down a few arguments I’ve heard in favor of the ban.

Yes, VK and the other social network are potential security risks (at the user level) and yes, they can be a vector for Russian propaganda. On the other hand, both of these work both ways. Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) investigators have used sites like VK to determine the location of Russian soldiers on Ukrainian territory, along with other vital pieces of information. VK is still being used by OSINT gatherers because even now it seems the Russian military has not yet developed the concept of OPSEC. And as for the propaganda and Kremlin-linked pages, these also provided crucial information to Ukrainian and pro-Ukrainian activists and investigators, who not surprisingly often do a far better job than the governments’ organs. That’s basically over now.

And speaking of propaganda, the Russian press is having a field day with the news. While Russia has banned thousands of sites, they’ve only banned one social network so far, and it’s the one everyone hates- LinkedIn. But this recent move must have Russia’s state media bosses popping champagne, because this fits their narrative perfectly.

Remember the main message of Kremlin propaganda. It isn’t that Russia is so great or better than the West. Rather it is that everywhere else is just as bad, and that trying to make improvements will just destabilize your already-bad situation and make it worse. Moreover, the Russian state media insists that things like freedom of press and freedom of speech are just illusions. This is why one favorite trope of Russian propaganda is to publish videos which were supposedly “banned in the US!” The bottom line of almost everything they put out is that everybody’s bad, so why bother striving for something that’s just a mirage? The Ukrainian government has pulled some pretty Kremlin-like moves before, but nothing like this to date, and this can’t even really be called Kremlin-like since the Russian government hasn’t even reached that point yet.

Another argument is that this is justified because there is a war. Very well- fight the war then. Launch an offensive, shore up positions, and/or reach out to the population to mobilize them for defense. Do something other than piddly bullshit that just makes you look worse and doesn’t actually hurt Russia in any way. This is what Ukrainian politicians are doing in order to avoid actually fighting the war. Doing that might force them to curtail or *gasp!* cease their own personal enrichment. Thousands of ordinary Ukrainians have made sacrifices, even the ultimate sacrifice in this war, but the leadership sure as hell doesn’t want to sacrifice anything.

I might also add that VK and other Russian social networks haven’t been doing anything now that they weren’t already doing since the war began in the spring of 2014. If it’s right to ban them now and this banning is necessary for the war effort, why wasn’t this done back in 2014, 2015, or even 2016? Why hasn’t all trade with Russia been subject to sanctions since 2014? I’ll tell you why- because this excuse is bullshit.

Having got those objections out of the way, let me say that while my loyalty to Ukraine’s cause is unshaken, I am now more convinced than ever that Ukraine’s “leadership” is in no way serious about fighting this war. They’d rather go to the West with their hand out in hopes that if they look pitiful enough big-brother NATO will step in and solve the situation somehow. I say “solve” because what I think they’d much rather see Russia just go back to the status quo border-wise so they can continue making lucrative deals with their Russian counterparts while simultaneously reaping the benefits of European Union integration. I don’t trust any of these people any further than I could throw them.

Am I shouting “ZRADA!!!” (Treason!)?  No. To accuse them of treason is to suggest that you had some faith in them in the beginning. I don’t put any faith in politicians or governments; I’ve put my faith in the Ukrainian people and their repeatedly-demonstrated abilities for self-organization. I can only hope more will realize their own powers and abilities and reject the narrow range of views proffered by these clowns who call themselves leaders.

I think this just shows how precarious the situation is for those inside and outside of Ukraine who truly want the country to succeed. It is a constant struggle against foreign aggression in front and mind-numbing incompetence and corruption in the rear. For my part I’ll keep fighting the good fight, but I won’t be doing it on VKontakte, that’s for sure.

 

 

Diminishing Returns

I was on vacation recently and thus unable to report on the biggest non-Trump news of the past week, that being Macron’s victory over Le Pen in the French elections. Partisans of “the liberal order,” or as I like to call it “the liberal order that feels denying outright fascists access to political power is an anathema,” were celebrating while thousands of mentally-stunted shut-ins with Pepe frog avatars were wailing and insisting that France would now become a new Islamic Caliphate within a couple years. You know, the same thing such people have been saying for the past twenty years or so, even though the French Muslim population now is only about 7.5 percent of the total.

Of course there’s another angle to this story, which is that Russia turned its election meddling machine up to eleven this time in hopes of getting Le Pen elected. Whereas the US election meddling was mostly about trolling Hillary, the candidate they believed would certainly win, it seems the unexpected success of that campaign led the Kremlin to believe that it really could determine the outcome of foreign elections. Rather than deny connections to Le Pen and her party, Putin actually met personally with Le Pen and the two had a photo op together. Apparently neither party felt this would be seen as negative by French voters. In fact I’d bet they thought just the opposite- what better way to prove how anti-establishment you are by meeting publicly with Vladimir Putin?

Of course this all failed. What is more, the brazen attacks on Macron which included hacks, Wikileaks, and allegations that he was having a homosexual affair, will no doubt only increase his hostility toward Putin. The problem with election meddling like this is that it needs to work. If not, you’re in trouble. The trolling of Hillary worked because she lost (even if that wasn’t their original intention), and now the only repercussions against the Kremlin apart from some more targeted sanctions exist mainly on Twitter.

I think this is just another example of the Kremlin deluding itself into thinking it runs a superpower on par with the Soviet Union. I’ve long said that the “New Cold War” will be much like Putin- short and sad. This is because Moscow is behaving as though it is the Soviet Union when it has none of the advantages and far more weaknesses. By punching above its weight on several occasions, certain people at the top took those victories as proof that “Russia is back.” Now we’re starting to see how short term these gains really are.

I don’t think the Kremlin will cease its attempts at election meddling any time soon, as we will no doubt see in Germany and Italy in the near future. Still, each time they fail, or even when they succeed, more and more countries will start to take countermeasures against Russian interference. Even Russia-leaning politicians have good reason to avoid getting to close to Moscow. Russia will become increasingly isolated as the world begins to see it for what it is- not a defender against US or Western hegemony but rather an opportunistic kleptocratic dictatorship with no respect for anyone.

 

Where Are the Body Counters?

So if you follow news from America you know that once again the Republicans have come back with a new healthcare bill to replace so called Obamacare. So far it is has passed the House, and Republicans are visibly ecstatic about it. It still has to get through the Senate, but naturally people are already freaking out due to some of the provisions in this new bill. One of the most alarming changes is the return of insurers’ right to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. What is worse is that things like childbirth via C-section, rape, and a history of domestic violence can apparently be considered pre-existing conditions under the new bill (as far as I know this is based on those parts of the bill which have been made public so far).

Suffice to say, millions of people are in danger of losing their coverage, and the inevitable result of a lack of access to medial care is either suffering and/or death. Prior to the Affordable Care Act, America’s inability to implement a healthcare system on par with the civilized world was more than anything an embarrassment. Once America achieved one baby step in the right direction, i.e. Obamacare, the deliberate effort reverse that precious inch forward ought to be seen as something else. Murder.

Is it too hyperbolic to say that men like Paul Ryan or Donald Trump want to murder people? They are deliberately proposing policy which will literally result in preventable deaths. Seems a little familiar, doesn’t it?

In The Black Book of Communism, the authors assert that 100 million people were killed by “Communism” in the 20th century. Needless to say, there are numerous problems with their methodology, but let us ignore those for a moment. The 100 million figure is largely based on two things- the Holodomor in Ukraine and the famine which occurred as a result of The Great Leap Forward in China. Both of these incidents entail millions of preventable deaths due to ideologically driven government policy. Is it right to compare the deliberate denial of healthcare to Soviet or Chinese collectivization policy? You’re damned right it is- in all three cases people are denied something essential to live for ideological reasons.

Now before someone objects and cries whataboutism, let me shut that down by saying that I’m not using this example of healthcare as a justification for anything terrible that happened in the USSR or China. After all, the outrage we find in The Black Book stems from a genuine concern for human life and human rights, right? If a person can be “killed by Communism,” then it stands to reason that they can be killed by free market capitalism. If not, there needs to be a coherent explanation as to why not. Otherwise the operative fallacy here is not whataboutism (“tu quoque”), but rather special pleading.

What we have here is a rather open and shut case- preventable deaths as a result of ideologically-driven policy and, in this case, the opportunity for a big tax cut for America’s super-rich. Now we can add that to preventable deaths due to lack of healthcare plus malnutrition worldwide, stack that on top of capitalism’s long legacy of colonialism and slavery, and voila! Capitalism’s body count trounces even the Black Book‘s generous total for Communism.

Once again, this isn’t about justifying those crimes committed in the name of Communism, because we are, of course, really just concerned about human rights and morality, just like the authors of The Black Book of Communism. Clearly the higher body count of “free market” capitalism compels us to abolish and replace this murderous dogma. Well at least it would, if professional body counters were actually concerned about human life and not scoring political points.

I’m sure that can’t be the case.

 

Russian Defense Ministry Worried About Positive Image

 

MOSCOW- Recent photographs showing Russian soldiers assisting Kurdish fighters of the leftist “People’s Protection Units” in Northern Syria have become a cause for concern among the Russian military’s top brass. According to a source in the Russian Ministry of Defense, publicity surrounding the photos might reflect positively on the Russian armed forces, which have worked hard to cultivate an image of pure, unadulterated evil since 2014.

The concern over the threat of positive connotations may explain Moscow’s official denials of involvement. Speaking at a press briefing the day after the photos emerged on social media, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov insisted that Russia is not involved in helping the Kurds in the North Syrian Confederation.

“All this talk of the Russian military doing something positive or morally correct is nothing but nonsense from the typical sources,” Peskov told journalists.

“I can assure all of you that Russia and its Armed Forces are working their absolute hardest to fulfill their duty of spreading misery to the fullest extent of our reach,” he added.

State media has also hit back at the allegations, calling them “hypocritical,” pointing out that US forces are assisting the same Kurds, and listing numerous historical examples of when the United States’ armed forces acted as a force for good. Sunday news presenter Dmitry Kiselyov reminded his viewers that the US military had been instrumental in such positive historical developments as the abolition of slavery and the destruction of Nazi Germany. He too denied that Russia was deliberately helping the Kurdish movement, insisting that Russia would never support a democratic movement favoring local autonomy, self-administration, and radical women’s rights.

“It’s absurd,” Kiselyov told his viewers.

“Why would we, a nation with a highly centralized authoritarian bureaucracy bolstered by a fascist-inspired imperialist ideology want anything to do with these so-called ‘democratic confederalists,’ who insist that women are something other than breeding stock, entertainment, and a means for obtaining kompromat?”

Despite official denials, sources within the Ministry of Defense say that the command is taking the issue of its image very seriously and is looking for ways to compensate for its potential improvement.

“They’re frantically searching for ways to offset the potential improvement of their reputation,” said Gennady Borisov, a retired Soviet/Russian General who now works for a Moscow-based think tank dedicated to security issues.

“Any potentially positive action on the part of the Russian armed forces is a serious black mark on their image, so all options are on the table- stepping up the shelling of civilians in Ukraine, bombing hospitals in Syria- these are just two examples.”

Borisov said that the Ministry of Defense may even decide to take even stronger, proactive measures such as dropping napalm on a maternity ward in a relatively peaceful area of Syria or releasing a video of Russian soldiers crushing newborn kittens.

“Desperate times call for desperate measures, as they say. It might sound revolting, but it’s nowhere near as bad as having people all over the globe think that our armed forces were involved in something positive.”

The Importance of Being Ideological

For better or worse, this blog can be characterized as a “debunking” site. After all, it is called Russia Without BS and it was originally created to deal with myths about Russia. Of course since 2014, the biggest source of BS about Russia has come from the Russian state press and the Kremlin, and thus the blog turned from the debunking of myths and stereotypes to refuting propaganda.

More recently, and due in particular to the growing concern about Russian meddling in various Western elections, Western media outlets have given increasing attention to groups like StopFake (for which I’ve been working recently) and initiatives like the EU Disinfo Review. Journalists, Western politicians, and think-tank types love this idea of fact-checking and debunking. This is basically how the West chooses to fight against Russia’s information war. Unfortunately for those liberal centrists politicians and think-tank academics, fact-checking and debunking, while necessary and extremely helpful, cannot actually defeat the kind of propaganda Russia and certain other states disseminate. It’s not because we’re living in a “post-fact” world; we’ve long been living in a world where facts don’t matter.

First it must be said that debunking/fact-checking initiatives are extremely necessary. They catalog false claims so that politicians, activists, and journalists know what claims are floating around out there and they can respond to them. Facts do matter to some people who might be listening or watching an exchange, so being able to answer some conspiracy nut’s claim in public is extremely valuable. Also, by cataloging the long list of fake claims from various “news” outlets, it destroys their credibility. The sheer number of totally fabricated stories from Russian state outlets like First Channel or NTV makes them worthless as sources.

Unfortunately fact-checking has very limited value beyond that, and for an example we may look at a site like Snopes.com. Snopes, of course, was originally dedicated to debunking urban legends about all manner of topics, most of them non-political. Snopes became increasingly political as it began tackling chain emails, many of which had a conservative bent. The typical example would involve some US Marine punching out an atheist professor or maybe a female Muslim immigrant berating a good, wholesome American cashier until she’s put in her place by -you guessed it- an American serviceman or maybe their family member. There were certainly leftish chain emails as well, but most of those with political content were of a conservative bent. This only increased with the advent of social media.

Whereas in the old days if that uncle or aunt sent you a chain email you’d just send them a link to Snopes, that won’t work today. The American mouth-breather of today simply dismisses Snopes as “left-wing” or perhaps “funded by Soros,” and that’s it, you lose. Basically the prevailing mentality these days can be encapsulated by “It said the thing I want to believe is not true, ergo I decided it must be lying.” Now based on that, imagine trying to convince Europeans who have at least some skepticism about the EU that something called “The EU Disinfo Review” is on the level. Remember we live in a world where millions upon millions of people believe that instinctively and categorically distrusting their governments and the authorities is a key part of their personal identity.

And identity is a crucial issue here. In his book Don’t Think of an Elephant, cognitive linguist George Lakoff explains why facts don’t matter to most people. What matter are psychological frames, which are very much connected to people’s personal sense of identity. If facts do not fit one’s frames, they are ignored, discarded no matter how undeniable they are. I have personally seen this in action, most notably when some leftist Putin-apologists with zero knowledge of Russia or Ukraine repeatedly ignored a certain article I posted numerous times. It’s not that they dismissed the article as “Western propaganda” without reading it- it’s that they acted as though I’d never even posted it multiple times. They did not even react to it. Thanks to Lakoff, I learned why- it didn’t fit their frame.

Lakoff as I understand, currently works as an adviser to the Democratic party, but I’m not sure they’re taking his knowledge to heart. Democratic failures in the past few years, culminating in the embarrassing loss last November, largely revolve around this obsession with facts while rejecting ideals. One could argue that Obama tried to go the ideals route, if only superficially, and it paid off. But it seems this lesson was lost on the party. Matt Taibbi provides some good insight into this deficiency in a review of the book Shattered, which is essentially an autopsy of Hillary Clinton’s disaster of a presidential campaign. Here’s a key excerpt:

At the end of Chapter One, which is entirely about that campaign’s exhausting and fruitless search for a plausible explanation for why Hillary was running, writers Allen and Parnes talk about the infighting problem.

“All of the jockeying might have been all right, but for a root problem that confounded everyone on the campaign and outside it,” they wrote. “Hillary had been running for president for almost a decade and still didn’t really have a rationale.”

Allen and Parnes here quoted a Clinton aide who jokingly summed up Clinton’s real motivation:

“I would have had a reason for running,” one of her top aides said, “or I wouldn’t have run.”

The beleaguered Clinton staff spent the better part of two years trying to roll this insane tautology – “I have a reason for running because no one runs without a reason” – into the White House. It was a Beltway take on the classic Descartes formulation: “I seek re-election, therefore I am… seeking re-election.”

Shattered is sourced almost entirely to figures inside the Clinton campaign who were and are deeply loyal to Clinton. Yet those sources tell of a campaign that spent nearly two years paralyzed by simple existential questions: Why are we running? What do we stand for?

The centrists of the so-called “liberal order” in the EU suffer from the same problem. While they talk about “European values” we can see each and every European country violating those values on a daily basis. Meanwhile the best argument a lot of these politicians have going for them is that they’re not (fill in the blank with some far right-wing populist candidate who probably wouldn’t have gained so much popularity were it not for the incompetence of the previous administrations). Centrist leadership is seen as “technocratic,” devoid of ideological slant (even if this is highly debatable), and this is a problem because while they may sometimes manage to stave off the populist monsters they created, the latter still remain a constant and increasingly severe threat.

Looking at Russia’s role in all this, we see a similar problem of values and framing. While I’ve often pointed out that the Kremlin really has no actual ideology, it fervently pretends that it does. Its propaganda makes ideological appeals. Kremlin foreign-language media isn’t trying to actually get people to believe that any one of its forty-seven alternative MH17 theories is true, based on facts. Rather, the idea is that the viewer will accept any or all of those theories because they think that Russia is on their side, that it opposes the domestic politicians they despise, that it upholds their values, or some combination of any of those. In other words these people’s reasoning, to the extent it can even be called reasoning, is basically thus- “My government has accused Russia of shooting down a civilian airliner. I hate my government, and they hate Russia, ergo Russia must be telling the truth.” Whichever alternative explanation this person appropriates to support that conclusion is irrelevant. They may pick more than one no matter how mutually exclusive they are.

Russia actually has a huge advantage in this information war because the Westerners they are trying to reach have no knowledge or experience of real life in Russia. You’re typical American conservative is convinced that he lives in a country of immoral degenerates, and he finds examples of this every day. Meanwhile he hears Russia is all about conservative Christian values and with no actual knowledge or experience to tell him otherwise, in his mind Russia becomes the opposite of America in this degenerate/moral dichotomy. Meanwhile the leftist who sees nothing but contempt for anything labeled socialist in their own country looks at Russia’s over-the-top Victory Day parades and RT’s “anti-corporate” propaganda and comes to see Russia as a check on “American hegemony.” The conservative doesn’t know about the corruption and prostitution while the leftist doesn’t know about the staggering wealth inequality and the promotion of right-wing, even fascist thought by the state. Trying to convince such people with facts alone isn’t going to work because for them, believing those facts goes against their identity as a conservative, a leftist, or whatever.

Buzzwords like civil society, rule of law, and democracy cannot compete with the ideological-based appeals of Russia. Nobody says “I’m a rule-of-law-ist;” the concept in itself cannot be someone’s political identity. Leading Western parties and politicians would have to once again adopt some form of coherent ideology and try as best as possible to adhere to it in order to attract real supporters. Unfortunately I don’t see this happening and I doubt they’ll ever even try. I see the West as being dominated by over-educated, out-of-touch think-tank types who are still dumbfounded by Russia’s ability to run circles around them. They mistake fact-checking and propaganda debunking, which are useful tools, for the cure.

This is only one of many reasons why this liberal centrist order cannot deal with the monster it created in Moscow, and why those of us who sincerely hold values and care about the future of humanity must take up the burden of dealing with Russian propaganda from a values-based, ideological position. We must realize that this is a two-front war, first against the authoritarian kleptocratic dictatorships like Russia and Turkey, then against the incompetent bumbling fools who enabled the former.

Role Reversal

Now that Russian propaganda and fake news has become the hot topic ever since Westerners learned it can affect their countries and not just Eastern European nations they don’t really give a fuck about, you’d think they’d take some time to strengthen their own practices in order to differentiate themselves from Russian and other state-owned propaganda outlets.

Well you’d be wrong. The New York Times, which seems to see itself as a bastion of true journalism, has elected to serve up “alternative facts” by hiring a climate change denier. Better sign up a Holocaust denier and a flat Earther to make sure we get all sides of the story, right?

And when it comes to other publications, it almost looks like they checked out the worst Russian state outlets like TV Zvezda and got jealous. Check this shit out.

dumbasses

Yes, apparently the “OK” sign is now a “white power sign” because the ADL says so. Look, as much as I loathe Cernovich (don’t really know Fairbanks but working for Sputnik is bad enough), the guy says more than enough heinous, idiotic shit on Twitter. There’s no need to imagine that he’s giving a secret white power salute. In fact, I don’t even think they were going for the “OK” sign. It looks to me more like they were trying to emulate their god-emperor Trump and his habitual hand gesture. I mean he only does it almost every goddamned time he gives a speech.

 

And it’s no secret that the particular gesture in question has become widely associated with Trump. Here’s Trump’s biggest fanboy Milo Yiannobodygivesafuck emulating his master’s mannerisms:

fuckhead2

“Wow! What a daring provocateur with such original fresh, controversial opinions and a British accent to boot! We have no choice but to fall all over ourselves to offer you free air-time and speaking engagements!” -Liberals

So uh yeah- I don’t think that’s a neo-Nazi code sign there. If only there were some other way to determine that these people are racists. Like…If they perhaps wrote their opinions on various topics and then published them somewhere for the whole world to see. Then we could bust them- preferably by giving them free media coverage with headlines like: “Meet the Fresh New Face of Ethno-nationalism.” Were it only that easy! I guess we’ll have to squint closely at their photographs and see if they’re wearing New Balance sneakers or straight-laces. But that’s why they call it investigative journalism, right?