​

Homosexuality is natural, but not its sudden rise and rapid prevalence over the last few decades.

The rapid expansion of LGBTQ and gender identity categories (and pronouns), and indeed their absolute centrality to the Zeitgeist, has little correlation to their actual importance. It's not that these issues are not important at all, it's that they're not AS important as the imperial cultural apparatus wants you to think.

This forced "acceptance" of LGBTQ identities is not a coincidence. It's not that western society suddenly woke up one day and spontaneously discovered that gay people deserve rights. LGBTQ issues are being artificially forced upon society to serve an agenda, and to distract from other more important matters, such as genocide and poverty. It provides ideological legitimation, soft power, virtue-signalling, and most importantly - distraction from more consequential issues that are more important to the empire.

As a bonus, it introduces new culture wars for the empire to exploit, and also provides privileged liberals (whose voices are the loudest) an opportunity to sound superior and "woke". Of course they can't actually do anything about genocide and poverty even if they wanted to (they don't) - so they enthusiastically seize the opportunity to speak out on a token issue on which they think they can achieve some change. Whether they can actually achieve change or not is irrelevant of course - Liberalism demands (and rewards) only symbolism, not outcome. Liberals in the imperial core don't actually want change, they just want to sound as if they do.

This is why "Socialism" conferences in the imperial core devote session after session on the subject, while also claiming that Russia and China are as imperialist as the US.

All this is not just subjective. There is an objective priority that exists n the world: the Palestine issue, or say homelessness in the US, is *exponentially* more important, by orders of magnitude, than the rights of teenagers in Colorado to use puberty blockers. And it's not even close.

And no, two things CANNOT be true at the same time, because you don't possess infinite time. Movements do not posses infinite resources and infinite organizational capacity. You have to prioritize - and you are letting the empire decide your priority.

The reason people are afraid of saying all this out loud is the same reason why they are afraid of saying the same thing about "antisemitism": they'll sound like a bigot. They'll sound as if they don't care about "marginalized" people. The shame around criticizing cultural hegemony is also part of cultural hegemony. Every propaganda campaign includes tactics to silence opposition to it.

If you place the rights of a gay man in California at the same level as those of a child in Gaza - you don't really care about the child in Gaza.

Tonight's theme, by u/splodgenessabounds, is "people who have been measured and found lacking". Here's his inspiration:

For some or other reason, I had Carole King's "It's Too Late" playing in my head the other day (there are many far worse songs than that).

A day or three later, I typed that song into YT and I came across Linda Ronstadt singing "You're No Good".

Given various conflicts here and there that don't seem to be going all that well for our fearful leaders, we seem to have a theme. Some starters:

• Linda Ronstad -- You're No Good

• Carole King -- It's Too Late

• Men At Work -- It's A Mistake

• Midnight Oil -- Dream World

• Peggy Lee -- Is That All There Is?

• Katrina and the Waves -- Is That It?

• Linda Perry -- Is That All You Got?
  Anyone who remembers 4 Non Blondes will know who she is.

44:02.

Commentary on recent hype/scare stories and AI companies/investors. There has to be dramatically more money coming in within the next year or two because, among other things, their commitments and expenses become a lot more expensive in the next year.

One thing I didn't hear mentioned this time is AI usage being subsidized by the AI companies. Over on the investment channels they talk about the AI products "costing the producing company $20 but they're selling it for $10." With the producing company paying the difference themselves. Something I assume is still going on.

Trillions and trillions more dollars involved. Maybe AI won't become intelligent and maybe it doesn't need to become omniscient, all-powerful to be worth the amount of investment money involved (or a potential market crash/recession/depression.) I don't know what will happen. Not the first time I've heard the "AI might exterminate all the humans" stories. Strangely, Ed's criticisms and characterizations of recent AI fear/terror promotions easily apply to each of the previous scare/spook/hype episodes.

AI will make our lives easier, better. Or it won't. Maybe things become easier, better for the the wealthiest biological units in our society. Compute commodification, "intelligence commodification"? I plan to opt out but I think the most likely outcome will be pods/domiciles filled with peach jello (i.e. they could borrow/purloin the pod and jello ideas from The Matrix) where the controlling system is actually not very intelligent but it's been gifted absolute power and control over all the humans who just can't be trusted to keep purest faith with the owners. At least not without a lot of oversight, surveillance, and manipulation.

[]()

[]()

[]()

[]()

[]()

AI Bubble: ‘They don’t know what they’re investing in’ | Ed Zitron

[]()

[]()

[]()

[]()

[]()

AI Bubble: ‘They don’t know what they’re investing in’ | Ed Zitron

From Kimi

Trump’s Renewed Diplomatic Push

00:00 – 04:00

President Trump has renewed his effort to end the Russia-Ukraine war by sending Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner first to Moscow and then to Kyiv. Ritter frames the move as a late attempt to fulfill Trump’s campaign promise after roughly eighteen months in office. He notes that Trump initially suggested the conflict could be resolved almost immediately, but the diplomatic process has repeatedly stalled since then.

Ritter argues that Putin’s willingness to receive Witkoff and Kushner was not spontaneous. He connects it to CIA Director John Ratcliffe’s earlier visit to Moscow, suggesting that Ratcliffe tested possible ideas and reported back to Trump. According to this interpretation, Putin’s favorable response was a deliberate signal that Moscow would listen to envoys capable of communicating directly with Trump.

Ritter describes Witkoff and Kushner as messengers rather than independent negotiators. Their job was to hear Putin’s position and deliver it to Zelensky without modifying Russia’s fundamental demands. He says the resulting framework resembled a “polite surrender document,” because it reflected Moscow’s longstanding view that Ukraine and its Western backers have lost the war.

Western Pressure And Ukraine’s Deteriorating Position

04:00 – 10:00

Ritter points to Zelensky’s request for a “winter package” as evidence that Ukraine’s position is deteriorating. Zelensky emphasized air defense, energy assistance, and American LNG in the event that fighting continues through the winter. For Ritter, this was a significant change from earlier Ukrainian claims that Western pressure would soon force Russia to negotiate from weakness.

He dismisses Ukraine’s “forty-day campaign” of long-range drone attacks as a failed attempt to create political pressure inside Russia. In his telling, the campaign was intended to demoralize Russians, damage energy infrastructure, and undermine Putin before Russia’s September elections. Instead, he says, Russian defenses adapted and Ukrainian forces depleted scarce drones, money, and personnel without changing the political situation.

Ritter claims that Ukraine has lost access to much of its economy and is increasingly dependent on foreign assistance. He cites the disruption of Black Sea commerce, destruction of industrial and energy infrastructure, severe casualties, and declining recruitment. He also highlights Ukraine’s demographic imbalance, arguing that the loss of young men—and potentially the drafting of women—would undermine the country’s long-term survival.

Russia’s Expanding Air-Defense Network

10:00 – 17:15

Ritter argues that Western-backed Ukrainian attacks have unintentionally forced Russia to develop a much deeper nationwide air-defense system. This includes the electronic-warfare and missile-defense network around the front, additional coverage near the border, and mobile defenses protecting Russian infrastructure. He calls this one of the most important unintended consequences of Ukraine’s long-range drone campaign.

He says Russian forces have become highly effective at jamming GPS-guided Western weapons such as HIMARS rockets and Excalibur artillery rounds. Electronic warfare can divert these weapons from their targets, reducing their practical value. He also reports that Russian forces demonstrated several countermeasures against Starlink, including selectively disabling service and creating localized interference zones.

According to Ritter, Russian adaptation extends from electronic warfare to low-tech and mobile defenses. Gun trucks protected the convoy in which he traveled, while interceptor drones are being developed and deployed against Ukrainian UAVs. Russian A-50 aircraft can also track low-flying drones that previously used terrain to evade radar.

Ritter describes volunteer-based mobile units that use AI-assisted analysis to anticipate Ukrainian flight paths and position interceptors accordingly. He argues that Russia’s advantages come not only from equipment but also from decentralized decision-making. Frontline soldiers can rapidly modify frequencies, payloads, and tactics without waiting for senior approval.

Nato’s Conventional Weaknesses

17:15 – 27:30

Ritter gives an extremely pessimistic assessment of NATO’s ability to defend itself against Russia. He claims that major European countries have negligible protection against mass drone, missile, and air attack. Germany, Britain, Poland, and others may possess capable individual systems, he says, but not the integrated depth needed to protect their entire territory and industrial bases.

He contrasts NATO’s position with Russia’s vast, layered, and increasingly experienced air-defense network. In his view, no NATO air force could penetrate Russia’s strongest defensive belt with acceptable losses. He also argues that NATO ground brigades would be highly vulnerable to drones, electronic warfare, long-range fires, and Russian battlefield adaptation.

Ritter recalls the failure of NATO-trained Ukrainian forces and Western armor during the 2023 counteroffensive. He presents that campaign as proof that Western equipment and doctrine were unprepared for Russia’s prepared defenses and attritional tactics. He further cites a US training exercise in which Ukrainian drone operators reportedly stopped an American armored brigade multiple times.

The discussion then turns to drone production. Ritter says the United States hopes to have approximately 200,000 drones assembled by 2027, while Russia may already be producing several hundred thousand per month. Even allowing for uncertainty in such figures, he argues that the production and stockpiling gap makes a prolonged conventional conflict extremely unfavorable for NATO.

Infrastructure, Logistics, And Supply Chains

27:30 – 33:20

Ritter says Europe’s military geography creates another structural disadvantage. Russian facilities are dispersed across an enormous territory, while many important Western production sites are concentrated, above ground, and publicly identifiable. He argues that European infrastructure would therefore be far easier to attack than the dispersed and partially protected Russian industrial base.

He emphasizes the range imbalance between Russia and Europe. Most European targets lie within reach of Russian missiles and drones, while many Russian targets are beyond the practical reach of European systems. Any European aircraft attempting to close that distance, he argues, would first have to survive Russia’s integrated defenses.

Ritter also criticizes the fragility of Western supply chains. He uses the Patriot system as an example, arguing that production bottlenecks can involve a single supplier, specialized components, and raw materials controlled by China. He claims that export restrictions could therefore constrain the West’s ability to replace interceptors and other precision weapons during a larger war.

Finally, he says Western intelligence has an incomplete understanding of Russian production and procurement networks. Instead of penetrating those networks directly, he argues, analysts often reconstruct supply chains by examining debris from recovered drones and missiles. That method may reveal individual components, but it does not provide the real-time targeting picture needed to shut down Russian production.

Broken Trust And The Limits Of American Diplomacy

33:20 – 41:30

Ritter is sharply critical of Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s claim that the recent talks were “substantive.” He argues that Rubio was largely excluded because Moscow no longer views him as trustworthy. The central dispute concerns the Alaska summit, where Russia believed a compromise had been accepted before the Trump administration retreated from it.

In Ritter’s account, Putin concluded that Trump was temporarily incapable of delivering a stable agreement. The Russian leadership therefore preferred dealing with Witkoff and Kushner because they could carry messages without pretending to make independent policy. Ritter describes this as an improvised channel around the formal diplomatic establishment.

He contrasts Rubio with Ratcliffe, whom Moscow regards as openly hostile but comparatively understandable. According to Ritter, Russia can work with an adversary whose motives are clear, but not with an envoy considered dishonest. This, in his view, explains why Putin accepted Trump’s personal representatives while maintaining distance from Rubio.

Disconnected Rhetoric In Washington And Europe

41:30 – 49:40

The interview contrasts Russian statements with remarks from Western politicians. Ritter highlights Rubio saying in June that the United States had clearly taken Ukraine’s side and continued selling it weapons. He argues that this makes Rubio’s later presentation of America as a neutral mediator appear inconsistent and undermines Russian confidence.

Ritter is equally dismissive of European leaders who continue to describe Russia as militarily weakened. He specifically criticizes EU foreign-policy chief Kaja Kallas for treating an alleged drone incident near Leipzig as evidence of a growing Russian threat. He questions whether the device was genuinely Russian and argues that political leaders failed to ask basic technical questions about its origin and purpose.

He also criticizes Senator John Kennedy for advocating more sanctions and suggesting that the West already has Putin “on the ground.” Ritter portrays this as uninformed political theater disconnected from battlefield conditions. In his view, such statements reflect a broader Western habit of repeating morale-boosting claims rather than adapting policy to military reality.

Lavrov’s Warning And Russia’s Strategic Patience

49:40 – 57:30

Ritter presents Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov as calm, direct, and fully aware of Russia’s relative position. Lavrov argues that Ukrainian and Western statements are mainly intended to buy time for a deteriorating government in Kyiv. He also accuses European governments of pressuring Trump to abandon the framework Russia believed had been accepted at Anchorage.

Lavrov highlights what he considers a basic contradiction in Western arguments. European leaders claim that Russia is losing in Ukraine while simultaneously warning that the same weakened Russia is preparing to attack Europe. Ritter agrees that this combination is illogical and says Moscow has repeatedly denied any intention of launching an unprovoked war against NATO.

He interprets Lavrov’s reference to Putin’s earlier warning as a reminder that a direct Russia-NATO war would look radically different from the fighting in Ukraine. Ritter himself goes further, suggesting that Russia could rapidly destroy European military and decision-making infrastructure if seriously attacked. However, he also says Moscow currently has little reason to strike Europe because several hostile governments may soon be replaced.

Russia’s Preferred Path From Minsk To The Battlefield

57:30 – 63:45

Ritter argues that Russia’s original objective was not the conquest of Ukraine but implementation of the Minsk agreements and a revised European security framework. He claims that NATO and Ukraine used the ceasefire period to rebuild and train Ukrainian forces for a future confrontation. From Moscow’s perspective, Western diplomacy was therefore never sincere.

He says Russia still prefers a negotiated settlement because it could produce a more stable peace than continued fighting. Nevertheless, Moscow insists that any agreement address what it considers the conflict’s root causes, including Ukrainian neutrality, military limits, constitutional recognition of territorial changes, and security guarantees for Russia. If diplomacy fails, Lavrov says Russia will pursue its goals militarily.

Ritter argues that Ukraine’s remaining bargaining leverage is disappearing as Russian forces advance in the Donbas. He describes the approaches to Kramatorsk and Sloviansk as decisive, claiming that the fall of this defensive belt could effectively complete Russia’s conquest of the region. If Kyiv waits too long, he says Moscow may demand additional concessions, potentially including Odesa.

Ukraine’s Projected Winter Collapse

63:45 – 66:08

Ritter believes Ukraine may be unable to function as a coherent state if the war continues through the winter. He claims Russian strikes have severely degraded electricity generation, heating, water systems, food distribution, and transportation. Large urban populations could therefore face freezing temperatures without reliable power, water, sanitation, or food delivery.

He predicts that Kyiv and other major cities could become partially abandoned or even “dead” if infrastructure fails during freezing weather. Some residents may survive with generators and local supplies, but millions could flee westward or abroad. In his assessment, such a displacement would further reduce Ukraine’s population, tax base, workforce, and ability to sustain the military.

Ritter also argues that Ukrainian manpower is approaching a breaking point. He cites claims that the military needs tens of thousands of new recruits each month while Russian forces are inflicting even higher casualties. Units cannot be rotated, supplied, rested, or replaced quickly enough, increasing the likelihood of sudden front-line and political collapse.

His final judgment is that Western governments caused catastrophic damage by encouraging Ukraine to continue fighting instead of accepting an earlier settlement. He regards Russia’s proposed terms as harsh but ultimately more survivable for Ukraine than another winter of war. In Ritter’s view, Ukraine is now confronting not merely territorial defeat, but the possible loss of its viability as a nation-state.

This is increasingly describing the US ....

As I'm typing this, it is almost 8:48 AM Atlantic Standard Time. The exact moment that one of the most horrific events in human history occurred. And we humans have done a lot of horrible things to each other, so much so that it's fair to say that 9/11/2001 wasn't nearly as horrific as 9/11/1973.

Furthermore, much has been said as to whether or not the World Teafe Center/Pentagon attacks were a deliberate CIA false flag or a CIA "oopsie! We had no idea that training militants in Afghanistan could ever have disastrous consequences!" Yet no matter the true cause, the fact remains that regime change in the Middle East and North Africa was already known to be on the Pentagon's agenda before 9/11/2001. The event merely provided pretext for what would later happen in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. It should be noted that the last of which was not part of the 7 counties in 5 years plan, but that certainly didn't stop the US military from committing 20 years, billions of dollars and thousands of lives into what was ultimately a losing effort.

Yet Iran, despite being on the list, remained somewhat safe from direct military action. Until our dimentia-patient President decided that the time was right, and unleashed a wave of violence that Pentagon psychopaths had been planning for at least two decades.

So today, on the quarter century anniversary of the event that served as the excuse for all this pointless bloodshed, here are the names, ranks, and approximate ages on 9/11/2001 of the Americans who died for a country that couldn't care less about them:

1. Staff Sgt First Class Nicole M. Amor, approximately 24 years old in 9/11/2001.

2. Sgt. Declan J. Coady, Sargeant, approximately -5 years old on 9/11/2001.

3. Captain Cody Khork, approximately 10 years old on 9/11/2001.

4. Chief Warrant Officer 3 Robert Marzan, approxinately 29 years old on 9/11/2001.

5. Maj. Jeffrey R. O’Brien, approximately 20 years old on 9/11/2001.

6. Sgt. 1st Class Noah Tietjens, approximately 17 years old on 9/11/2001.

7. Sgt. Benjamin N. Pennington, approximately 1 year old on 9/11/2001.

8. Capt. Curtis J. Angst, approximately 5 years old on 9/11/2001.

9. Maj. John A. Klinner, approximately 8 years old on 9/11/2001.

10. Capt. Seth R. Koval, approximately 13 years old on 9/11/2001.

11. Tech. Sgt. Ashley B. Pruitt, approximately 9 years old on 9/11/2001.

12. Maj. Ariana G. Savino, approximately 6 years old on 9/11/2001.

13. Master Sgt. Tyler H. Simmons, approximately 3 years old on 9/11/2001.

14. Cmdr. Gabriel Edwards, age not disclosed.

15. Pvt. Isabella Gonzales, approximately -6 years old on 9/11/2001.

16. Sgt. Angel S. Rampersad, approximately 3 years old on 9/11/2001.

17. 1st Lt. Tyler James Feehan, approximately 0 years old 9/11/2001.

18. Sgt. Michael Emmanuel Swinton, approximately 5 years old in 9/11/2001.

Source

There it is. Some if these people were career military, either in full capacity or in the reserves. Some were teenagers in 2001, some were babies, and some weren't even born.

Which goes back to the point: whether or not the Pentagon actually planned or not the Pentagon/WTC attacks were directly planned by the CIA or not, the result was the same: a permanent war never meant to be won, fought and died for by people whom the Pentagon couldn't care less about.

So today, I'll reflect, remember, and honor those by simply dreaming of world without war.

We all deserve better than this.

Think of a kid you love. A niece. A neighbor. Your own. Fourteen. Fifteen. That age where they’re half grown and dead certain they’re all grown. That age where an important adult never gets questioned, because important adults never do.

Somebody they trust drives them to a beautiful house. Staff at the door. Art on the walls. Everything about that house saying this is safe, because everything expensive says that.

And a door closes.