Monthly Archives: January 2018

Why We Can’t Have Nice Things

So recently I read this piece about Glenn Greenwald. Personally I’ve never had much of an opinion about the guy, but I think this description near the beginning of the article kind of sums him up:

Greenwald is predisposed to righteous posturing and contrarian eye-poking — and reflexively more skeptical of the U.S. intelligence community than of those it tells us to see as “enemies.”

The thing about Glenn though, is that when you look at his complaints about the Russiagate scandal, they’re not terribly irrational. Here’s his quote on the subject:

“When Trump becomes the starting point and ending point for how we talk about American politics, [we] don’t end up talking about the fundamental ways the American political and economic and cultural system are completely fucked for huge numbers of Americans who voted for Trump for that reason,” he says. “We don’t talk about all the ways the Democratic Party is a complete fucking disaster and a corrupt, sleazy sewer, and not an adequate alternative to this far-right movement that’s taking over American politics.”

This is entirely fair and in many ways mirrors my own position on the subject. What I don’t get though, is why he, like some other commentators, has to constantly leap to Russia’s defense the second anyone mentions anything related to Russiagate?

What exactly is the harm in acknowledging that there are other governments out there which do bad, and occasionally worse things than your own? What is he afraid is going to happen? If he admits that yes, Russia did act to negatively influence our domestic politics, does he fear that he’ll suddenly be on the cover of TIME  magazine as America’s newest neocon pundit? Does he think that some neocon cabal is just waiting for him to say something they can use to greenlight their secret plan to invade Syria and Russia simultaneously?

Realistically this is much bigger than Glenn Greenwald. I think this case just speaks to a larger problem of tribalism in politics, and the fear that any concession will be seen as weakness. To be fair, it’s not just an irrational fear. In the information space today, concession can be capitalized upon by bad actors to “win” internet debates. This video gives an example of how this works:


Going all-in on offense has a proven track record, especially today. But you also sometimes have to ask who these arguments are actually convincing. Alt-right and “anti-SJW” Youtubers have managed to garner large audiences by using this tactic, but who are they really getting? I’d reckon the majority are teenage to early twenty-something males who are gullible enough to be duped by endless videos telling them that Anita Sarkeesian is going to ruin their precious video games by lobbying the government to require all video game protagonists to be mixed-race body-positive females with colored hair. Of course Fox News has also managed to do well with a certain demographic- old people who are going to die soon.

My point is that integrity and consistency may also have qualities of their own, and even better- attract better, more reliable people. I realize it’s easy to be pessimistic these days, but at the same time the overwhelming fakeness of our politics these days, coupled with the polarized tribalism, may eventually reach a peak where increasing numbers of people start to rebel against joining a tribe and parroting one line in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Of course what would I know? I’m no where near as successful as Glenn Greenwald. But on the other hand I’ve often been complimented for my balance and objectivity, even by people who strongly disagree with my politics. A lot of my friends and colleagues are also praised for their refusal to join a team. Hopefully in the future, more people burnt out on tribal politics will start seeking out nuance, if only to escape the cynicism of those dead-end politics.


The Last Jedi Without BS (Spoilers)

Star Wars: The Last Jedi has been called the most polarizing Star Wars movie to date. At least I’m pretty sure I’ve seen someone say this on the internet. It is undeniable that people seem to either really love or hate this film, or perhaps people with access to publishing platforms or who just happen to be unbearable loudmouths do. However, it has got bad reviews from some pretty serious voices (at least serious to me) like Red Letter Media:


Over Twitter and Facebook I have gradually spooned out a few opinions on it, but I never got around to writing a full review. Well the day of judgment has come. Here is my Last Jedi review.


If you want my short opinion with no analysis, here it is. I would say that Last Jedi is a film that tried to do bold things and break with some of Star Wars’ sequel/prequel weaknesses such as fan service and rehashing plot points from the more acclaimed originals. However, these bold moves are somewhat mitigated by some really dumb ones, although I wouldn’t say they ruin the movie. If you think about it, there are some really dumb things even in the original trilogy, but they don’t necessarily wreck the entire plot. The dumb things in Last Jedi are awkward and cause issues with pacing but I don’t see them destroying the overall story arc or ruining anything like the prequels or Rogue One did.


Proper thorough review (Spoily bois ahead)

I’m just going to jump into this with a pros versus cons approach, starting with what I liked.

The Good

First off the bat is porgs. Porgs are awesome. Porgs are life. If you don’t like porgs there is something fundamentally wrong with you. No, they didn’t become the new Ewoks. They were mostly benign and used sparingly. I can forgive Chewbacca for roasting one porg and seeing the error of his ways, but if he harms one more he’s done. Yeah I know wookies can pull arms out of sockets, but can he fight on the ground? Probably not. Ninety-five percent of fights go to the ground, Chewie.


Moving on to main positive points, I like the way the movie tried to break with traditions and formulas. The biggest complaint about The Force Awakens was that it was a direct copy of A New Hope. You can’t really make similar accusations against Last Jedi; it is genuinely different from other Star Wars films. Of course what was different in this film wasn’t always necessarily good, but here I’d like to concentrate on what I feel worked.

For me, the best innovation here was the theme of letting go of the past, even killing it if necessary. Believe me, when your whole life revolves around Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the idea of killing the past is veeeeery attractive. One of the biggest problems with modern Star Wars is of course fan service. I’ve already mentioned TFA, but some people felt that Rogue One  was nothing but fan service as well. The prequels can also be looked at as fan service in the way they incorporate characters from the original trilogy that never needed to be involved in that story. Why, for example, does Boba Fett (a young clone of his father Jengo) have to be involved with such a monumental event in the history of the Republic? Remember how we meet Boba Fett in Empire? He’s there with a bunch of other bounty hunters. He’s not singled out except when Vader tells him “No disintegration.” Is that how you’d treat the son of the guy whose DNA built the whole clone army that you used to fight with for years?

Some of the complaints about Last Jedi are basically whining about how different everything is. “But Luke Skywalker is old and cynical and he’s not heroic anymore!” Excuse me what did you expect? Was he supposed to hop in his X-Wing and take out the First Order forces with a well-placed pair of proton torpedoes? Wasn’t copying things from A New Hope the reason you whined about Force Awakens?

Luke being cynical and jaded makes perfect sense. He was involved in this great victory and tried to continue his study of the Jedi arts. Meanwhile the remnants of the Empire pretty much swept right back into power and his student, his own nephew and son of his best friend, got seduced by the dark side on his watch. He was on top of the world and through arrogance or some other failing he managed to fail at the most important thing in his life, you know- like Obi-Wan failed with his father? Yeah I’d get a bit cynical after that too, especially if I had to live on an island drinking blue milk. If you want happy-go-lucky Luke Skywalker, go watch the first film.

The biggest advocate of slaying the past is, in this film, at least, Kylo Ren, who literally voices this exact concept. Indeed he does “kill the past” when he kills Snoke (Spoily boi!). If you were expecting the series to be exactly like the original trilogy with the older Emperor and his younger apprentice, Kylo subverted that expectation for better or for worse. He does invite Rey to join him similar to Vader in Empire, but it’s not entirely clear what he wants to rule over or how. He wants the resistance gone because it’s part of that past, a past of never-ending war, but it seems like he has radical plans for the First Order as well.

Now I can’t bring up killing Snoke and the scene with Kylo and Rey together without mentioning how many people were pissed off about this. First there’s the killing of Snoke with no explanation as to who he is or why he’s so powerful. A counter-argument to that is “Well the original trilogy just introduced the Emperor with no backstory or explanation of his powers and you bought that just fine!” Let me just say that both sides have compelling arguments here. I was a bit taken aback by Snoke’s death. It would have been nice to get at least some explanation as to his backstory or how he got to be so powerful. I really don’t care if he came from the original trilogy or the prequels, but we’re introduced to this extremely powerful dark side force-user who has somehow become leading this First Order and we know nothing about him. What’s worse is that since he’s dead, we’ll probably never find out what his deal is.

As for comparisons with the original trilogy Emperor, yeah this argument works at first glance. Hell, the name “Palpatine” is never uttered in the original trilogy. On the other hand, from the first film we know there’s an Empire, and Empires are typically headed by Emperors and Empresses. We were expecting an Emperor. When he finally, appeared it didn’t matter too much for the story. We already knew the Empire exists. When he revealed his powers we didn’t need any explanation. It was clear he was in tune with the dark side, he was senior to Vader and obviously much older. He also looked like an evil wizard and he clearly wasn’t carrying a light saber, so while some people might have been surprised to see him turn on the lightning, it wasn’t breaking any rules of the universe, nor was it inexplicable or confusing. What else would he do?

Snoke is a character for an entirely different era, an era in which Star Wars is this massive expanded universe based upon a foundation of six films. Backstories became a thing as soon as the first prequel dropped (dropped being a very good word for it). Remember the original Star Wars was never intended to be part of a trilogy. They “save” Vader strictly to leave the possibility of a sequel open but other than that it’s a standalone story. More importantly, that film came from an era when movie plots were much less complex and it was also inspired largely by the Second World War, a struggle which many people of the time saw in very simplistic, black-and-white terms. There’s nothing particularly subtle about the A New Hope– the good guy and the princess wear all white while Vader is in all black and the rest of the bad guys dress like space Nazis.

So to sum up that point- yeah, it kind of sucks that we get no Snoke backstory, if only because it would also form part of a rise of the First Order backstory. But this is counter-balanced by the fact that the series trope of master and apprentice, emperor and enforcer, is quite literally slain.

Now the other element of this scene that led to serious butt fury was Kylo telling Rey that her parents were nothing but dirt farmers who sold her for booze money. I find this complaint amusing because one of the biggest gripes against the prequels was midichlorians and the implication that your sensitivity to the force has a lot to do with your bloodline, since, you know, midichlorians are in your blood, like antibodies or the HIV virus. Thus Lucas had supposedly “ruined” many a childhood because some die hard fans fell in love with the idea that anyone could attune themselves to the force, whereas George was reducing it to some physical, quantifiable thing. And yeah, I get that. Midichlorians are dumb. But The Last Jedi’s reveal about Rey’s parents subverts that very idea.

When Force Awakens came out, I heard a lot of speculation about Rey and how she just had to be Luke’s long lost daughter. And to be fair that kind of made sense. She seemed to have a connection to him and was very adept at the force almost immediately. Now, if we are to trust Kylo’s word (and why would we do that, exactly?) Rey’s bloodline is, in itself, entirely worthless. Everything she’s done she has done on her own, through belief, will, and so forth. Isn’t that cool? Is it at least interesting? Don’t you want to find out just why she is so talented with the force?

And as I alluded to above, I must ask why fans are so adamant about taking Kylo’s claim at face value. Remember, this scene takes place as he’s asking Rey to join him, to rule the galaxy, and of course let go of the past. Don’t you think he might just be lying to manipulate her? How would he even know about her parents? The force? Or what if he knows that her parents are really important people and thus is definitely lying because he’s sure she would refuse his offer if she knew the truth?

I should also point out that I’ve read or heard somewhere that J.J. Abrams never had any particular plan for Snoke’s backstory or Rey’s parents. If correct, he basically just passed the buck to Rian Johnson. Maybe Johnson just didn’t want that burden and thus felt forced to either come up with a half-assed backstory (which probably would have angered some fans anyway) or just do away with both threads entirely.

To wrap up this point, I would say that I can get over my disappointment in regards to Snoke, and I have no investment in Rey’s parents. If they turn out to be dirt farmers it just means that Rey is special for other reasons that we will discover later. Or maybe we’ll find out Kylo was lying and her parents are in fact very important. No need to declare the film heresy over this.

And while we’re speaking about characters, Kylo really shines in this film. As I said earlier, Star Wars tends to revolve around very black-and-white villains and protagonists. But in this movie Kylo is a mystery. Is he turning good? No? But he turns against Snoke, right? Does that mean he’s good? Oh no- it doesn’t. But he’s “bad” in his own way. In other words, we spend a fair bit of this film trying to figure out which way Kylo is going to go. Having his story about Jedi training with Luke differ from Luke’s own narrative was also interesting. Here we have a follower of the dark side suggesting to us that we might not be entirely able to trust Luke Skywalker, which would be a novel concept.

To conclude the overall topic of breaking with the past I also don’t buy the complaints about Skywalker wanting to see the Jedi die out. To fans that seems inexplicable, but it’s very believable when you think about it. As others have pointed out, the Jedi aren’t so great. Their whole order got duped and nearly wiped out by villains who were often right under their noses. They were dicking around teaching younglings how to block lasers with tiny light sabers while the clone army was being built. They thought Sith Lord Count Dooku was just a “political idealist” even though he was a guy wearing all black played by Christopher Lee. If you can rescue any coherent, genuinely interesting plot out of the prequels, it’s that the Jedi Order got complacent and weak, leading to their downfall.

And what a downfall it was. Remember that Anakin Skywalker turning to the dark side in many ways basically led to the rise of the Empire, which in turn would lead to the destruction of an entire planet. Luke knows all about that. If he was wrong about Kylo, you could imagine that he was just afraid of unleashing another Sith on the galaxy. He knew full well what that could lead to (plus the First Order also nuked a few planets into dust so Luke would have been right).

We are now entering an era when we can expect to see two Star Wars feature films released every year. Think about that for a second. Personally I think it’s a huge mistake that is going to eventually wreck the brand by flooding the market. I’d like to think that Johnson or someone else in charge has figured out that Star Wars will need to evolve in order to survive. We can’t just have more Sith lords battling Jedi knights with light sabers, bigger and bigger Death Stars, and AT-AT walkers with six legs or something. The format of a Star Wars movie must change, and to be fair Rian Johnson definitely took big risks. The whole space chase thing was kind of weird, but very original for this sort of film.

I respect Johnson’s boldness in this film. It was a big risk and some of it doesn’t pay off so well, but some director had to do it eventually. If you can’t handle it, just stick with your original trilogy.

The Bad

Before I get into this part, I have to point out one thing that kind of ruined my viewing experience. When I got to the cinema there was only one seat available, right in front of the screen on the far right of the theatre. In other words, literally the worst seat you could have. I went with it because the showing was kind of late and I didn’t have any other plans but I almost immediately came to regret that decision. Apart from the extreme discomfort, things on the left side of the screen get very distorted. Obviously you can appreciate a film visually a lot more if you are sitting comfortably with a full view of the screen.

With that out of the way, let’s talk about what didn’t work. I think I’ll start in a sort of semi-chronological order here, which means I’m going to have to call out what I felt was a significant plot problem in the opening text crawl.

It may not seem too crucial to the film, but the text crawl, at least for me, reveals a problem with the overall narrative. Basically the overarching plot doesn’t resemble a war. At the end of Return of the Jedi, the Emperor and Vader are both dead. Second Death Star is destroyed. For some reason this immediately leads to the collapse of the Empire if you’re watching Lucas’ special edition. Thirty years later, the First Order is so powerful it has a “Resistance” against it (you think the Resistance would just be the Republic), and they are in possession of a weapon much stronger than the original Death Star. So far not too bad- they had thirty years after all. Hitler rebuilt the German war machine in about twenty. But at the end of Force Awakens the First Order has taken a serious blow and lost their superweapon. Of course they could still recover, but the opening text crawl in Last Jedi tells us they did that and much more. They’ve basically reduced the fighting rebels to a force that fits on a small armada of ships, and by the end of the movie the entire movement fits on the Millennium Falcon. And all that happens after the First Order loses yet another capital ship in the beginning of the movie.

Suffice to say this is not how wars tend to go. About a week before the Red Army’s counter-offensive at Stalingrad, the Germans had suffered a decisive defeat at El Alamein in North Africa. Then they lost at Stalingrad the next year, in the spring they lost in Tunisia, they lost Kursk, then Sicily, and so on. While the Germans were occasionally able to mount counter-offensives and on some occasions even recapture some territory on both fronts, 1942 was a turning point from which they could not fully recover, and then it was all downhill from there. But with the First Order it’s as if they fail upwards.

Moving on from the text crawl, I have to say that the scene with Poe in his X-Wing “prank calling” the First Order was a little bit too funny, too soon. It created a tone problem especially when it’s followed up with a battle where dozens and eventually hundreds of people get killed. Humor in Star Wars is usually witty dialogue, rejoinders, etc. This was different. This was a bit.

Also it’s rather strange seeing him just floating in front of a heavily armed starship during this scene. You would think that in the First Order officer’s academy there would be a lot of required reading about the Battle of Yavin, when a single X-Wing was able to blow up the Death Star due to it being designed to withstand a large starfleet attack. You would think that in thirty years the First Order’s designers would devote a lot of attention to developing defensive systems that would protect large ships from small fighters.

Moving on- yes, Leia’s survival in space was kind of dumb. I don’t usually complain about physics or science in Star Wars. It is pointless to do so. Ignoring that there’s no sound in space, every time you see a spaceship in Star Wars do a banking turn or anything else like a fighter jet- that is completely wrong. You can’t maneuver a space craft that way. For me, Star Wars is a series where you ignore all the laws of physics and relatively. In a way you could say it’s more comparable to fantasy than sci-fi. Or you could call it sci-fi fantasy. The fantasy element is basically stuff not working the way it usually would according to the laws of physics. But still, Leia’s survival was pushing it. One way or another, this should have been the film where she died, because after all, she did die. That scene with the bridge getting blown up would have been a perfect spot to end the character, with dignity.

Now we get to one of the most annoying parts of the film. Since Force Awakens there has been a tradition of alt-right losers loudly declaring that “the SJWs have ruined Star Wars!” Some of them were so angry that they apparently made an edit which literally removes every major female character from the film. I have no idea how they managed to do that and keep anything resembling a coherent story. It reminds me of this time I saw a Mormon video rental store which had titles such as Die Hard and The Usual Suspects in it. Such movies couldn’t possibly make sense if you edited out all the profanity, extreme violence, etc.

Obviously the “anti-SJW” crowd is full of shit, but I think it’s hard to pretend that pandering, corporate feminism didn’t have an influence on at least part of the film. Yes, you probably guessed I’m speaking about Holdo (Laura Dern) and Poe. Vanity Fair praised this interaction, pointing out that Poe is a brash shitbag who gets lots of rebels killed because he doesn’t follow orders, whereas Holdo is a strong woman in authority who knows what she’s doing, just like a certain real woman who is referenced later in the article!

I’m very sorry but while Leia was totally justified in criticizing and demoting Poe, the Poe/Holdo interaction is incredibly stupid. Holdo withholds vital information from a subordinate and deliberately makes herself look incompetent during a crisis situation. When someone is asking about a plan and the commanding officer can’t offer any answers, it looks like they’ve frozen up. Anyone remember this scene from Band of Brothers?


Now I’ve seen some people defend Holdo by saying that she didn’t need to tell him the plan since he fucked up and got demoted. Sorry but no- competent leaders brief their subordinates about the mission. Sure, Poe went off on a wild goose chase that got more people killed, but he only did that because the person who was in charge, the person who was supposed to have a plan, deliberately pretended not to have any plan at all. And that same person actually told almost everybody else on the ship about the plan, possibly before that same scene where Poe is asking her what her plan is. What possible good reason would there be to keep the plan only from Poe and a few of his compatriots while telling literally everyone else? When the plan is actually enacted, he’s not too opposed to it.  Again, he went off and did his own thing because the person in charge feigned total incompetence.

This isn’t feminism; it’s corporate, liberal, pandering feminism. It’s the type of feminism that sees progress as female ICE agents kicking down doors and dragging family members away or female CEOs in charge of tech firms that work their no-benefits employees 80 hours a week and deny them bathroom breaks for minimum wage. In this case, women and girls are supposed to look up to the idea of being an unaccountable authority figure who is not to be questioned. What a great message!

Here’s a tip, Disney. If you want a positive message for girls, young women, and pretty much anyone, cast the scene differently. Have an old male officer demanding deference to his by-the-book, cookie-cutter plan, perhaps one that’s already been tried and failed before. Then you have a young female  character challenge him using logic, which is contrasted with his conventional, outmoded thinking. You get two messages in one- don’t automatically defer to authority; think for yourself, and if you’re a girl don’t be afraid to question a confident man. Instead what we got in this movie is “Hey guys, if a woman is in a position of authority just shut up and do what she says even if she appears to be utterly incompetent. Listen to mother!”

The same scene could have been better written even if we use the same characters. Holdo could reveal her plan, and Poe could argue about it or whatever reason you can come up with. Holdo makes rational, cogent arguments, but Poe is too wreckless and up his own ass to pay attention. Then he gets a bunch of people killed the same way he does in the actual movie, and we expect Holdo to say “I told you so” right before she kamikazes that First Order ship, but instead she says something that makes Poe see the error of his ways while retaining the high ground. Poe is changed. Arc achieved.

In conclusion on this point, no, feminism is not ruining movies. What’s happening is monopolistic corporations see a marketing angle. First, you pander to the feminist side by acting like every female role in your film is a blow to the patriarchy. Some marketing that portrays your movie as having a “girl power” message helps as well (see Wonder Woman). What this inevitably does is create volcanoes of buttrage from the internet’s alt-right/Nazi/incel/MRA/human refuse population. Now you use the male backlash to garner more support from pro-feminist people, who will want to see your film more and maybe even convince themselves that they like it just to spite the fedora-wearing demographic. I’m not saying this is specifically the case with The Last Jedi, but the whole Holdo/Poe conflict really seems to have been influenced by this kind of underhanded marketing strategy. And if you think this isn’t really a thing, check out this trailer to the last Transformers film:


I have listened to reviews that say this girl barely has any role in the film, meaning that whole “fight like a girl” thing in the trailer was almost certainly an attempt at pandering to feminism…by Michael Bay…the man who in the same series of films would often shoot scenes with Megan Fox from practically inside her vagina. Girl power, indeed, Mr. Bay.

Next on the bad list we have the infamous Casino Night Zone scene. The biggest complaint I’ve seen in connection with this is about pacing. I totally agree. I’d describe it this way- here we’ve got the rebels running from the First Order. It’s a chase. Then they decide to send some people to another planet to get this guy and somehow catch up with the space ships that were chasing each other presumably at top speed the whole time. The movie already establishes that fuel is an issue and that the ships go different speeds. Just imagine a film with a car chase where two characters bail out of the escaping car to go do something else, then they have to somehow get back to the car chase. It would be weird. It’s weird in this movie.

Another thing that sucks about the Casino Night Zone scene is that Rose and Finn don’t really accomplish anything here. They bumble their way through the whole thing and only manage to get lucky because the code-breaker they need happens to be in the jail at the same time. What about the guy they were initially looking for and seem to find? Nah, forget him. They just get caught and either the guy they’re looking for is already in jail or there just happens to be another master code-breaker in this place. Okay.

As bis as these problems are, the Casino Night Zone scene did bring up some interesting points. I liked the idea that there was a class of people profiting off of the sale of weapons to both sides. I like the idea of someone challenging the idea that the Rebellion is inherently good. This is breaking with the past, with simple black-and-white good-and-evil storytelling. It would be good if they could follow up on this, like show how the lack of a legitimate Empire or Republic has led to chaos in the galaxy that is fueled by a 90’s Somalia-like glut of arms. The most awesome thing I could think of is the Rebellion turning evil, perhaps forcing Rey and Kylo to really join together to bring it and the First Order down for good, perhaps solving the galactic governance problem via Abdullah Ocalan’s ideology of Democratic Confederalism.


‘Help me, Ocalan Kenobi, you’re my only hope!’

All that having been said, this all could have been executed better. It really did hurt the pacing.

Next I’ve got to talk about Rose. I don’t really understand Rose hate. She’s fine. The only sticking point is that she does something really, really dumb near the end of the film. You probably already guessed if you’ve already seen the film. Finn is about to do something incredibly heroic, just like Holdo. Actually he’s more heroic than Holdo because Holdo lets several transports get blown to pieces before she finally decides to go Mohammed Atta on the First Order’s flagship. Finn, however, sees what he must do and aims his speeder at the giant cannon, only to be knocked out of the way by Rose in her speeder. I’m sorry but that’s a total dick move, Rose. Finn is a soldier, only he gets to make that decision to self-sacrifice or not. Watch Four Lions some time. But the worst thing about it is that there was no guarantee that her crashing into his speeder would have saved him as she intended. They could have both been killed, or just disabled so he couldn’t do anything. Basically she could have brought the worst of both worlds. This was dumb. There’s no other way to say it.


Luckily, Rose survived her incredibly stupid deed, so perhaps she’ll be able to redeem herself in the sequel.


Weighing my pros and cons here, a certain big picture develops. It may seem from this review that the good and bad either balance out, the latter outweighs the former. But there is a major qualitative, not quantitative difference between the positive and negative aspects of this film. True, the things that are dumb are really glaring. That’s what dumb things in movies do- they stick out, knock you out of the film, confuse you, anger you, and so on. But the positive aspects of this film have more depth and substance, and they cannot be easily torn down by a character’s stupid action or a half-assed attempt to appear woke.

The theme of change, evolution, breaking with the past is intriguing as it necessary if Star Wars is to avoid stagnation as we approach full year-round Star Wars saturation. With the Luke and the Jedi sacred texts gone, with the Rebellion whittled down to a handful of people, everything must begin anew. Rian Johnson has removed the audience’s floaties and tossed them into the deep end. This series isn’t going to be neatly wrapped up by Luke Skywalker suddenly dropping in and saving the day by taking out everyone with a light saber.

Of course this film does set up a very difficult task for the next director. With the Rebellion in such dire straits, its hard to imagine how the next film will tie up all the loose ends. Perhaps the Rebel message to the galaxy, which seemed to garner no support, was in fact well-received, and the First Order will suddenly face a massive revolt in every system. Maybe there will be a split within the First Order. Perhaps, due to some understanding between Rey and Kylo, the First Order and the remnants  of the Rebellion will team up against the real threat- the arms dealers who have been growing fat off the war and could have been using the profits to start a new political faction…like…some kind of federation…that is based on trade. A Trade Federation, if you will. But seriously, this film’s conclusion means the sequel’s director will have their work cut out for them, but it might also free them up to do something really revolutionary. Hopefully Rian Johnson will be working with closely with J.J. Abrams on Episode IX in order to tie up everything in an epic way. Of course knowing Star Wars fans, we might see another wave of buttrage at that film too. I’m sure there are many people who, upon seeing Last Jedi and hating it, cynically concluded that this series is already dead in the water and nothing can redeem it. I have some advice for such viewers.

You will never see a Star Wars film that recaptures the magic of the first films you saw as a child. Never. You’re an adult in an increasingly ugly world. You are simply chasing the dragon. At your age magical feelings don’t come from space fantasy movies. They should come from things like the birth of your first child, passionate sexual encounters, scenes of incredible humanity in the midst of war, petting a really nice dog, eating a delicious burrito, or owning people on Twitter.


One day you’ll try to introduce your kids to the original trilogy, and they may very well think it’s lame. They may think The Phantom Menace is awesome and you’ll seriously considered abandoning them in the woods across state lines, but you’ll have to face the fact that time, technology, and generations change. In a few years there will be over a dozen feature-length Star Wars films in existence, not to mention the countless comic books, video games, TV shows, and novelizations. If you truly love this series so much you’ll learn to enjoy the the stories you love and just ignore the ones that are mediocre or just disastrous. You don’t have to let other films or stories ruin the ones you love just because some nerds accept them as “canon.” Canon is essentially religious dogma. Let go of the past. Kill it, if you have to.

Some people have been ranking Last Jedi in the whole series so far, and this is something I can’t possibly do. I don’t think it can beat any of the original trilogy; it’s definitely not “the best since Empire Strikes Back,” but I’d definitely put it above any prequel film. I say that Force Awakens and Last Jedi  cannot possibly be worse than the prequels because the prequels (including Rogue One) actually undermine the original trilogy, whereas anything that happens after that doesn’t necessarily mess with that story line. If you don’t like the new films you can just act like Star Wars ended with Return of the Jedi and go on and enjoy the books, comics, or video games.

Of course my own opinion on the best Star Wars film has changed radically in recent months. Whereas up til then I would say for me it’s a toss up between the original New Hope and Empire Strikes Back, now I’ve come to realize that the greatest Star Wars film currently in existence is, of course, Star War the Third Gather: Backstroke of the West. Get your popcorn and watch the whole masterpiece right here!



Academic Proposes Creating Artificial Crimean Peninsula for Russia to Annex Safely

STAUNTON- Alexander Borodin of the Russian Academy of Sciences has a modest proposal to solve the conflict between the West and Russia over the latter’s annexation of the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine in 2014. The plan is simple- build Russia a mock Crimean peninsula that it can safely annex and occupy without infringing on the territorial integrity of any of its neighbors.

“We’ve already seen China push its claims in the South China Sea with the building of artificial islands,” Borodin said.


Artificial island built by the People’s Republic of China. Borodin suggests Russia could built an artificial island as a stand-in for the Crimean peninsula.

“It’s not too much of a stretch for Russia to build its own artificial Crimean peninsula somewhere else in the Black Sea, or perhaps even in the Pacific Ocean.”

According to Borodin, this would solve several problems, the most obvious being the conflict with Ukraine and the West over Russia’s continued occupation of the disputed territory. He pointed out that by building its own Crimean peninsula however it wants, Russia could return the real Crimean peninsula back to Ukraine. This, along with a full pull out in Ukraine’s Donbas region would fulfill the conditions for the full removal of sanctions against Russia.

“As the situation stands now, Putin can’t let Crimea go,” Borodin explained.

“The annexation is what put his popularity through the roof. It’s a major pillar of his continuing support. But the initial euphoria has been wearing off in recent years due to economic hardship. What can Putin do? Re-annex Crimea? He certainly can if Russia builds its own artificial Crimea.”

Borodin said that a Russian-built Crimea could be settled with Russian citizens which the government would have to “save” periodically, perhaps even once a year. This way, the Russian military could repeatedly occupy the “peninsula” and carry out a “referendum,” each time giving the Russian President a massive boost in popularity.

“Obviously being able to annex the territory of another country repeatedly, in a safe environment, without any consequences, would be a great boon to the Russian people,” Borodin said.

“There are those in power who say that Russia is a natural empire and that empire is the only thing that can unite the Russian people. This would allow Russia to preserve this tradition without offending its neighbors.”

But while his plan allows Russia to safely annex territory without any of the usual side-effects of imperialism and colonialism, Borodin warned of potential drawbacks, especially what he calls “diminished returns.”

Borodin compares the effect to what heroin addicts call “chasing the dragon,” a slang term used to describe how addicts often keep using the drug in a vain attempt to recapture the feeling of their first high. To avoid this problem, Borodin said the frequency of annexations should be kept very low at first. He also suggested a program similar to methadone treatment, whereby between annexations the Russian military stages a fake buildup of military forces along a mock border constructed somewhere well within the territory of the Russian Federation.

While he admits potential drawbacks to the plan, Borodin states he’s confident that the benefits would easily outweigh them. For example, planning the construction of the new Crimean peninsula means it could be located in an area more suitable for building a bridge connecting it to the mainland. Or planners could simply make it an actual peninsula already connected to Russia, unlike the original Crimea, which is connected to Ukraine.

“This plan would represent a major step forward in improving relations between Russia, Ukraine, and the West,” Borodin said.

“But most of all, Russians will truly be able to say the Crimea is theirs. In fact, they could say it every few years if they wish!”

Has Socialism Been ‘Tried?’

Recently I’ve hinted at the fact that I’m going to be winding down my blogging and social media operation. This is due to several reasons, one of them being that I have a completely new life on which to focus, and the other being that I’ve really said all there is to be said for the foreseeable future on topics like Russia, Ukraine, and propaganda associated with them. During the time I have been blogging, I have often had to keep my personal politics in check so as to prevent my readership getting whittled down to a tiny portion of far-leftists who like reading long theoretical polemics. At the same time, my views have evolved radically thanks not only to my ongoing study of various subjects, but also due to exposure and challenge to different viewpoints. But with the blog at its near end, I think I shall indulge on my soapbox and answer a question that seems to come up in a lot of discussions recently. With this out of the way, proceed if you dare.

How many times have you seen this brilliant meme: Someone like one of those Turning Point USA chuds shows a bunch of pictures of bad things that happened under 20th century “socialist” regimes and then sarcastically writes “But socialism has never been tried!” The implication here is that modern socialists, who of course are all social media obsessed millennial snowflakes, have no answer to those horrific events of the 20th century other than what amounts to a “No True Scotsman” fallacy by saying that socialism hasn’t actually been implemented.

Now to be fair, there are some self-proclaimed socialists or Communists who are guilty of doing this. I suspect that most of them tend to be younger people with very little historical or theoretical knowledge in most cases. I’ve always suspected the process goes something like this:

  1. Young person wants to be edgy and rebellious, gets attracted to Communism, usually for aesthetic reasons.
  2. Parent, teacher, or someone on the internet says something like, “You’re a Communist?! Don’t you know that Communism killed 100 million/150 million/200 million/1 billion/all the people?!”
  3. Disheartened, young person goes online and finds some kind of Trotskyite page.
  4. Young person proudly proclaims, “That wasn’t Communism! It was Stalinism!
  5. Checkmate

Despite the fact that a combination of youth plus poor education more likely accounts for most of these instances, I think it’s safe to say that one can find a fair number of adults who should no better either making this argument, or at best, making an argument which sounds like “That wasn’t true socialism!”

However, there are very sound reasons for a person to declare that what we commonly think of as socialist societies were not in fact objectively socialist. Whether they are just pulling a No True Scotsman or actually making sense really depends on their definition of socialism and whether or not they can substantiate their argument with objective evidence.

What I intend to do in this post is explain how or why someone may legitimately question whether or not a society was socialist and thus why for such people bringing up the activities of 20th century “socialist” regimes may in fact be nothing but a red herring and thus an invalid argument.

What is more, I’m going to attempt to do this in the most approachable way possible, without delving too deep into obscure historical events or theoretical texts. Obviously this means sacrificing detail in some places, and some arguments may not be fully represented or they may be omitted entirely (I’m sure there are plenty of tendencies I’ve never heard of still, and new ones form as well). I realize this approach will piss off some partisans or even just those leftists who love thorough theoretical polemics, but they are not my primary audience- the layperson is.


Can you ‘try’ socialism?

In order to answer the question as to whether or not socialism has been “tried” we need to deal with the question, which is already distorted. I have always hated the phrasing of “But socialism/Communism has never been tried.” Saying “try socialism” sounds like “try rebooting your router.” You don’t just “try” a mode of production. And speaking of modes of production, we should probably start with the definition of socialism. That in itself can get pretty complex very quickly, which is why I’m going to stick with Merriam-Webster’s definitions in this case:

Definition of socialism
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

Already we have some statements that socialists of several tendencies would vehemently dispute, but we’ll get into that later.

Another problem with definitions is that the people who tend to make fun of the “No True Socialism” trope more often than not happen to be the very same people who tend to label almost anything socialism. Public libraries? Socialism! Single-payer healthcare? Socialism! Food stamps? SOCIALISM!  Indeed, many of these people spent eight years telling us how Barack Obama was not just a socialist, but a Marxist socialist…and a radical Islamist too.

And since we’re merely talking about the problems with definitions, we cannot ignore the fact that there are plenty of self-proclaimed socialists or people sympathetic to socialism who are also guilty of applying the label to things that have nothing to do with socialism. For example, in this pro-Bernie Sanders video, Sarah Silverman actually calls fire departments socialist.



Whichever side we’re talking about when it comes to throwing the S-word around, the result is the same- total failure because if these things were in fact socialist, then nearly all the world is by-definition socialist because every country has some kind of taxes, state intervention in the economy, fire departments, etc.

In order not to stray too far from the matter at hand the definition which most concerns us is the third one, as it is related to Marxist theory and it is Marxist theory which was nominally the foundation of the 20th century “socialist” regimes.

But if we ignore the problems with the phrase “try socialism/Communism” for a second and just ask the question as to whether socialist or communist (note the little c) societies ever existed at all, let me answer that in the affirmative.

Hunter-gatherer society was what Marx and Engels labeled “primitive communism.” Virtually all able-bodied members of the tribe were engaged in labor to survive, private property did not exist, and class distinctions were also virtually non-existent. Prior to the agricultural revolution, humankind spent quite a long time in this state. Sorry, but The Flintstones lied to you when it depicted prehistoric society as capitalist post-war America with dinosaurs. Of course while the egalitarian aspect and lack of class differentiation might seem enticing, primitive communism was no utopia. People lived that way simply because there was no other choice. Imagine life on an island where you are shipwrecked with some other people. As you organize labor to survive you’re unlikely to replicate the traditional modern corporate hierarchy, but whatever relief you get from that lifestyle is negated by the fact that you barely eke out enough resources to survive day-by-day.

In more modern times, there have been and in some cases still are small-scale examples of socialist societies. These range from large territories like the so-called “Free Territory” in Ukraine and anarchist Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War to isolated communes or big projects like the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria (often still called Rojava). On the American frontier, groups of pioneers often adopted a communist lifestyle, distributing resources according to need.

But what of the most obvious examples of 20th century socialism, i.e. those states born of “socialist revolutions” which proclaimed themselves to be socialist and run by socialist or Communist parties? This is where it gets complicated. Some people would say they were never socialist. Trotskyites, for example, might call them “deformed workers states.” Left Communists and anarchists refer to them as state capitalist (this refers to a system where the role of the capitalist class is replaced by the state). Anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists will typically argue that certain states were socialist when they had certain policies but that theoretical revisionism led them to adopt policies that made them state capitalist and thus led to their downfall.

Where do I fall on this spectrum? I would say that at least the Soviet Union and Socialist Albania achieved what could rightly be called a primitive, rudimentary form of modern socialism, but that in both cases concern for things such as geopolitics (for the USSR) and the security of the regime (pretty much every self-proclaimed 20th century “socialist” state) far outweighed the goal of building a functioning socialist society and more importantly, a socialist society aimed at achieving the original goals of socialism in the first place- greater freedom, equality, justice, etc. That being said, please keep in mind that me saying this or that regime was objectively socialist is entirely independent of my judgement of that regime or any of its actions. Whether or not a particular society or country is socialist or capitalist is a matter of concrete, objective factors and not the color on a flag, the name of the ruling party, or the declarations of the government.

Does socialism/Communism kill?

No, it does not.

Oh…You want an explanation. Okay fine. First of all I find the claim that Communism or socialism kills to be quite ridiculous because the same people who make this claim not only never talk about how many people capitalism has killed (which would necessarily be far higher than any 20th century Communist body count), but they don’t even acknowledge that capitalism can kill. Either they’ll label a dictatorial regime “socialist” even when said regime was allied with the West during the Cold War and never claimed to be socialist, or they will say that these are the actions of bad actors like governments and not the fault of the capitalist system. It stands to reason that if Communism can kill people, capitalism must be able to as well.

At the most superficial level, most people who were killed under self-proclaimed socialist regimes died for the same reasons as those killed by capitalist regimes. Namely you had a certain group of people in power who feared losing it in one form or another, and thus engaged in repressive measures to hold onto that power. In other cases (though you could argue that this is at its root, the same as the previous reason), the state put economic goals above humanitarian ones. This sort of thing affects millions of people throughout the world literally every year.

Now at this point someone might perk up and say, “Wait a minute! Surely you wouldn’t say that Nazism doesn’t kill people!” No, I wouldn’t say that, but in terms of mode of production Nazi Germany was, brace yourself, a capitalist state. You can argue about the increased role of the state in economic affairs, but in this sense Nazi Germany didn’t differ much from many other countries during the era, including the United States.

The reason Nazism kills is because mass killing is literally a part of the ideology. It’s all laid out very clearly by Adolf Hitler. The “race” needs to survive and thus needs room to expand and secure resources to feed a growing population. Racial or ethnic mixing leads to “blood poisoning” according to Nazi eugenics, so that “living space” needs to be cleansed of foreign elements. The conquest and extermination of entire groups of people, according to the Social Darwinism-influenced worldview of the Nazis, was seen as entirely natural if not positive. It is worth nothing that the Nazis got such ideas largely from the American eugenics movement, which enjoyed generous funding from leading capitalists.

By contrast, there’s nothing in the theoretical works of Marx and Engels that allegedly served as the basis for the Soviet Union and other socialist states that says you should be exterminating people. You may argue about the ethics of expropriating capitalist property without compensation, but there’s nothing I’ve seen in the body of Marxist literature saying this is an absolute necessity. In fact, members of the bourgeois class can actually voluntarily cease being de facto capitalists if they wanted to, either by just giving their private property (means of production) away or by turning into a collectively owned enterprise with their workers. Twentieth century socialist regimes typically justified their atrocities or repression by claiming to be fighting counter-revolutionaries. None of this justifies what was done, it merely explains why it is not inherently linked to Marxist theory, let alone socialism.

Please let me make it clear that the above does not justify nor deny the very real examples of repression or atrocities committed by self-proclaimed socialist regimes. That is not the claim being disputed here, but rather the claim that “socialism kills.” In short, if socialism can kill, so can capitalism, and if we’re just going by body count, capitalism takes the high score by far, especially since 20th century socialism has been dead for over a quarter of a century.

I would also like to point out that I don’t believe that regimes which carried out repression or mass killings were not socialist simply because they did these things, even though such things really do contradict the moral values underpinning socialism and Marxism. I do think that a society that sincerely implements socialist ideals and revolutionary reforms would be less likely to commit mass atrocities or repressions, but it is foolish to assume that this alone could entirely preclude atrocities or violations of human rights. After all, even the “libertarian” socialist projects of Ukrainian Free Territory or Anarchist Catalonia were not totally devoid of violent repression against counter-revolutionaries or other actions we’d regard as unethical today.

Whose socialism? 

Getting back to the topic at hand, there are many people who have every right to insist that certain 20th century regimes (or currently existing ones like North Korea) are not socialist and thus cannot be used as an argument against them. Any group or even individual who’s definition of socialism significantly contradicts that of the Soviet Union or any such regimes has a right to object to being made to answer for them. Whether their own definition of socialism is accurate is another matter to be determined, but suffice to say it is stupid to insist that an anarchist answer for things like the Great Terror in the Soviet Union. Trotskyites on the other hand may have a weaker case, but I don’t want this to turn into an inter-Marxist polemic.

On the other hand there are many socialists of various stripes who engage in apologia for any and every self-proclaimed socialist regime. If they are going to uphold those regimes as positive role models, then they have to take responsibility for explaining and defending their actions, and to be honest this often takes the form of accusing every critical source of being linked to the CIA or Nazis. I’m not saying that there isn’t legitimate revisionist history of 20th century socialism or that many of its “crimes” have been grossly exaggerated or distorted. On the contrary- I’ve spent a fair deal of my political life studying that very history. The problem is that many of the people engaged in defense of these regimes don’t seem to have done the same homework. Instead they confine themselves to a small number of pro-party sources or even contemporary state propaganda. This may convince people who are already sympathetic but as a strategy for attracting more people and building movements it’s a dead end. I’ve even found that legitimate revisionist history is largely dead weight as well.

There is another group which may in all honesty condemn the actions of 20th century regimes, yet for whatever reason adopts the aesthetics of those regimes. Take a look at this video, for example:




It’s a fairly good explanation of exploitation for beginners. I can say anything about the video’s author. I don’t know if they are “Trotskyite” or “Stalinist.” What I do know is that at the end of the video “Communism” is held up as the solution to the problem of exploitation, and it is depicted with stock footage from the Soviet Union with the Soviet national anthem in the background. Or in other words- it is associated with what can only be called a failed state, one which fares well in comparison only with the old Russian Empire that preceded it and various developing countries or colonies which surrounded it. Now maybe the author is totally opposed to the policies of the Soviet Union. Maybe their ideas about what constitute socialism are totally different from the centralized, authoritarian model we saw in that state. But if you’re going to deliberately associate your socialism with that state, its symbols, leaders, aesthetics, etc., then don’t be surprised when your opponents decide that bringing up the USSR is a valid argument. Don’t wrap yourself in Soviet imagery and expect people not to associate your politics with that state. If you’re going to shackle yourself to a corpse, own it.

Socialism failed everywhere it was tried

Another common trope you might hear is this: “Sure, there were many socialist countries, but they all failed!” The implication here is that they are acknowledging that 20th century socialism was not just one monolithic entity, but that every attempt to construct socialism, regardless of variances, ultimately failed. This is still incorrect because if we’re talking about socialist states, virtually all of them patterned their politics on one model, or other models that grew out of that original model. I am of course referring to the Soviet Union. In addition to this, many of these countries’ regimes were set up by the Soviet Union and their governments more or less subordinated to the Soviets’ political demands. In other words, it’s not as if you had a variety of socialists coming to power by their own unique theories and strategies.

Add to this the fact that some self-proclaimed “socialist” nations never even achieved the type of “socialism” found in the USSR or China. The modern case of Venezuela is even more instructive. Here is a state where the regime actively portrayed itself as “socialist,” and even popularized a theory it called “21st Century Socialism.” In reality Venezuela could never have been called socialist. In fact, here’s Fox News making exactly that point by noting how the country’s economy is still dominated by the private sector. Of course I’m sure for Fox News at least, Venezuela becomes “socialist” any time they’re doing a story about empty stores and food riots.

So what went wrong?

This is a question that people have devoted entire books to, and I promised at the beginning that I would make this as layperson friendly as possible. But based on my study and experience living under an authoritarian regime, I’d say that what it all boils down to is the balance between security and freedom. To understand this, we must go back to what many consider to be the first “socialist revolution,” the Paris Commune of 1871.

To give you the bare-bones rundown on this revolution, basically the French empire got its ass kicked at the battle of Sedan by Prussia in a conflict appropriately named the Franco-Prussian War.  French Emperor Napoleon III was captured on the field. In early 1871, the acting French government was forced to sign an armistice with Germany, under which it had to disarm its army but not its National Guard. Eventually radicalized Parisian workers, many of whom served in the National Guard, refused to accept the government’s authority, and using their arms they proceeded to essentially seize power within Paris.

Contemporary socialists like Karl Marx and anarchists like Petr Kropotkin and Mikhail Bakunin watched developments within the Commune with great interests. To this day different left tendencies still argue over the nature of the Commune- was it socialist akin to something Marxists would advocate, was it an early attempt at anarchism, or did it not go far enough in eliminating the state? One thing that is certain about the Commune is that it did display unprecedented levels of freedom. It certainly couldn’t be called totalitarian by any stretch of the imagination. Even members of the local bourgeoisie were floored to see how society functioned without the intervention of legions of policemen in certain neighborhoods.

If the Paris Commune sounds like a great utopia, hold up for a second. It had one flaw, namely it was crushed within about two months and as many as 20,000 Communards were killed, mostly in mass shootings. Marauding French soldiers reestablished the authority of the government with violence, rape, and pillage. This experience weighed heavily on the minds of socialist revolutionaries worldwide after the fact. It was certainly on the minds of Bolshevik leaders like Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin. History taught that revolution leads to counter-revolution, and not only did the Bolsheviks have the historical case of the Paris Commune to point to, but they also had the aftermath of Russia’s failed 1905 Revolution to consider when planning revolution in 1917. Once power was seized, letting go could easily mean bloody repression on the scale of Paris 1871 if not much worse.

In general, the Paris Commune raised a question that still remains with us today- how do you liberate society, and maximize freedom, while simultaneously securing that society from more powerful forces that wish to crush the revolution? Historically anarchists have shown the ability to establish very free societies, albeit ones that are either short-lived or if they do last, ones which do not manage to equal the standards of living in developed capitalist nations. On the other hand, the Marxist-Leninist model has managed to conquer huge swathes of land and withstand the worst onslaughts in modern history, but they utilized incredibly authoritarian means to do so and ultimately failed to achieve their economic promises or convince a majority of people to fight for the preservation of the system.

Today there is such a struggle going on in Syria, where the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) led the fight against ISIS in Syria and created what is known as the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria. Currently it is facing an armed invasion by Turkey and its Islamist Syrian proxies, and if the Assad regime decides to get involved with Russian help, the autonomous territory will be in a critical situation.

The PYD claims it is building a confederation where people exercise control over decision making via local direct democracy and the election of representatives to higher bodies. Those who observe on the ground, however, say this is not exactly true, and that while local communities do have control over local issues, the PYD is firmly in control of the area. But this just raises another question: Given the situation the whole territory finds itself in, doesn’t it make perfect sense for the well-organized, well-armed (relatively) PYD to exercise more direct control, if only because of the war?

A fanatical anarchist might insist that war doesn’t justify the suspension of what they see to be essential liberties (an argument heard during the Spanish Civil War as well as in America after 9/11). Others might see the centralized measures as justified by the circumstances. But if we choose the latter, we must also ask as to what sort of actions are justifiable.

In the Soviet Union, which in many ways became the model to one degree or another for every other self-proclaimed socialist state, heavy-handed measures were used, often with terrible results. For example, in the book Farm to Factory, Robert Allen shows that the advantage in industrialization gained by collectivization (which of course led to the Holodomor and a lot of other excess deaths in Russia and Kazakhstan) was only slightly higher than what they would have achieved had they stuck with the NEP (New Economic Policy). But more industrialization means more tanks to fight the war that Stalin predicted was coming as far back as 1931, right? Well that argument might work better had the USSR not performed so dismally in the start of the war with Germany despite all its tanks and planes. At the battle of Dubno (also called the first battle of Brody), the Red Army had around 3,500 tanks against 750 German tanks and the latter won. The Soviets lost 800 of their tanks and many of them never made it to the front lines thanks to mechanical failure or lack of fuel.

Now suppose the USSR had tried a different strategy to defend itself from a fascist threat. Rather than centralized control and repression, the government stressed liberty and worker control of their means of production based on the concept that a populace which experiences such freedom will be more likely to defend it to the death. Programs like Ukrainianization are allowed to continue, but without the heavy-handed methods that drew some pushback from the Russian-speaking populace. In short, the Soviet government decides that their best weapon is their society itself (in fact Stalin would later claim that it was the USSR’s socialist system that really deserved credit for the victory in WWII).

Obviously this is a very counter-factual scenario, but what we can say for sure is that the methodology used by the USSR to defend itself from foreign invasion not only costs millions of lives directly and indirectly, but also failed to establish a sustainable socialist system capable of surpassing the capitalist West. In our counter-factual version, the USSR might have instead built a society where every man, woman, and child was more than willing to defend the gains they felt they’d made from any foreign invader. The invading Axis troops might find no crowds cheering them as liberators, willing collaborators, no mass of soldiers surrendering in droves. Seeing as how even in 1941 there were people (including many Ukrainians) who defended the USSR that tenaciously in spite of everything that had proceeded the war, it isn’t too far-fetched to imagine that had the Soviet system not been so repressive far more people would have rallied to the colors from day one instead of after months of defeat. More importantly, perhaps the Soviet stagnation and collapse never would have happened, and perhaps today the Western capitalist world would be struggling like Cuba while a massive socialist super-continent enjoys the benefits of a system run according to human need and not the profit motive of the few.

But for now it is enough to say that in the case of 20th century socialism, much of what bad did happen had nothing to do with socialist theory but rather military and geopolitical considerations. This by no means absolves the decision makers who were responsible. With actions like the deportation of entire ethnic groups they put strategic and geopolitical goals above the humanistic values of socialism. By putting rapid industrialization ahead of any concern for the peasants producing grain, the authorities essentially committed the same crime that capitalists have been committing for centuries up to this day. Specifically, they put economic results above human life. If that is socialism, or more specifically if that is what socialism must inherently be, then we would be right to reject it today. But the simple truth is that this is not inherent in socialism, nor is it inevitable.

So what can be done? 

Again, laying out a solution to the problem of how to implement socialism is far beyond the scope of this article, but I would like to lay out a few points.

The first is that it is important to remember that Karl Marx really didn’t write much about this socialism or Communism that he envisioned. To Marx this would be like the utopian socialists which he tried to distance himself from. Rather Marx analyzed and critiqued capitalism; he concerned himself more with understanding the problem, not the solution. What we’ve seen in the decades since his death is that in spite of all the failures of 20th century socialism, Marx’s critique of capitalism not only still holds up, but is far more explanatory than mainstream neo-classical or Austrian school economics. This means the ball is in our court to determine how we resolve the contradictions of capitalism in order to create a better, more moral system.

Many solutions and combinations thereof have been suggested in order to build a socialist society, besides the 20th century centralized state-based methods. Some of them include labor-time calculation using computer networks, some form of a Universal Basic Income, sovereign wealth funds, or the de-commodification of goods deemed necessary to life.

As for my own opinions about what socialism will be, in recent years I have come to realize that the foundation of building socialism must be ethical. Put simply, capitalism is immoral. It forces people to act in immoral ways. It is also unsustainable. The Earth and the universe do not require there to be human life. Earth has had mass extinction events before. Now that we are faced by existential crises such as climate change and everything that can result from that change, we cannot sit back and hope that the world’s richest capitalists will see enough promise of profit in sustainable technology to redirect sufficient investment into that field. We cannot properly husband Earth’s resources to preserve human life on this planet if we are divided into national and racial groupings at odds with one another. Oh you’re a patriot? You love your country? Well nobody’s going to give a shit about your country and its illustrious history after mankind is wiped out following a massive war over resources exacerbated by irreversible environmental degradation. Capitalist apologists insist that somehow capitalism can solve all these problems itself, but history and the present say otherwise, and the longer we wait, the worse things get.

Apart from being rooted in ethics, socialism must be rooted in human rights. Karl Marx’s son-in-law, Paul LaFargue, once wrote an excellent satirical piece called “The Rights of Horse and the Rights of Man.” In it, LaFargue lampooned the liberal idea of the rights of man (what we’d later call human rights) by pointing out that in society of that era, the rights of horses, who were given shelter, food, and the greatest of care by their owners, were much more desirable than the so-called rights of man. Truly he was right on the money, but unfortunately many decades later I know many socialists tend to discard the concept of human rights as a meaningless liberal idea. That liberal society is hypocritical when it comes to human rights doesn’t negate the concept itself- only liberal society and the capitalist system. Human rights implies an equality of humans which simply does not exist in capitalist society. Thus as socialists our aim should be not to simply roll our eyes when we hear liberals speak of human rights, but rather take up that torch and use it to beat them over the head with it. For example, have you ever read Article 25 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights? The first paragraph reads:


This concept should form one of the foundations of a future socialist society. What is this but a call for distribution according to one’s needs? More importantly, what liberal democratic society today actually manages to avoid violating this human right?

In the future, socialism must be democratic. This might not mean direct democracy for every aspect of life (after all, the idea of socialism is to work less and attending endless councils or meetings counts as work), but any organ with any measure of vested authority needs to be accountable to the people it serves. The idea that the entire working class can be “represented” by one party which will inevitably act in its interests because it is run by “true Marxist-Leninists” (whatever that even means) has been disproved by history.

On that latter note, socialism will also need to be pluralistic somehow. This might sound like heresy to some, but one cannot ignore the fact that the world’s most successful capitalist countries are often run by two or at most a handful of parties, which often hate each other with a passion, and yet somehow the capitalist system runs along like clockwork (well, clockwork with periodic crises and environmental degradation). The United States, for example, has a remarkably stable political system from the time of the ratification of the Constitution till today, when the President is a man whose brain is being feasted upon by spirochetes. If one insists that socialism can only be built by one hegemonic “party of the working class,” we must ask what basis there is for this claim when that exact system failed. If someone says “because Stalinism!” or “because revisionism,” they must then explain why things like Stalin or revisionists managed to irreversibly fuck everything up. Andrew Johnson was a shit president and got impeached. Nixon was forced to resign. The system went on, as usual.

One key component that might help solve the mystery as to why capitalist countries manage to maintain stability in spite of cutthroat competitive political systems is the concept of rule of law. Of course as socialists when someone speaks of rule of law we should always ask “whose law?” But as with concepts like freedom or human rights, it does not mean the idea should be dismissed offhand. If we look at the government of the Soviet Union, for example, we see that almost nothing worked the way it was supposed to according to the Soviet constitution (which also changed several times). The Supreme Soviet was elected via universal suffrage, but real power in the USSR was in the Central Committee of the Communist Party and in particular, the Politburo (which was chosen by the Central Committee during party congresses). In post Soviet Russia today, the State Duma and Federation Council are basically rubber stamp legislative organs which offer no opposition to President Putin, but apart from that one point power nominally rests more or less where its supposed to even in the kleptocratic, authoritarian Russian Federation. The result of the lack of rule of law in the USSR (and many other socialist countries patterned after it) was that politics almost always boiled down to conspiracies and interpersonal struggles within the party, out of sight of most of the people this party supposedly represented.

Another reason rule of law is crucial is in order to facilitate direct democracy. Within a firm set of rules establishing citizens’ rights and responsibilities, direct democracy could become nothing but mob rule. Some things shouldn’t be left up to the majority, particularly things that violate human rights. One’s individual freedoms end where another’s begins. Rule of law can also help explain how pluralism can exist in a socialist society. The idea that every member of society would become a committed anarchist or Marxist-Leninist is simply a pipe dream. If anything, the cult of the individual in advanced capitalist society means that many people would reject such labels simply in an attempt to be different or not follow the crowd. Is this a disaster? Does it make socialism impossible? Not at all.

To understand why, just watch people playing football or basketball in a park. Here you have people with different values, life experience, beliefs, religions, etc., and yet they all manage to play this competitive game without continually resorting to fist fights or rampant cheating. The reason is because in order to accomplish the task of playing a game of basketball, everyone agrees to certain basic rules. Sure, arguments do occur and in formal games referees are necessary to enforce closer observance of the rules, but nobody can dispute the fact that countless games of pickup basketball or football are routinely played in parks around the world, many concluding without incident.

The lesson from this is that a socialist society can exist without everyone declaring themselves to be a fervent socialist or even a socialist at all. We do this by making everything based on core ground rules that everyone can abide by. This is where human rights and the moral imperative shine. Virtually all religions around the world have some form of what we call “the Golden Rule.” Socialism must advance its form of this as the basis for cooperation between people with disparate personal beliefs and values.

I think above all socialism must produce results for the people living under it. If it’s super democratic but requires a communal lifestyle far below that of developed capitalist societies, it will only attract people who personally happen to value living in that society. It will not be able to attract large swathes of any populace or expand and overthrow existing capitalist systems. On the other side of the coin, if it is just as authoritarian as a right-wing capitalist system, it will produce only bitterness and resentment, which leads to betrayal and collapse. In short, a socialist society needs to give people tangible benefits they simply cannot get in any capitalist society. It must go beyond things like free healthcare or higher education, which is in fact quite common in developed capitalist countries which are not named the United States of America. Most of all, I think people need to truly, viscerally feel that they personally own a share of society, a share of their country, and that is also paired with a responsibility to defend it. If they let up and capitalism is restored, that which they own will be taken from them and they will no longer be fully in control of their own lives and destinies. If people feel they truly own a share of the means of production and the society itself, they’ll defend it even when times are tough and their socialist revolution is at a disadvantage relative to the capitalist states. If everything is owned by the state and the worker exercises little to no control over that property, they’ll question whether it matters if that property is owned by the state or a private capitalist.

Lastly, on the topic of defense of the revolution, future socialists must realize that the key to defense will not be large conventional military forces and secret police, as the Soviets used. None of these things managed to stave off the collapse of those societies. If there is a socialist revolution anywhere, surrounding capitalist states will try to strangle it. They will resort to the playbook that worked during the 20th century- exert pressure, stoke fear and paranoia, and wait for the socialists themselves to tear themselves apart. Future socialists must not fall for that trap. They must never fall victim to institutions like intelligence agencies or conventional, traditional armies. I would recommend a small volunteer professional force augmented by conscript reservists of both sexes. Both would train together to excel in unconventional warfare. Any invading army would find every town crawling with snipers, spies, assassins, and IED teams. Special teams should be ready to carry out operations against the invader internationally, striking at legitimate targets on a global stage. Having an open policy towards media and engaging with global audiences in their languages would also help garner the power of public opinion (a crucial factor in many successful insurgencies) and stymie attempts to crush the socialist country in question with military force.


It’s important to realize that I’m merely putting forth a few very general observations here, based on many years of study and experience. Don’t look at these recommendations as answers but rather questions that need to be discussed. I need to discuss them myself because I don’t believe I have adequate answers yet. I do realize that many of these observations may sound heretical to socialists of various tendencies, but what every one of those tendencies must admit is that to one degree or another, their politics have thus far failed to abolish capitalism.

My approach to politics is very much influenced by the martial arts of judo and Brazilian jiu-jitsu (itself derived from judo). For those not familiar with the art, judo was developed by Kano Jigoro by refining traditional jiu-jitsu techniques so they could be practiced against a fully-resisting opponent in real time. While traditional styles of jiu-jitsu from that era emphasized “lethal” techniques, Kano rightly determined that techniques which could not be practiced in real time would be unreliable. In forming the Kodokan school of judo, Kano and his students would have to go through challenge matches with representatives of other schools, even if it meant facing their deadly techniques. Kano’s students almost always came out on top, proving the efficacy of his art. When judo was introduced to the Gracie family of Brazil by the master Maeda Mitsuyo, it went through a similar refining process in no-holds-barred streetfights. Decades later, Brazilian jiu-jitsu would help popularize mixed-martial arts competition in the United States and demonstrate that efficacy once again.

The lesson here is that you have to go with what works, and discard that which has been shown either to not work at all in real-life conditions or to be unreliable. Even after grappling arts like Brazilian jiu-jitsu, judo, and sambo, as well as striking arts like Western and Thai boxing demonstrated their efficacy in MMA competitions, the representatives of discredited traditional martial arts were undaunted. They began dreaming up excuses as to why their martial arts were useless in the ring yet deadly on the street.


And look, I realize that building a totally different society with a different mode of production is far more complicated than a martial arts system, and of course there are external factors that will be outside of any socialist party or organization’s control. But that’s just more reason to discard techniques or policies which have been proven not to work or proven not to be sustainable instead of making excuses for failure and insisting on defending or advocating the same failed policies out of some fetishized love of some historical leader we never lived under and might not want to have lived under if we were being honest. That may sound harsh but that’s reality, and as socialists we’re supposed to be guided by reality and not our imaginations.

Anyway, that’s the end of my massive quasi-polemic. I am happy to try to answer any reasonable questions. In the near future I promise to get back to the usual observations about Russia and Ukraine, as well as the dick jokes. At least before I decide to wrap all this blogging business up for good.

This Is Completely Normal!

Anyone else out there following Russia’s upcoming nail-biter of a presidential election? If not, don’t worry- it seems a lot of Russians are apathetic too, and that’s a problem as Bloomberg’s Leonid Bershidky points out in a recent article. Of course that’s not necessarily the part of the article I wanted to focus on, but rather this paragraph here:

Putin doesn’t appear to feel any need to campaign. His election website, as perfunctory as if he were running for a municipal council seat, has just gone live, and it doesn’t even contain a program or any promises — just some questionable statements on how life in Russia has improved under Putin (“The illegal cutting of trees has practically stopped”; “Russian universities have entered the BRICS Top-50”). The site also reports that it only took a week for the Putin campaign to collect 30 percent more than the 300,000 citizens’ signatures necessary to put him on the ballot — an impossible achievement for any other candidate but not for the president: Reports come in from different parts of the country of students being pressed into collecting the signatures and workers told to sign for him at work (the campaign has even rejected the signatures harvested at two factories in Kurgan in the Urals).

The Western Putin fan club just loves claiming that Western Russia journalists don’t really understand Russian politics simply because they often focus on the activities of non-systemic opposition figures like Alexei Navalny (who is not in the running this time anyway). They continually point to the polls of Russia’s loyal opposition such as the KPRF and LDPR, along with the poor polling of the non-systemic opposition, and gleefully lecture us about the latter’s minimal popularity as though we, and those Western journalists, aren’t fully aware of these facts. They’d have us believe that Western focus on people like Navalny would be like America’s media focusing on Jill Stein or Gary Johnson in 2016’s presidential election. In reality, however, journalists follow Russia’s opposition not because it is big or has any realistic shot at winning, but rather because it is the only faction actually opposed to the Kremlin and Putin.

Reading that paragraph above, it is clear that Russia is not a normal electoral democracy. Apart from the fact that the President changed the constitution so he could come back for another pair of six-year terms, he’s running in an election with virtually no campaigning, no promises, no platform. To the extent that he’s campaigning, he’s harping on “accomplishments” from the mid-2000s, during the oil price boom. Does that sound at all normal for a system that is supposedly no less democratic than what exists in the West and other developed countries? If 2016 did anything positive, it was shutting up the cynics who called American elections predictable (ditto Brexit, Corbyn, etc).

Of course I know many Putin fanboys who, if pressed, will more or less admit that Russia’s elections are not fair and the system is biased towards Putin. Usually they deflect by asking “Who else is there?” But you see- that’s the problem. If Putin were ever a good leader, even during the years when things were on the up and up, he would have at least had the prescience to understand that he’s not immortal and he should probably construct Russia’s state institutions so as to ensure stable, democratic succession long after his death, incapacitation, or retirement. In general, he would use his authority to build a system based on rule of law and some kind of values as opposed to a cult of personality surrounding himself. He barely toyed with the concept back in 2008 when he let Medvedev take the reins, but he was so paranoid and concerned with image that he decided to come back to the presidency early.

The ultimate result of this is that wherever you fall on the spectrum of Putin/anti-Putin, there’s really no getting around the fact that sooner or later Russia is fucked, and there’s really nobody to blame for that but Putin. Therefore I can’t really understand why he still has Western admirers today. I do get the ones who just hate their own governments, have no experience with Russia, and just absorb a steady diet of bullshit from RT, Sputnik, and pro-Kremlin sites. But I don’t get the people who work for outlets like that and continue to defend the man and his system. Even if we foolishly attributed all the positive things in the mid-2000s to Putin, all of that has either been negated or on the chopping block to be negated within the coming years. All I can think of is that the Western apologists do it for the money. Those who don’t are complete idiots. There just is no other explanation.

When It Rains It Pours

Woooooow! What a day! It all began this morning when a friend abroad sends me a link to a 5,000-word article on the cancer-AIDS site Russia Inisder, written by its editor Charles Bausman. What exactly inspired Bausman to write 5,000 words? What topic drove him to expound at such length? Why it’s the “Jewish question,”  of course! Or to use Bausman’s words, the “Jewish problem.” Seriously, check out this excerpt:

Discussion of the Jewish problem (and ‘problem’ is the right word here) is obviously not going to be the focus of Russia Insider – we try to be primarily about Russia, but I am willing to give space to this issue, and not just as it relates to Russia. I invite all writers, including from the Alt-Right, to get in touch with me directly at with article ideas, proposals, or anything else, and yes, we will publish articles which use (((echoes))).

And because this is Bausman, that paragraph soliciting for articles is followed by:

It is my great regret that we are not in a position to pay authors for articles. If anyone reading this is in a position to help provide funding to pay writers on this important subject, that would be helpful, because it immediately raises the quality and depth of the writing. If you are interested, please get in touch with me directly.

Bausman’s “coming out” was apparently cheered by the pedantic neo-Nazi pseudo-intellectual Anatoly Karlin, whose own article was also published on Russia Insider. Using his incredibly high IQ, Karlin deduced that Russia watchers of Jewish descent reacting negatively toward an anti-Semitic screed must be strong evidence in favor of that screed’s central thesis. Imagine that- people of Jewish descent reacting negatively to something openly attacking them! Of course he also totally ignores the reactions of non-Jewish Russia journalists when making that point, but who are we to question the logic of such high-IQ individuals? And while it is not central to Duh Russophile’s piece, I have to quote the bizarre passage where he cites himself, if only to demonstrate how laughably fucked up these people are.

In my view, the reasons are ultimately psycho-sexual. Male Jews nowadays have it good in Russia, with many Slavic girls attracted to their wealth, intelligence and impeccable charm (if not their looks). But the position of Jewesses is the inverse. They find it hard to compete with those same Slavic chicks who tend to be both hotter and much more feminine than them; nor, like Jewish guys, can they compensate with intelligence, since it is considered far less important for women.

Well there’s a fine line between genius and madness, right?

Another Russia Insider contributor with a really creative alternative version of history published a warning to Bausman, approving of the discussion of the “Jewish problem” so long as he remembers to use nice language. He also reminds him to make sure to scapegoat some other nationalities for the “Russophobia” in the West, because of course nobody ever has a justifiable criticism of Russia. They’re all just irrational haters.

It should come as no shock that the site hasn’t taken down their numerous articles ranting about neo-Nazis and alleged anti-Semitism in Ukraine.


Do a search for “Ukrainian Nazis” and strap yourself in for the ride! 

Gee, Charles, what’s your beef with those neo-Nazis in Ukraine? They just shed that “Jewish taboo” as you call it, right?

In all seriousness, however, long-term Russia watchers know there’s no real contradiction here. Russia’s regime is far right, and it caters to the far right. More importantly, in the bizarro-world D&D game that is Russia’s propaganda narrative, being a neo-Nazi has nothing to do with holding Nazi beliefs but rather whether or not you support the Kremlin and its foreign policy goals. If you’re a far left Marxist (*ahem*) but you oppose Russia’s actions in Ukraine, you’re a “Nazi,” whereas if you are a literal fascist or neo-Nazi but you support those goals, you are not only not a fascist but you can even portray yourself on Kremlin media as an “anti-fascist!”

Of course this is something I’ve routinely pointed out dozens of times, and apart from Bausman’s foray into full-on Nazism being a great opportunity to say “I told you so” to some people on the left,  neither this piece nor Russia Insider is the real reason for this post. After this post blew up a tiny portion of Twitter, a follower introduced me to this link, which is basically a massive catalog of collaboration between the far-left and far-right. More specifically, it is a thorough investigation of so-called “red-brown alliances,” laying the foundation with a historical examination of the ideological background of such collaboration, then proceeding with a thorough examination of contemporary examples of this far-right/far-left collaboration.

If this sounds like “horseshoe theory,” it’s not. In fact, many rank and file leftists are totally unaware of these connections and would never work with some of the people named in this investigation if they knew what they were really about. But that’s just the thing- modern far-rightists often conceal their political identities, and instead latch on to some populist cause that also happens to animate leftists. They may present themselves as “anti-establishment,” “anti-capitalist,” “anti-war,” and the far-right entryist’s favorite cover, “anti-Zionist.”

Two things bear mentioning about this list before you check it out. First of all, it is packed with links and archived versions of said links. You can’t accuse the author of not backing up their claims- that’s for sure.

But more importantly, especially for leftists, is to note the common thread that is tying nearly all these people together- Russia, and most notably, Alexander Dugin and his Eurasianist movement. While Dugin’s actual influence in the Russian government are often overestimated, his influence in Russia’s foreign propaganda efforts is well-established. I would not be surprised to find that many of the Dugin-linked groups in the West reached out to him and his “philosophy” rather than vice versa.

This investigation only hammers home the point that the Western left (hell, any left) needs to take Russian influence operations seriously. Not only because this association with far rightists could be used by the establishment to discredit leftists, but first and foremost on principle alone. There is no legitimate reason why leftists should be forging alliances with the far right anywhere. We should not be sharing a platform with them or repeating the talking points and advancing the foreign policy goals of an imperialist, colonialist, reactionary regime that openly supports our enemies in our own homelands. Obviously we cannot stop such groups from claiming the same position as us on certain issues, but that doesn’t mean we need to embrace them or their benefactors- instead we should call them out wherever we catch them.

Moreover, the left needs to expose parties that engage in red-brown alliances in the name of “anti-imperialism.” Apart from the fact that many such organizations are in fact pro-imperialist so long as the empire in question is not American, it’s been my observation that those who embrace these connections with the far right or with reactionary regimes only end up going further in that direction instead of staying on left territory.

I’d suggest bookmarking that link and even downloading a copy of it should the site ever go offline. Hell, here it is again just in case you haven’t opened it yet. The key to fighting red-brown alliances is proper political education, but the first step is knowing that they exist, have been around for quite some time, and are an ever-present threat to revolutionary progressive politics.


Now THAT’S What I Call Russophobia! Vol. II

I have often written in the past (or at least I’m pretty sure I have) that most of the time what pro-Kremlin Russians call “Russophobia” is bullshit. In almost all cases, the Russophobia they’re talking about is in fact a natural and logical reaction to Russia invading someone’s country, claiming their nationality and language are fake, and generally acting like imperialist assholes. This, of course, doesn’t mean there aren’t real examples of Russophobia, if defined as an irrational fear of all things Russian.

The first and most harmful incarnation of real-world Russophobia is the attitude held by Russia’s elite toward their own people. According to this attitude, the vast majority of Russians are passive cattle, lazy incompetent, and somewhat criminal. The whole country would descend into utter chaos without the rule of a strong leader and his elite. This is called Russian “civilization,” although for some reason the strong ruler and his elite always seem to prefer the fruits and sometimes surroundings of “degenerate” Western civilization, particularly London, New York, Miami…you get the idea.

The other type of real Russophobia is…well…this:

If you’re wondering what those enlightened, woke liberals are responding to, it’s this story:


First of all- this isn’t news, nor is it exclusive to Russians. Here’s an article about birth tourism in the Marianas islands from 2013. Birth tourism in the United States appears to be popular with the Chinese as much as it is with Russians (wealthy Russians, that is). Basically NBC News found a way to work the Trump/Russia angle in order to present an old story as news. They could have just as easily written about the global network of international dating sites, some of which are basically designed to help foreign men and women find a path to legal immigration via marriage.

Of course it’s not the story itself that is real Russophobia, but rather the reactions of some of the “woke liberals” who called Trump a bigot while clearly possessing the very same xenophobic nativist attitudes as his supporters. And just in case any of my Ukrainian readers think this doesn’t affect you- forget it. These are exactly the kind of people who say things like “Ukraine? Isn’t that like, a state of Russia or something?” All Slavs are “Russian” to these enlightened individuals, so you’re just as screwed whether your name is Oleg or Oleh.

Of course in reaction to the idiotic ravings of “Resistance” liberals about “little agents” being born in the US, I’ve seen some leftists bend over backwards to “apologize” to Russians as a whole. Don’t bother. This kind of gesture will just get picked up by low-level Kremlin propagandists and twisted for their purposes. It is enough to say that there are plenty of Russians inside and outside of Russia who reject the imperial myths and propaganda of the corrupt regime in the Kremlin, which is itself objectively anti-Russian and leading the country and its colonized peoples to inevitable chaos and destruction.

Sometimes folks who are not familiar with my background or work accuse me of Russophobia because I do things like make fun of vatniks– make no mistakes, however- being a vatnik, like supporting the Putinist regime in general, is a choice. To me, riffing on vatniks is no different from riffing on the vast demographic of American morons, many of whom are directly responsible for electing a complete and utter spongebrain clownshoe as president. In fact, in the past I’ve even made the argument that Russian vatniks are in many cases more intelligent and dignified than our homegrown self-proclaimed “patriot” class.  In short, I make a distinction between Russians and their governments and over the years I have, to the best of my ability, tried to make my writing reflect this with terms like “pro-Kremlin” or “pro-Putin” instead of “pro-Russian.”

While Russian interference in the 2016 election is an established fact (debate surrounds the extent and efficacy of that interference), and the Trump family and campaign’s Russian connections do smack of conflict of interest and at least attempted shady deals, it is entirely fair to say that a significant portion of the American opposition to Trump has taken the basic facts and run them into the end zone of conspiracy theory for a touchdown of stupidity (yeah I haven’t been writing for a while, bear with me). The fervent hope that any day now the Russia investigation will reveal some smoking gun that magically makes Trump go away has made many of these people positively deranged. And now, it’s bringing out their racism as well. But of course that shouldn’t be too much of a surprise- they learned from mother.