Ultimately, you have to trust someone, because no one can know everything they need to know.
But, you can’t trust anyone on the internet. You really can’t.
In meatspace you can form a relationship with a person and learn who they really are. You can tell if their words and actions cohere, and you can rely on the judgment of others you trust to help in this evaluation. This is, by no means, a flawless process, but no matter how flawed it might be, it is a process that basically isn’t even available online.
On the internet, you are lucky if you even know a person’s real name, let alone anything meaningful about them.
On this blog, I write from the assumption that you do not and should not trust me. I am not your pastor and I, alone, am not numerically enough biblical witnesses for what I speak to be binding on anyone. I do not fulfil the biblical requirements to be an authority.
There is one thing I do to work around this problem: I cite a lot. Citations are important because you don’t have to believe what I am saying on my own authority, because you can read it yourself. On Saturday, I wrote something that lacked a proper citation and Cameron rightfully called me out for it. I was missing this important piece, and he—quite correctly—did not trust me. Citations mean you don’t have to trust me, and you should demand that writers writing on important subjects cite their ideas. Those that fail to do this should be treated as untrustworthy.
The other thing I do to work around the authority problem is by always addresing the ideas as presented. This means trying to avoid any form of ad hominem. You don’t have to tust what I write on the basis of my authority or reject what I say on the basis of someone else’s greater authority. You can take a look at what I actually say and judge it on its own merits. Writers who personally attack others for disagreeing with their written stances are not doing this and such writers should be treated as untrustworthy.
There is another type of ad hominem that bears special consideration: stirring up the mob. None of my arguments depend on what others in the comment section might say. My words stand alone and I don’t need the heckler’s veto to silence my critics.
Ultimately, you have to trust someone, because no one can know everything they need to know.
But, you can’t trust anyone on the internet. You really can’t.
In meatspace you can form a relationship with a person and learn who they really are. You can tell if their words and actions cohere, and you can rely on the judgment of others you trust to help in this evaluation. This is, by no means, a flawless process, but no matter how flawed it might be, it is a process that basically isn’t even available online.
On the internet, you are lucky if you even know a person’s real name, let alone anything meaningful about them.
Is there any connection to online dating here, Derek?
As seen here:https://www.reddit.com/r/datingoverforty/comments/1fgnfyk/isnt_it_weird_how_you_cant_trust_anyone_with/
Back
r/datingoverforty icon
Go to datingoverforty
r/datingoverforty
•
6 mo. ago
Substantial-Eye-2368
Isn’t it weird how you can’t trust anyone with online dating?
So I’ve (40M) been online dating on and off for 15 (!) years. Even after all these years it astounds me how you have to assume everyone’s full of shit until they’re not (a month? Two months? SIX months?).
Case in point: had a date last weekend with a promising woman. Definitely had things in common, and they weren’t common (she knew four languages, could read Dostoevsky in Russian, Nietzsche in German, and just loved all kinds of art and narrative in all its forms). She was polite and really cute. Nice. SHE suggested another date at a museum (part of her work is helping local museums coordinate resources and we both love art) and ended with “you’re an interesting guy” and a smile.
Being the hardened online dater that I am, I figured she was just caught up in the moment and once it passed in the post-date digestion phase she may think twice about that offer.
Sure enough, when I suggested a pristine plan (the downtown musuem was having a free admission night the day I WFH and I made reservations for a good Indian place a 10-minute walk down the street AND she was already in the area that day for work) she agreed. Then I checked on the day of if we were still on and she said yes.
Couple hours later she deflates with an oh-come-on excuse (something like “something came up and it’s turning out to be a terrible day and I don’t want to be bad company tonight”). I offer to reschedule to the weekend and she pulls a slow fade where her responses are slower and slower. Finally I just unmatch.
Maybe she was dating other guys (she changed her profile!). Fine. It’s par for the course. Or maybe she just changed her mind. Sure, it happens. Or her brain was eaten by pod people (would explain a lot, actually).
But as I get older my prevailing emotion is amazement. How strange it is to assume people are scheming for other dates, getting splurgy with 3-4 other people they’re dating, etc so they have excuses lined up? So a waxy buildup of excuses, fades and flakes forms and makes it hard to trust people. The why-bothers set in. This used to trigger anger, confusion, or even just a rut-roh! Now it’s just…strange. I’m not even bitter. Nor am I here feeling entitled, baying for a girlfriend. Just kind of blown away by the whole apparatus.
Anyone else feel this way?
imasitegazer
•
6mo ago
mixtapes > Reels
Here I am wondering if she really was all those things she claimed she was, and the pressure to perform again led to her backing out. But I tend to tell myself these kinds of stories to ease the pain of my disappointment. I’m not bitter, I swear.
But also, OP, looking at your timeline of events and thinking about it from her perspective…
Maybe something happened that afternoon which dramatically impacted her and since you were a new person she didn’t want to overshare but knew she wouldn’t be good company. That evening and maybe the next day or so, she was “in it” and not as available.
She, for her own personal reasons, wasn’t in a place to schedule the next event, yet you kept pushing for it. Then before giving her a chance to reply, you unmatch and close the door.
We have to remember that yes we are meeting strangers, and while it’s important to learn who they are over time, it’s also important that we don’t expect them to immediately perform as primary partners the moment there’s a connection.
It’s a challenging process to learn where to give grace and where to draw firm boundaries.
Substantial-Eye-2368
OP
•
6mo ago
Yes, this is a good reminder. I think your point about learning where to give grace and where to draw boundaries and how challenging it is is a good one. It’s true in relationships (any kind of relationship really) but particularly challenging with OLD (ESPECIALLY early on) because you have so little info to go on with that person.
”White & Nerdy’s omegavirginrevolt/”blackpill”/MAN in the orbiting castle blog/author use to say things like ”studies have shown most women on dating apps are MEN or money lures/traps.”
After things like Andre Tate acting like the topless women onscreen were the ones you were messaging, you would think even more MEN would be more even more cautious, yes?
But, you can’t trust anyone on the internet. You really can’t.
In meatspace you can form a relationship with a person and learn who they really are. You can tell if their words and actions cohere, and you can rely on the judgment of others you trust to help in this evaluation.
People trust corporations like OKCupid and Eharmony to do their thinking for them in online dating, just like too many did with churches, society & government in most everything else connected with the manosphere/redpill, and then later ”I was lied to!” becomes the mob’s rallying call!
And that’s mainly among those who supposedly believed in ”personal responsibility” and ”pick yourself up by your bootstraps”(so i’d hate to see what those who don’t would say)
Speaking of ”personal responsibility” and ”pick yourself up by your bootstraps,” why are the schools and colleges not being shut down today to save on the cost of school ”free lunches”?
https://www.newsweek.com/ai-robotics-jobs-adam-dorr-2039026
“What we’re seeing with AI today follows the same historical pattern we’ve seen with every major technological shift,” Dorr, an environmental scientist and technology theorist who wrote a recent essay on the topic, said in an exclusive interview with Newsweek. “It doesn’t take 50 or 100 years for industries to change. It takes 15 to 20 years, sometimes even less.”
By Jesus Mesa
Politics Reporter
Trust Project Icon
Newsweek Is A Trust Project Member
FOLLOW
news article
7
For most people, artificial intelligence is still associated with chatbots like ChatGPT—a helpful, if imperfect, tool for answering questions and generating conversational responses. But that perception may vastly undersell the scale of change that AI is about to bring.
For those clinging to the belief that automation and robots are still decades away from significantly impacting the workforce, Adam Dorr, director of research at the think tank RethinkX, has a stark warning: this change is going to be fundamental, and it’s coming faster than nearly anyone thinks.
“What we’re seeing with AI today follows the same historical pattern we’ve seen with every major technological shift,” Dorr, an environmental scientist and technology theorist who wrote a recent essay on the topic, said in an exclusive interview with Newsweek. “It doesn’t take 50 or 100 years for industries to change. It takes 15 to 20 years, sometimes even less.”
The future of AI isn’t a distant possibility—it’s already here, Dorr says, reshaping industries at a breakneck pace. AI is no longer just a tool for streamlining tedious tasks; it is advancing so quickly that entire professions are at risk of disappearing whole cloth.
.
” It takes 15 to 20 years, sometimes even less.”-remember guys like i and MOD have been hearing about sexbots(i first heard about them going to be ”mainstream soon”as said by some sexbot ”corporation guy ” on HBO in early/mid’01-pre-911) and artificial wombs(i know for me it was at least some 15-18 years ago i first heard about them on a tech site or CPU the magazine article )
& more from the article:
AI will not remain confined to a computer, Dorr said, arguing that one of the big watershed events on the horizon will be the marriage of advanced AI with robotics. He predicts that the first major sign of this revolution will be self-driving cars, which are already operating in a handful of American cities and which he believes will take over the country’s roads within the next two years.
“When people start seeing fully autonomous cars on the streets—no driver, no steering wheel—that’s when the public will finally understand how fast this is moving,” he said. “And once AI is in vehicles, it won’t stop there. It will quickly move into other robotic forms, including humanoid robots.”
That timeline doesn’t leave much room for complacency. A recent poll by data research firm Prolific found about two-thirds of respondents believe AI will lead to significant job losses in the next decade. And according to Dorr, they are not wrong. Humanity is standing at the precipice of a transformation that will not only automate entire sectors of the labor market faster than expected but also fundamentally alter the economy, resource distribution and even society itself.
If that article is TRUE, the RS & DS will have to implement Universal basic income soon help everyone laid off from most jobs:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income
Universal basic income (UBI)[note 1] is a social welfare proposal in which all citizens of a given population regularly receive a minimum income in the form of an unconditional transfer payment, i.e., without a means test or need to perform work.[2][3][4] In contrast, a guaranteed minimum income is paid only to those who do not already receive an income that is enough to live on. A UBI would be received independently of any other income. If the level is sufficient to meet a person’s basic needs (i.e., at or above the poverty line), it is sometimes called a full basic income; if it is less than that amount, it may be called a partial basic income.[5] As of 2025, no country has implemented a full UBI system, but two countries—Mongolia and Iran—have had a partial UBI in the past.[6] There have been numerous pilot projects,[7] and the idea is discussed in many countries. Some have labelled UBI as utopian due to its historical origin.[8][9][10]
There are several welfare arrangements that can be considered similar to basic income, although they are not unconditional. Many countries have a system of child benefit, which is essentially a basic income for guardians of children. A pension may be a basic income for retired persons. There are also quasi-basic income programs that are limited to certain population groups or time periods, like Bolsa Familia in Brazil, which is concentrated on the poor, or the Thamarat Program in Sudan, which was introduced by the transitional government to ease the effects of the economic crisis inherited from the Bashir regime.[11] Likewise, the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic prompted some countries to send direct payments to its citizens. The Alaska Permanent Fund is a fund for all residents of the U.S. state of Alaska which averages $1,600 annually (in 2019 currency), and is sometimes described as the only example of a real basic income in practice. A negative income tax (NIT) can be viewed as a basic income for certain income groups in which citizens receive less and less money until this effect is reversed the more a person earns.
& of course one of the earliest (online) sources of talk/info on UBI was the ”White & Nerdy’s” omegavirginrevolt/”blackpill”/MAN in the orbiting castle blog/author.
But i don’t remember him speculating if this will lead to more MEN having to ”peacock” in public and (online) with more time in the gym as their financial ”peacocking” goes down to standard foe most??https://www.doctornerdlove.com/leveling-up-standing-out/
Leveling Up: Standing Out (The Right Way)
May 13, 2013 by Dr. NerdLove | 107 Comments
I’ve been looking forward to the release of Baz Luhrman’s The Great Gatsby ever since the first trailer – even if you ignore the inevitable criticism of the excesses of the Jazz Age, it’s hard to not be swept up in the costumes, the pageantry, the Art Deco architecture and, of course, the way everybody is absolutely dripping with style.
There’s a level of style and cool that we just don’t see any more. In fact, if you get right down to it, most people don’t dress well at all. In fact, the majority of people dress rather badly. There are exceptions of course; if you hang around in certain style-conscious areas like New York’s Fashion District, Beverly Hills, parts of London or Milan, you will find stylish and dapper individuals. Even traditionally fashionable cities like Rome or Paris seem to have descended into a morass of relaxed fit jeans and oversized shirts. The stereotype of the Ugly American seems to have spread like a zombie plague, infecting the locals and convincing them that cargo pants, fanny packs and sports jerseys are acceptable fashion choices.
On the whole, it seems as though fashion and style have fallen by the wayside, replaced by convenience and laziness… and, in many cases, plain ignorance.
This, however, can actually be an advantage for someone who wants to dress to impress. It takes very little to stand out from the crowd… in the all the right ways.
Peacocking: Ur Doin’ It Wrong
One of the first things that comes to mind when trying to stand out is the concept of “peacocking.” The idea of peacocking was codified by famed PUA Mystery; the idea was that one wanted to dress differently or outrageously in order to stand out from the crowd. In theory, this was a way of emulating the peacock’s tail-feathers. Just as a peacock’s elaborate plumage signifies its superior genes (after all, the long tail feathers make it harder for the peacock to escape predators), someone who deliberately stands out from the crowd by dressing differently is advertising that he is a superior specimen. After all, why would someone dress in a feather boa and fuzzy hat unless he had something else going for him? Even better: it would make women come up and talk to you. Then, when she criticized your outfit, you could say “No, you’re really just attracted to me.”
(In fairness, this does occasionally happen. I’ve had one drunk girl follow me to three different bars, each time coming up to complain about my New Rocks. She ended up trying alternately to make out with me and to steal my boots.)
In reality, the idea was less about proving that you were an iconoclast who doesn’t care about the rigid dictates of society’s rules and fashion, and more about letting your clothes do the hard work for you. Why should you go up and try to start a conversation with a woman when instead you can hang around and wait for her to come up and ask when you joined the Rhythm Nation.
Crazily enough however, is that Mystery wasn’t entirely wrong. There is a great deal of value to be had in standing out from the crowd; making yourself more noticeable and memorable is a great way of helping build initial attraction and chemistry when you’re trying to meet someone new.
The problem is that everybody, Mystery included, missed the damned point entirely.
Bars and clubs were inundated by people who based their fashion choices on Mystery’s public persona of a professional stage magician (and one who wants to be Criss Angel in the worst g-damn way). Crazy outfits became the PUA uniform: men dressed in Affliction tees, biker jewelry, studded and embroidered sport coats, fuzzy top hats, goggles, spiked hair and four or fives rings on each hand, would flood the streets every Friday and Saturday night. Bars and night clubs started to look like an unholy union of drag shows, fetish clubs and Hot Topic overstock sales.
They got attention all right.
But see my ”peacocking” is from naturally standing out and not following to (definitely) to the letter what people think i should be doing.
Example from when i was in grade=elementary school?One day WE kids were supposed to make exploding volcanos out of flour sacks -as the instructions said,but what did my dad and i make my volcano out of? Cement and rocks embedded in it with black, red, and orange spray paint on them.
But the like to do everything by the non-GREAT book, engineers in the spare would have done.And just received an A or B,i received a A+, and every boy wanted me to trade my cement and rocks volcano for their flour sac one-which i didn’t of course!
Conclusion?
Think on these quotes:
“Creativity is seeing what others see and thinking what no one else ever thought.” – Albert Einstein
“You can’t use up creativity. The more you use, the more you have.” – John C. Maxwell
“Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.” – Scott Adams
“Creativity is the sudden cessation of stupidity.” – Edwin Land
“The chief enemy of creativity is good sense.” – Pablo Picasso
“Creativity takes courage.” – Henri Matisse
“Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life’s coming attractions.” – Albert Einstein
“A hunch is creativity trying to tell you something.” – Frank Capra
“If you want creative workers, give them enough time to play.” – John Cleese
“Creativity requires the courage to let go of certainties.” – Erich Fromm
“Stay hungry. Stay foolish.” – Steve Jobs
“You can’t wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.” – Jack London
As an artiste that’s part engineer, the above quotes speak to me in a way that most sphere engineers don’t see nor understand.
“Creativity is seeing what others see and thinking what no one else ever thought.”
That one especially doesn’t sound like GBFM?
Derek, the problem is “general” in all levels of government, the judiciary, the sacred (church, religious organizations), academic research and in “science”
the trust has been SEVERELY betrayed. Not just now, but moving on almost fifty years
There was a time if the FBI caught a dangerous criminal or fugitive….there was a general sense of “relief” and dare I say “pride” that these folks got the job and work done.
Today? Everything is a “frameup” a “false flag” a distraction to keep our eyes off the real criminals they are not pursing or investigating. People dont trust “law enforcement” anymore because it is used for personal agendas or storylines. This could be applied to the ATF, and other organizations that are suppoed to protect us but instead are used to “frighten” us.
Los Angeles once had the moniker or reputation that it was “the finest police force in the world”
And, to be fair, it once was. Homicides were solved. The streets were safe. Criminals were jailed. Recidivism was low. Today? Constant briberly scams, corrupt Unions, gang infiltration into the force, lowered standards (officers with tattoos showing isnt “hot” its unprofessional), detectives who are married to an ideology over protecting citizens and solving crimes.
The trust was blown. Something that took DECADES to build up was wrecked within a decade. Law abiding Angelenos are more frightened of the LAPD than criminals.
Academia. Since college, I pretty much dont trust anyone in this field, or “experts” (self appointed or degreed) and many feel this way, not because we are “low IQ” its because we have been lied to so many times…….over and over, and not just half-truths. Full blown lies backed “by science” and proof and in the end, it was all made up.
And Im not including the Plandemic. Experts, think tanks, studies, and facts, and stats now cannot be believed because they are *made* to fit the narrative. No one knows what to believe and my advice to them is come to your own conclusions.
I for one am “tired” of experts who seem to be “experts” on everything and know nothing.
Trust has not be ruined by the aveerage people walking around. It has been ruined by a political, social and intellectual elite. Party affiliation doesnt matter here. This elite rewrote “truth” and they get all butt hurt and mad when the rest of us dont buy it anymore.
Trust has been ruined. That is accurately stated.
From a long while back (can’t remember the source now), I saved this answer to the question “What is the key to improving the human condition?”
Trust. Humans are independent social creatures. Yes, a bit of a paradox, but it’s true.
Together, we can do much to improve the human condition, but working together, living together, i.e. “together” requires trust.
So, anything that works to build and maintain trust works to improve the human condition.
And anything that doesn’t, works against it.
People are interdependent.
(back to the paradox)
Pure dependence is as unworkable as pure independence.
I agree for the most part about online personalities. Mike has always said that.
He thinks the internet is filled with LARPers and I’m sure it is.
Mike always says the ego (hubris) will kill you.
On ego and the internet:
Think of what the anonymity of the highway does to people. Then add masses of online fans (for the in group) and hecklers (for the out group). Then add the ability to choose your own story (in great part).
I’ve seen the ego crush quite a few people online (which spilled out to the real world).
I was a moderator on a debate forum for about 15 years, long ago. Over time I found you sometimes get an inkling of who is legit and who isn’t, by the way they post. It’s pattern recognition.
I shouldn’t have to say this, because in the real world people understand it but courtesy is not proof of deception.
I might swear or have a dark sense of humor on one site (just using myself as an example). If I’m somewhere this would come across poorly and it isn’t welcome I refrain out of courtesy. I am courteous when in someone’s “home” I abide by their rules. This seems reasonable to me. Just as when I’m at the track, I sweat and wear sports clothes but I don’t go to a fine restaurant and sit there sweating in my sports clothes.
For any “gotcha” people who might be out there…
Obviously context matters (context is everything, yet another online issue),
if I swear at one site and at another say, “heavens to Betsy! naughty you!” when someone swears, that would deception (unless it was intended as humor).
It has been my observation that quite often rudeness online is disguised as “truthfulness”.
And quite often the type of person who is the most rude would absolutely self destruct if their target engaged in the same exercise. That’s the “benefit” of the internet. Rude people can choose their audience of like minded people, who cheer them on and throw brick bats at others. That has its uses (I’m guilty of being a brick bat thrower myself), and can be fun but it’s not a “discussion” and shouldn’t be confused with one.
In the days of my old debate forum, there were very clear rules. If one reads what I wrote then, I abided by those rules (a courtesy, and also I would have been thrown out and lost my spot as a moderator if I had done differently).
Rules are a way to sort of enforce courtesy, but it’s not very popular anymore as the internet dissolves into tribes.
Okay, done ranting.
This is what too much coffee does to me, heh.
Time to use this excess energy for something productive.
Hope you all have a good day.
Trust has not be ruined by the aveerage people walking around. It has been ruined by a political, social and intellectual elite. Party affiliation doesnt matter here. This elite rewrote “truth” and they get all butt hurt and mad when the rest of us dont buy it anymore.
YEP!
Also ,
Have you read this at a site WE know well, that supposedly wants MEN to marry their daughters (with full benefits):
Space Cadet Elon Musk doesn’t marry or spend money on Ashley St. Clair as an investment on an asset, because that would be the most foolish investment imaginable — even in Biblical terms. Just like buying a new car that loses 40% of its value as soon as you sign the papers because it is now a “used” car, a woman’s SMV/MMV hits the street just as soon as you pack her crack, and then she becomes a burdensome liability. But if you think about marriage this way, then no wealthy man would ever marry or even host a soft harem of concubines. No. You marry, or take a concubine, and/or have children in order to spread your seed, have a family (if the presumed mother is willing), and to expand the family dynasty. Expensive pseudo-MAGA concubines like Ashley St. Clair are a ‘necessary luxury’ that is limited in use to a few hours of carnal entertainment and a womb for birthing high-quality offspring who will continue the family legacy (hopefully). That’s it. Everything else is a collateral hassle that requires writing off the initial investment costs as a non-refundable expense. Oh, BTW, he’s draining his nuts in a F-ck-worthy c0ck sucker who can be paid to go away when her usefulness has expired.
See how Elon Musk is a ”good guy” for doing what made PUAS(namely Roissy=Heartiste in early 2014 according to Dalrock) ”sinful”?
i asked someone you know yesterday,who are ”they” marketing/targeting that above too?
There were a few ‘sphere commenters who I suspected were fakes – a 40 year old sperg who lives in his mom’s basement or some such. A couple of these seem to have left the sphere and there’s one I no longer suspect to be a fake. I guess I have an extreme normie bias – anyone that seems larger than life seems like a possible fake to me.
There were a few ‘sphere commenters who I suspected were fakes – a 40 year old sperg who lives in his mom’s basement or some such.
The gamers who claimed they could easily get and have sex with various women were easily confusing various people(mainly MEN who wanted to believe it) on and off the autism or Asperger’s spectrum by saying, ”I’m having sex with thousands of supermodels” by their fanboy audiences and those who thought that’s what it meant-when it didn’t but it supposedly meant ”they could easily get and have sex with various women.”-which is clearly NOT(or anywhere near) ”I’m having sex with thousands of supermodels” YES?
Like i told you at Spawnys, Rollo has only officially claimed 40 women(including his wife of 30 years) & Scott only claimed 44(with both his wives)for years.
Like others, they have been confused with things like Wilt Chamberlain’s 200,000-women claim in ’94 in his book.
He clarified it ,by being on Conan O’Brien in ’97https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GnTgEHjFpQ
Wilt Chamberlain On The Rumor That He’s Slept With 20,000 Women | Late Night with Conan O’Brien
ALL of that gets even more complex image-wise when guys like Athol Kay in the old days said ”New York – Sexpert Athol Kay has had sex with his wife more than 5 000 times – and says it’s the secret to a happy marriage.
After two children and 16 years of marriage
But aside from illness, Connecticut couple Athol and Jennifer Kay have had sex every day since they tied the knot, a whopping 5 000 times in total.
Now blogger Kay is sharing the secrets of his enviable – or exhausting – sex life with frustrated husbands, to show “the hottest sex possible” should begin, not end, with marriage.
In a new book, the Married Man Sex Life Primer 2011, Kay promises to reveal the secrets of the female psyche so husbands can “reclaim” the main reason they got married – sex.
The self-styled “mixed marital artist” says men can rescue a sexless marriage by making sure they are attractive to their wives – not by looking for thrills elsewhere.
He told MailOnline: “It’s almost surprising that people don’t have sex. When you get married, you put all your eggs in one basket, so you may as well enjoy the basket!”
And he should know. He confesses he began writing his sex blog early last year after having two “emotional affairs”, which forced him to seek advice on the internet.
He told MailOnline: “A lot of my problems were solved when I realised how wonderful my marriage actually was.”
He says he found he was good at talking husbands out of cheating and attracted so many fans, he turned it into a book.
Kay, a nurse originally from New Zealand, has based his advice on everything from evolutionary psychology and biology to romance novels, women’s magazines and “cheap porn”.
His most important tool is the Male Action Plan, which instructs husbands on how to make themselves more attractive – because “whoever is the most attractive in the relationship is in charge”.
See why that plus guys like Jack making guys like surfdumb think ”he has hot sex every night with the wife” will easily cause massive confusion especially between reality & the public image/in people on and off the autism, or Asperger’s spectrum of ”I’m having sex with thousands of supermodels.”
MOST of the PUA fanboys belief in ”I’m having sex with thousands of supermodels.” public image is explained in this old non sphere but related article:https://kirstenlindsmith.com/2014/02/21/clueless-autism-and-the-pua-community/
February 21, 2014kirstenlindsmith
Clueless: Autism and the PUA Community
cluelessFULL
When the average person thinks of autism, or Asperger’s, she likely thinks of the stereotypical social difficulties. Because social problems are often the easiest to see and notice, neurotypicals have a tendency to think of autism as a largely (if not entirely) social disorder. While this is far from the truth, it is not an entirely unreasonable point of view. Social difficulties unite those of us with ASDs, and many of us share similar struggles with cognitive empathy*, nonverbal communication, and unwritten social rules.
Yet, while we flounder with social skills, these superpowers seem to come naturally to neurotypicals. Despite the fact that such intuitive social graces may elude autistics, many of these skills can be learned with the help of the right tools. Autistics will always have to put forth more conscious effort during social interaction, but education can be surprisingly effective in the battle against social disability. In this modern age, resources like the Internet have laid the needed tools at our feet. All a young autistic need do to begin his research is open a tab in his web browser.
But beware, brave adventurer, when you step outside your door.
Autistics desperate to learn the social skills intuitive to neurotypicals are faced with a frustrating paradox, at times amusing, yet more often tragic: Those who know the least are also the least equipped to differentiate between helpful and toxic advice.
One such niche that aims to teach social skills to the unenlightened is the Pick-Up Artist (“PUA”) community. In this post, we will explore the world of Pick-Up Artistry, and how it both aids and cripples autistics.
For those who may not be familiar with the PUA community, I will use the Wikipedia definition of a “pick-up artist”:
A man who trains in the skills and art of finding, attracting, and seducing women. Such a man purportedly abides by a certain system deemed effective by that community in his attempts to seduce women.
The PUA community exists for two distinct reasons, one legitimate, and one vaguely (and often explicitly) sinister:
To teach the socially awkward and naïve how to navigate social situations and become confident in their romantic pursuits, and
To teach men how to easily have sex with women.
Many of those who read and make use of PUA literature are in the first group; these are well-intentioned individuals who just want to learn how to make friends, find romantic partners, and feel more comfortable socializing. But more often than not, self-styled PUAs are entitled misogynists who view social interaction as a game for all the wrong reasons, approaching romance as a battle to be won or lost, disregarding the feelings and desires of the women they manipulate and reducing them to objects.
It has probably already occurred to you why a discussion on the PUA community is relevant to the plight of autistics struggling to teach themselves social skills.
There is a startlingly fine line between the two major mindsets present in the PUA community, and a socially disabled autistic with little natural intuition for these kinds of social codes can easily become swept up into The Game and indoctrinated into the second group.
Before I get too deep into my criticisms, I want to pause to say that I recognize the value in certain PUA guides, and that I myself have learned a great deal about social interaction from PUA literature. The concept itself—analyzing socialization and breaking down human connection into logically explained steps and rules—is not inherently wrong, and can be very useful for autistics.
I’ve encountered many neurotypicals who believe that such things are inherently wrong and manipulative, who believe that referring to social interaction as a game (as in resources like The Games People Play, by Eric Berne) is cold, artificial, and totally defeats the purpose of such interaction. But these opinions always seem to come from those to whom these games come naturally, those that don’t see the game, and don’t realize they are already playing. These are the kind of neurotypicals who can’t empathize with the plight of someone who might need to be taught such basic things as how to introduce oneself to a group of strangers, or how to start a conversation with a girl at a party.
So, if you are one of those people who has always felt that learning how to escalate a flirtatious situation to the point where one can naturally transition to a kiss is manipulative, and inherently wrong, know that you are half right. It is manipulative, because all communication is inherently manipulative*, but it is not necessarily wrong. Just because you have done such a thing without having to learn and remember the steps doesn’t mean your unconscious method is any more “right.”
For the record?GBFM was/is NOT against ”game”/study of it, but against the claim”MEN(especially CHRISTian ones) need to learn it as it is somehow being ”good” & ” Biblical” & JESUS® -approved.
How can something that even Dalrock said wasn’t first brought up in ”literature,” e.g.” picking up girls” which was around 1891(be ancient,” good” and /or” Biblical” & JESUS® -approved.) or -something (as i can’t remember right now when or what post DAL’ where he said the name & year of it-the earliest ”modern” book WE would easily recognize as PUA oriented- right now).
Derek and I(representing the entire GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN throughout time & space) just see women as somewhat similar BUT definitely different in thinking patterns and seeing the world as well as being different bodily to us,born-sinners like us.
& NOT as somehow wanting/desiring to be the ”servants of MEN=their husbands”-which is the REAL difference between us & MOST RP MEN.
Our approach to women is NOT in NO way really believing stuff like the following…
https://www.stephenhedger.com/women-want-a-real-man/
Women Want A Real Man!!!
Most woman reading this will share this view “Women Want A Real Man” and in their mind have their own version of what that means. What she thinks and feels, needs to be respected and most of all listened to.
I speak to many men in my sessions. They want to be able to make her happy; they feel they suffer inside when they feel they can’t, or they feel they have tried and tried, but it’s hopeless.
So with these two desires, her wanting to be loved in the way she wants and him with the burning desire to please her and make her happy this should be easy, RIGHT? You’d think!
So, let’s go some way to define what a Real Man is from a woman’s perspective.
Many women I speak to want a man who will help them feel safe and free to be their authentic selves in the relationship.
This does not mean money. Yes, it feels good to have financial security, but this is not her direct connection to love. Her connection to love comes from his emotional intelligence, desire to understand her, and willingness to take action to support her needs.
She needs a connection to herself that she enjoys when she is with him and a connection to him that brings her the energy and spark that makes their connection unique.
She needs this love, care, and support from him in many ways, and every woman is unique. But she wants to know if the man cares enough to find out – she wants a man who is willing to learn her.
She also wants to know she is the most important person in the world to him.
If she feels his ***MOTHER***, another ***WOMAN***, his JOB, and his friends are more important, then trouble will never be far away.
It is dangerous if he assumes she knows she is important because she has to experience it to feel it.
Women do want attention from the man they love. But they are not unreasonable about it and it’s so easy to do, for her it’s the little things that make the world of difference for her.
She wants to feel that love from a man that is true and genuine.
THAT doesn’t sound like what Deti, Dalrock, as well as MOST sphere MEN say their churches and culture taught them?
What do they say about MOST such talk(was it even a little helpful to them?), as well as what PUAS have said?
GBFM only seems like a gamer because that’s the closest group of MEN in the sphere that represents something larger than just talking smack about women(which too, many MGTOWS, incels, MensRightsActivists/MRAS,”redpillers” and ”blackpillers” do).
Only 40 and 44 women? That’s all?
We knew a couple who married fairly young. She was his18th so he decided 18 was their “lucky number.” They’re now divorced and he’s in prison.
I was told that 2 total (myself included) made Mike a “chad”.
Just spoke to someone from the sphere of Christmases past and he is getting married! (older gentleman).
I have no idea – I think it was assumed Mike is a quite attractive man. IDK if people were using “chad” as a synonym for attractive. Pretty sure most of the men of the sphere have a notch count of at least 2.
Derek wasn’t wrong that the definitions can be loosey-goosey but in their defense it’s a cluster of blogs and commenters with wordpress accounts- it’s not like they have an official canon or an official glossary for their terms.
44 is an absurd number – I had no idea or I guess I don’t remember that.
44 is an absurd number – I had no idea or I guess I don’t remember that.
i remember Scott saying it about twice, once in 2021, when i was still @ SF.
And once before he got doxxed as a ”redpiller”(to the Pentagon, NOT to the general public ) by a gay ex-army officer that was ”well connected” at Fort Fumble( AKA the Pentagon-my love of G.I. Joe and the A-team is showing yes?) who looked him up online(& saw his stuff & was”shocked” that he would be his “The Wizard” back in April/May 2023 as he said in June/July’23 before he ”officially” left sf and the sphere, seemingly forever.
As for “The Wizard” term:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/alpha-blog-charlie/202205/the-controversy-being-called-the-wizard
Health
The Controversy of Being Called “The Wizard”
“Wizard” is a term often used by service members for military psychologists.
Posted May 31, 2022 | Reviewed by Ekua Hagan
Key points
Use of the term “Wizard” among service members has been documented as far back as the Vietnam War.
Saying one is “off to see The Wizard” creates humor around going to see a military psychologist, which may make it easier, not harder, to go.
While military psychologists do sometimes send people home, they also help people reclaim their lives and grow from their military experiences.
Over the years, I have observed many creative terms for military psychologists. Some are funny and adapted to the way the military names everyone. PsychO is a good depiction of this. On Navy ships, the titles of various officers are shortened, so the operations officer becomes the OpsO, the weapons systems officer becomes the Wizzo, so it only makes sense that the psychology officer becomes the PsychO.
hese “terms of endearment” slip easily off the sailor’s tongue, but make policymakers addressing destigmatization uneasy. A shrink on board does not sound suitably helpful when abbreviated that way.
DoD photo, in the public domain.
Wizard is a term frequently used by service members for military mental health professionals.Source: DoD photo, in the public domain.
While different services and workplaces have their own terms, there is one in widespread use: The Wizard. The date of coinage is unknown, though it is documented at least back to Vietnam (Bey, 2006). But the meaning is seemingly clear. The Wizard can use his or her powers to make people disappear—from their commands and from the service in general. For service members who no longer want to be in the military, the belief is that The Wizard can get you sent home, without having to kill a witch, steal some shoes, and click that pair of ruby slippers three times. And while The Wizard connotation at first seems stigmatizing and derogatory, not everything is as it appears.
The “Good” Wizard
Just as in Oz or Middle-earth, there are good wizards and bad wizards. My first introduction to the concept of a “good” Wizard was at a holiday dinner early in my military career. It was a military Thanksgiving, at one of those overseas dinners where you temporarily create a new family out of random friends and strangers in order to celebrate the holiday with some semblance of normalcy.
I was sitting next to a Marine and normal conversation ensued, as in, “What do you do?” After I told him I was a psychologist, he said, “The Wizard just helped one of my friends who was having problems after Iraq.” What’s this? I thought. Marines believe The Wizard can use magical powers for good? Up until that point, I had not put two and two together to come up with the notion that Wizards might be perceived to have more powers than making people disappear. A good Wizard fixes people.
A good Wizard fixes people.
That’s what i think really got Scott so very involved in the sphere with his two blogs, various comments for nearly 9 years at Dalrock, & posts at SF(that in the end cost him his job and most likely, as Derek has reasoned by Scott’s recent appearances elsewhere his 2nd marriage too).
Scott didn’t even write anything particularly bad. That’s ridiculous – I wish he could sue the pants off them.
If his wife divorced him over this then she’s not a good person.
Cameron: Yes, the persons who called Mike a “chad” had a higher “notch count” than he.
Liz I’d guess that by post-1950s standards, 2 is pretty modest. It certainly doesn’t hurt to meet your spouse when you’re young.
I’ve become so hesitant to trust anyone in positions of trust/power in government I now believe there is a very good chance Perot was absolutely right about everything that sounded “looney” at the time. At the time, I was convinced he’d lost his marbles. Even though he was a very astute businessman and rescued his own people from Iran and all that.
To conintue…Yes, I now believe his daughter’s wedding was disrupted by Blackhawk helicopters (or whatever else I remember or misremember).
I think pizza gate was real (and I think the actor who shot the gun into a closet was a…paid actor). Yes, I have trust issues with authority now I did not have 20 or so years ago (think we’re all different after watching what happened with Covid).
I recallin spring 1992 when Perot said he was “going to run for president” we were all in the dorm TV lounge at the time (colleg) and we said “what the heck?” and “why not?”
Then he dropped out of the race….and THEN came back in, much of his initial support was lost by that point. He still managed to pull almost 10% of the nationwide vote if I remember correctly. If he had not dropped out initially….he could have been a “Wallace ’68” type of candidate and probably would have taken several states electoral wise…and perhaps even could have won….
He probably would have been the most “hated” man in America if he did win. His goal was to eliminate the deficit, about 3.4 trillion at the time, he did say he was going to “cut us back to bare bones and get it cleared off and paid back during my term”
He was ridiculed when NAFTA was being supported by BOTH parties. “A giant sucking sound…first your manufacturing jobs, then your para-professional jobs (outsourcing many jobs to India, Israel, and the like…call centers, which pre-1994 were overall decent Union paying jobs in the USA….stuff like that). He mentioned financial jobs (which also happened post NAFTA) and related supported services in that area. He also said “we’ll import workers from countries like India, and pay them less for engineering and related fields…..NAFTA is no good. Its Un-American!”
Well
Ol Ross was right.
And we all did laugh at the time…..but no one is laughing now 🙂
I voted for Bush I in 1992 btw.
1992 was the first (barely) election that I was able to vote in but I didn’t bother nor in 1996 – never liked neoconservatives. I was a Buchanan guy and to this day would prefer him to Trump.
I liked Buchanan also (1992 was also the first election I was about to vote in).
I voted for Bush, but Perot had my support until the “nuttery” (or so I thought).
I thought Admiral Stockdale was a good man and the media was unfair to him.
I thought the same, Cameron. Stockdale was a great man, for sure.
I read about Perot a bit in the late 1990’s. After the Vietnam War ended in 1975 and of course the North Vietnamese were not upholding their agreements of releasing American Prisoners of War……Ross Perot was funding “soldiers of fortune” not just from the USA, but from the free world….including former members of the South Vietnamese military (RVN) to go into Vietnam and get these Americans POWs out.
Really dangerous work and putting his money on the line to do this.
Stockdale I believe was a POW as well during Vietnam at one point. He did say during the VP debates in 1992 to ire of “conservatives” about abortion
“a woman has the right to choose. end of story” which caused a lot of “boos” from the audience in the debates. Looking back, he performed way better than Al Gore and Dan Quayle
I was a Buchanan guy and to this day would prefer him to Trump.
YES!
Ecen though Michael Savage had ”issues”( with Pat Buchanan actually 99% of the time defended PAT -up until ’08) on him being a ”Isolatinist and Holocaust Apologist, both of them were about 98% similar on most ”issues”(except the above two- as shown below):
https://www.newsmax.com/thewire/savage-buchanan-oppose-syria-strike/2018/04/12/id/854143/
Michael Savage’s interview with Pat Buchanan on Wednesday revealed the radio talk show host and his guest both flat out oppose a U.S. military strike against Syria and they think President Donald Trump made a mistake by threatening Russia earlier this week.
Before and while welcoming Buchanan to his show “The Savage Nation,” Savage made his opposition to military action clear and said Trump’s recent tweets showed “the war mongers have grabbed the steering wheel of this administration.”
Buchanan agreed and said Trump put himself in a box by firing off a tweet on Wednesday attacking Russian-backed Syrian President Bashar al Assad for his regime’s most recent alleged chemical weapons attacks on civilians and warning that missiles were coming.
Russia warned that US military action would have serious consequences, and Trump then tweeted on Thursday that he had never stipulated a timeframe when an attack on Syria would take place.
“Could be very soon or not so soon at all,” he said.
Buchanan repeated his assertion that Trump now had two choices: either he launches the attack that would drag the U.S. deeper into Syria’s civil war, or be mocked for being full of talk but no action – a trait Trump accused Barack Obama of on Sunday, saying the former president failed to strike Syria on his watch after a chemical attack.
Buchanan told Savage that Trump was acting unconstitutionally by threatening attacks on Syria, a country that has not attacked or threatened the U.S.
He added that Trump had been elected by the American people to keep the country out of the middle eastern wars, and now there is a “real possibility we are in a war with Syria.”
Buchanan said now is the time for Trump to reflect and to try to climb down from the threats and ultimatums he has issued Russia.
“He should show he is a big enough man to realize he has made a mistake and not to double down and take us to war in order to justify and back up that mistake.”
We have to use those million-dollar cruise missiles for something. Can’t have them sitting in a warehouse collecting dust.
Today. Now.
The USA (and Britain, and France, and Germany and others) still think its 1989.
They hnestly believe that Russia is a third rate army that uses pitchforks and barely working MIGs from 1964.
The Russian strategy in Ukraine has been since this operation started in 2022: slowly GRIND the Ukrainians down thus saving Russian military lives. and Russian military equipment
Here in the USA / The West we take this as weakness “they haven’t over run the country in a month! Its a stalemate! The Russians are losing!”
Far from.
All of those Bradley fighting vehicles are smouldering ruins on the battlefield. Destroyed Abrams tanks (no match for the new Russian attack vehicles). Destroyed German Leopard and Leopard II tanks. They have no more to give Ukraine! The British Challenger II tanks……it was a rout by the Russian miliary when they were used.
The Patriot Missile systems….many of them destroyed. Depleted, no missiles to ship them. Our stocks are very LOW for ground forces and equipment. We have almost nothing left to send them. All of it with almost one million Ukrainian men dead.
Images of young Ukrainian men and boys being dragged out of schools and universities to “go fight on the front line to defend democracy” thrown into trucks while their families beg the authorities to not “take their last son”
Billions the USA is paying to keep afloat the Ukrainian pension system (while Americans are told to “go get a job1”) and Zelenskys wife shops in Milan, Paris and London….and stays at one of their many homes throughout the higher end areas of Italy, France and Spain……
Zelensky who jailed his political opponents, censored the media, arrested the clergy from the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine is “George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill and Charles DeGaulle all rolled into one!”
Its going to be very bad if an agreement isnt reached.
Russia is winning and The West (including the USA) honestly thinks that this is The West v Iraq in 1991.
We’re being gaslit and lied to over this conflict.
Those missile are no good collecting dust right?
I personally believe if Trump takes the whole “peace keeping forces route” he will become Joe Biden here….and if he asks Congress for another “60 billion for Ukrainian support” many in his base are going to flat up rebel and be p*ssed
The media can’t make up their mind. On one hand, Russia is a “gas station masquerading as a country” and they are being slaughtered by the millions by the brave Ukranians (backed by the heroic “Ghost of Keeev” ) but on the other hand if we don’t do something now then next year the Russians will be r_aping their way through the Fulda Gap.
Is there evidence Trump is going to take the “peacekeeping route”?
I’m honestly curious, I haven’t heard this (but I’ve been out of the loop a while now).
Expansion of NATO after the Cold War ended was always a mistake. Neocons (and the Clintons) used it as a carrot. During the second Gulf war in particular, when Dubya wanted to claim he had more support than he did, he invited them in on condition of putting a few soldiers in Iraq. Very short sighted, to say the least.
Per Syria, well…as I remember it,:
Hillary wanted to establish a no fly zone over the country. Trump did not. Hence, why we aren’t there now. Trump eliminated ISIS in a few weeks (for perspective, ISIS had more territory than at any time when he first took office). Once ISIS lost all their territory, he wanted to withdraw rather than involve ourselves in a dispute between the Kurds and Turks. Neocons and liberals wanted us to help the Kurds keep their newly conquered territory. This is what led Mattis to resign. Because Trump would not do so.
They’ll just claim there was no official treaty agreeing to limit NATO expansion eastward. Only our word. I feel so much safer now that Romania is part of NATO and our ally.
16 members when the Warsaw pact ended.
The whole reason NATO existed was a counter to the USSR and its satellite countries.
Now it is double that (32 members of NATO).
It’s nuts. I mean, it’s beyond nuts.
I’m a fan of dissolving it at this point.
I know I remember Trump saying we should dissolve it (during his first term). Someone must have spoken to him and told him “you can’t say that” because his talking point quickly changed to “the other NATO countries should pay more of the cost.”
Trump also considered removing families from the ROK. That was when they renegotiated the cost sharing agreement (in our favor). Our “allies” tend to want to complain about our presence and also very much want us there. We’re a big cash cow for them on many levels (our presence saves them money on defense, offers lucrative contracts for the local companies, and a deluge of money for their local businesses). This is true of Europe too. Adam had a thread a while back that accused the US of being “herpes”. Well, it’s a case of herpes they can rid themselves of anytime they want. Ask France for starters…we once had bases all of France. Ask the Philippines. ect
Most of our NATO allies haven’t paid what they agreed to, as a criteria for joining and remaining in NATO, in decades. That’s a big problem when we’re stuck guaranteeing the security of countries who won’t even invest in their own.
That too is changing now. And it is about time.
Our son was deployed to Jordan for six months, next to that border of Syria, just a few months back. He was fortunate to come home on time (before the holidays). Everyone else he deployed with had to stay (indefinitely). They had a civil engineer replacement, but with the deluge of aircraft deployed they needed all the maintainers they could get.
Lot of kids of people we know were landing in the dark in Syria, doing airlift runs just a few short months ago. I assume that’s over now.
This morning I read a post by a friend on social media. She works as a (civilian) secretary for a squadron and has decided to resign due to the unstable nature of her job situation. I feel for her…truly, I do. But when Mike was a squadron commander they weren’t authorized to even have a single secretary. They did without somehow, and I’m sure others can too.
The next few months, I think, are likely to be messy with the changes. I’m not sure there is any better option as proceeding with too much caution on cuts will just allow the grifters to reorganize.
They’re good at that (actually, there’s a joke in the military that goes like this, paraphrasing:
An officer arrived at his new job and was handed 3 envelops, to be read at 6 month intervals. After the first 6 months, everything was in chaos and he opened the first envelope hoping for some words of real wisdom.
It said one word: “Reorganize”.
He did that, and 6 months later again, everything was in chaos and he opened the next. It said the same: “Reorganize”
Another 6 months go by and with only six months left at the job he opens the last letter:
“Reorganize. Also write these 3 letters to give to your replacement”
I look forward to watching the liberals try to reorganize. It has been entertaining so far. While eating my popcorn, if I ever feel sorry for them I will try to keep in mind:
1.The mainstream media’s coordinated, vicious attacks on anyone who questions throwing money into a bottomless, unaccountable pit—immediately smearing them as “Putin’s puppet” and/or “Nazis”.
2.Europe spending billions on Russian fuel while we bankroll Ukraine’s war against Russia.
My mom’s whining about all the people losing their jobs. None of them cared when Biden wanted to get me fired for not getting the Captain Trips vaccine.
“My mom’s whining about all the people losing their jobs. None of them cared when Biden wanted to get me fired for not getting the Captain Trips vaccine.”
EXACTLY!
There have been a ton of RIFs in the military where pilots with years left on their commitments were summarily let off without preamble. During the Obama years there was sequestration. They closed a lot of facilities and some never came back at all. Those people all lost their jobs. We were at a reserve base at the time and active duty orders were cut. Mike wasn’t paid for almost 2 months. Which was a lot back then (we were living off of savings).
No one cared about any of it. Heck, you’d bring it up and most people didn’t even believe it.
But the covid jabs were the worst of all. By far.
We had the actual White House making statements about the winter of death brought on by the un-jabbed in a way threatening not just to fire them all (which they did) but place them and their families in camps. This happened.
Now they’re using projection of their own principles (I say principles charitably) on everyone who disagrees with them.
Ugh. Going to go crochet at a neighbor’s house now and walk the dogs.
Hope you all have a good day.
Liz,
Im not too sure still.
I voted for Trump this time (instead of Libertarian) mostly for him stating “he wanted peace, and wanted US involvement stopped in Ukraine.”
Right now, the talks are not going well, or what has been started. The only plus IS that the Russians and Americans are at least speaking again. Working on reestablishing embassy contacts. Yes! A good thing! A potential slip-up or mistake can now be squashed quickly with telephones on between both capitals. Thumbs up!
Trumps problem….is again…….putting people to negotiate who dont understand the Russian take on “why” they launched this military operation / war in 2022 to begin with.
So many promises broken by the USA and the West (Minsk, Minsk II, Istanbul) going back over a decade now. The Russians want concrete terms BEFORE any agreement to be made….and of course it will be in their favor. Why?
Because they are winning and WILL win in Ukraine. You cannot push terms when you are in / on the losing side…….which the USA, Ukraine and the West are on.
The West is delusional, they still think and believe Russia is a third-rate army and the war is at a stalemate. Its not. It has not been. It has not ever been.
Trump does have some good people but he is surrounded by Neocons still. Goldberg (ugh) and even Vance is hawkish still about Ukraine, despite his expertise in other areas; he believes the “intelligence reports” and doesnt understand Russia. The intellegence / counter-intelligence dept is FULL of Neocons.
Musk says “the war is at a stalemate”. No! Its not.
Trump is going to have to get the righjt people there and say “Look, we will accept the terms to work a peace deal for Ukraine. No NATO. Demilitarized. The four regions you demand”
Its the only way, or Ukraine will cease to exist. He has to do this. Soon. Because soon, Ukraine AGAIN is going to be out of money
And if Trump comes to Congress to ask for “billions more” many…if not most…..of his voter base WILL turn on him and WILL be pissed. Royally.
In the 1980’s when Regan negotiated with the former Soviet Union (cold war). He had the upper hand by 1985. There wasnt much Gorby could do.
We’re not in that position now. Not by a longshot
“And if Trump comes to Congress to ask for “billions more” many…if not most…..of his voter base WILL turn on him and WILL be pissed. Royally.”
Agreed. I’m one of them.
And………trump COULD score a victory here indirectly.
Polish news and other Slavic news organizations HAVE reported FREQUENTLY over the past decade about massive corruption, deals, lies, and backstabbing by…………….
Former Vice President and President Biden, his son, his brother, several cousins In Ukraine to amount of several hundred millions of dollars. Putin evidently now has “the receipts” and proof (seizing and finding paperwork in the Donbass when the war began)
Not just some coded emails, or hearsay. The bank records. The bribes. The “offing” off people who were going to spill the beans on this very corrupt family and their dealings in Ukraine since at least 2011.
Perhaps if a peace deal happens. To Russia’s liking……..these could just happen to land on “the New York Posts” desk a few weeks later.
If only…….Barry Goldwater TV campaign ad from summer 1964. Just after “Gulf of Tonkin” resolution. “That mess that has killed 275 men” by 1970 is was over 55,000 men.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UABhZ0ov4sE
“Au H2O” as my dad used to call him. “Au H20 in ’64”