Before all else: Did anyone else catch that recent "Neutrality Studies" episode with that ex-CIA agent and concluded that Pascal Lottaz, the host, got played by the CIA. What was that? The Walt Disney version of the CIA?

I've no clue if it's so, but I could swear that Steven "Destiny" Bonnell has been doing his best to trigger me in the past few days, which would mean that he's figured me out pretty quickly. I wouldn't put it above him, to be frank. Damn him, if so.

But that's OK; I noticed I'd gotten to him. The day after I'd done that bit on him and Lance I watched him go for the first link provided by his search, but that hesitation, the pause, the scrolling abruptly halted by that unverbalized act that said "fuck it" as he went back to click on the first. Bingo.

So, keep in mind: if I hadn't acknowledged what's in that first paragraph, I'd still be one point ahead!

If not, then it's a particular aspect of Bonnell that triggers me, but only in relation to certain topics, and coincidence plays in weird ways.

Someone like Cenk Uygur (TYT) upsets me, but the exact same comment or behaviour from Bonnell... I'm not quite sure how to qualify my reaction.

Uygur and TYT have, in great part, established themselves to be utterly hopeless as concerns what's needed to bring about real change. They're great at promoting the Dems by shitting on the GOP, but that's not what people need nor want.

I think Ana Kasparian does a great job, but she's still badly trapped in partisanship, unfortunately, and Uygur's "change" is mostly BS to widen viewership, is what he's made amply visible. I'd even go so far as to say that he's devolved into being a cultist, and I hate how the whole lot identify as "progressives". More? I find Uygur incredibly disingenuous the way he's always bragging about being "honest" and the "most fair media" and a needed alternative to mainstream media given that, on too much that truly matters, he's pre-bought-and-sold-on the mainstream version controlled by the establishment and, consequently, consistently lies to TYT viewers for idiotically tribal or moronically patriotic reasons. By doing so, he's pissing all over the greatest opportunities to leverage change one could ever hope to see within US politics.

Instead, he's busy selling his book and has spent zero time on seizing the moment in a manner that isn't about his business or funnelling voters toward the Dems. That's fine, but they're misrepresenting themselves is what I honestly think. No shocker; I've already said as much. I don't think they're evil or a-holes, but I do question their genuine intent while I do have a hard time swallowing Uygur's bigotry. He seems to be making progress though.

What's their plan other than brow-beating viewers into voting for Dems again while equally pissing off anyone wanting to move away from the GOP? This will help voters when? Four cycles from now or is it five and a midterm? If you think any of that is what the working class wants to hear, you're dead wrong, and they hate you for it. And I'm not being facetious.

Ana, talk some more sense into him, please, unless it's a moot point due to financial obligations that bind TYT? That's also fine, honestly, but people need to know, otherwise. This moment in time, that one would opt to be a diluting force—and through 'omission', in a way—rather than a uniting one? If you've got your finger on the pulse of the demographic within TYT's reach, you'll realize that greater numbers are ready to move toward a third-party option than in the tired direction indicated by TYT. 

The rest are outside of TYT's reach, but if all unite and make noise rather than piss on one another because the corrupt a-hole thrust on themis a better shade of bomb-dropping evil than the other side's... Watching you all caught in a two-way trap and fighting each other to remain in that trap while elites suck up the wealth as they decide which country to bomb 'cause a few of them could do with a new Porsche and Bob's villa needs a new wing and that witch, Nanc—what's that? Awayee? What the hell's that? Oh, yeah... but those weren't rich people or Ukrainians, were they? So, what's your point?

Watching smart, civilized people turn so very stupid every four years and one's bid for presidency costing the GDP of small countries in advert space, I think that may be why the world is so intrigued with US elections if from a developed country. Those from developing countries keep track of US elections so they can get a sense of how much explosive tonnage they can expect to be dropped on their head I hear. More on that, but first:       

If you put together all the people who are angry at both parties with those angry at 'their' party who'd rather die than vote for the other, and add to that all the people who aren't gonna vote as they see no point on top of all those who can't be wavered and who will vote third party, etc., and—if not caught in tribal idiocy that hurts my brain to watch—the perfect opportunity is dancing in front of you all, and it's a rare one that's not bound to present itself so loudly and clearly for quite some time, and I'm almost certain I speak for the entire non-US world and a chunk of the US one when I say: Holy mother fucken' shit, y'all! Instead of uniting, you're fighting to have more of the same and crushing those wanting out of that insanity??? How braindead are you people?!

And did Kyle Kulinski just learn a new phrase, "ranked choice voting"? He's turned into a super arrogant wind-up-doll who's changed into everything he pretends not to be. Does bleach seep through skulls, kills braincells? His performance this past year... you'd think he were auditioning for MSNBC.

That whole Marianne Williamson thing is an embarrassment, quite frankly. Directing viewers' energy to a dead-end she hoped to milk a book promo out of as her staff scurries to hide. I do wonder how many subs that cost Kulinski and better-half Krystal Ball? Poor Saagar Enjeti. Am I wrong to think that he was told to stay out of it and keep his mouth shut, especially during that unprofessionally-hostile RFK Jr. interview headed by Ball?

And, RFK Jr.'s recent realisation; who didn't see that one coming?

Or Jimmy Dore imposing his agenda on Cornell West and brushing him off as if a Jehovah's Witness one got bored with after realising they're not atheists. What the hell was that? And why was that small portion of voters more important than others?

But, I agree: Cornell West ain't no politician. Which is a good thing, right? But, yeah, that he's willing to go with that consultant confirms that he needs a consultant. Perhaps not that one, though. I'd worry about how much time he'd spend brainwashing West into seeing the Uygur as the only path to the Dems, being the only path out.

Yes, I'm thinking of M.C. Esher right now, and a room where all doors lead back into. 

And Bonnell is completely wrong about Briahna Joy Gray. Damn him. I didn't dare stick with "completely", just in case. I hate that he's made me do that. 

Nonetheless, regardless what her net worth is—which is an aspect she'd need to package appropriately, but not hide it—what she articulates speaks for the majority of working class folks, the vast majority of hangups being linked to how the person perceives what's she's saying because of what they assume regarding her net worth and because of what she's saying. She's a tremendous voice for their fight, and super bright, not afraid to push things, and she understands 'government' pretty damn well and can differentiate between a pipe dreams on placards and a viable path by way of the necessary steps that can lay the foundation to what's on placards.

Sure, it all starts at the local level, but if a parallel political infrastructure isn't built at the national level, the local will always remain local. And people being people, elections are the best time to rally that energy. Do it well, and don't betray them or, simply, 'give up'—if preferred—and they'll continue supporting that movement.

Right now what I see are tons of people wanting the same thing but worded different ways, and it's semantics that's mostly shaping factions, each of these wanting the same thing through different ways so that, in the end, everybody has the same thing as always. 

•     •     •

I peeked into Bonnell's stream yesterday as he was working his way through the Hunter Biden and dad affair. He didn't know who Devon Archer is. But, how could he have had an opinion on the matter, then, and be so sure to boot? 

I couldn't watch. Couldn't go through that. There's something severely wrong with anyone who still thinks this is all a hoax by the GOP. 

For over two years I've held the same version, and all that's come out supports exactly that. I dug on my own and satisfied myself; are Dem supporters such shitty researchers and journalists? Gotta see things through a normal person's eyes and not through brain-limiting anti-orange lenses, and you gotta go beyond what all Dem lovers repeat, for the version that floods the web and the links in the Wikipedia pages will eventually have you realising that all's a pile of BS weaved together by people with a common goal but gaps in their communications.

There's plenty of proof against Biden; given the two impeachments called against Trump, you'd have called 52 if it were Trump involved in any of that instead. 

And prosecuting Trump is just a bad idea, in my opinion. The complete lack of consistency shouldn't even have anyone wondering whether it's politically motivated. If Trump had found his place and played the game, he could have done worse and still not be indicted. 

And here's the best defense I can think of for Trump: But I thought coups were a good thing?! We do them all the time.

If you grow up seeing your government repeat a certain act then get richer as oil prices drop, then that's got be a very positive thing, that act, no? And America needs some "great", so what's the problem?

Actually, my take on that isn't as simple, but I'll go with that for now.  

•     •     •

What kind of news anything can TYT be given how ridiculous and uninformed their take on both Ukraine and the Hunter affair are while still believing Russiagate was real? Everything Uygur repeats about those events and holds to be true is demonstrably wrong or the product of Western propaganda he's absorbed a bit too well and won't let go of.

Having genuinely looked into those events, and not by relying on establishment-friendly outlets or the dolts who simply repeat what these say, actually doing the research, you would have realised that you could have leverage those into a good position for citizens, not to mention that if these stopped playing interference to protect sociopaths and criminals, there'd be an even bigger crowd demanding change, as the collective anger wouldn't be so easily appeased the way it is by being kept fragmented, which all these so-called progressives are all so stupidly eager to do that ten, twenty years from now I still won't be able to wrap my head around it. Defending Biden and calling for more weapons to be sent to Ukraine... then you understand ZERO about the conflict and what's going on, and, Putin, all I've heard from Uygur are the vilest accusations that betray a deep Russophobia but not an ounce of courage to see that the version of Putin he loves to hate was almost entirely created by the West.

How can someone be so daft and be in news and politics? And Uygur isn't daft is what makes it so upsetting. So gold was pissed away and those fighting for change can't see the pattern that repeats, that for which the world is crying for a change. 

And you're damn right I blame NATO and the West for that, because nothing in life is as puerile as the version that only diminishing numbers of Westerners still believe. And these are the ones most assured they're correct on everything without ever truly delving into anything, just as long as it's an anti-GOP take, they'll take it!

Are they getting some pushback? Hence why they only discuss it in the "members only" portion? Gotta keep those viewers hating those non-Demers while believing that Dems are the answer? 

Just take five minutes and replace Biden with Trump—senior or junior, as appropriate—for all that's available to establish corruption and the Biden's involvement, and hear yourself. I'd be hearing a "Is he guilty? Of Cooourse!" coming all the way from California.

Denying that Biden is corrupt, that's a cultist, not a tribalist. Wanting to defend the Dems to that degree, it makes a total BSer out of Uygur, who, apparently, cares more about the Democratic Party than really, truly informing himself or viewers. 

That's sad. And it's gotten to the point where much of the world is starting to laugh at anyone being so perplexingly obtuse. Makes no sense. Nothing good about a political system that encourages such a pathetic defense of a corrupt comatose. 

 •     •     •

A recent video from Bonnell seems to indicate that he's seen the light. 

I'll imagine it's so for now; I'd hate to be disappointed.

The guy is too bright. 

That take down of Sneako (I think. Streamer names... Oy!) and the red pill movement, or however you wanna qualify it, just, damn! That was something else. Ad libbed, too. That was so very impressive, I gotta admit. I'm quite certain I could not have said any of that better; he obliterated that whole 'masculine men', Andrew Tate-style of thinking in a manner that deserves being repeated to all male teens once a year throughout high school.

And, yet, some of the claims he makes. That, too, hurts my brain.

The mainstream news outlets are rarely truly held accountable, and they lie far more than you realise, is all I'll say for now.

To his comment that, really, how can one know whether Russia or Ukraine is losing? You can't, no one can know:

Well, no, no one knows, not in the biblical sense, and there's plenty there for a good epistemological debate about trees and forests and falling bullets still making a sound if no one's dead, but, if objective and willing to spend the time, one knows.

The narrative I've had has remained relatively unchanged since before the SMO was launched, though many aspects have gained a degree of depth that has had an impact on how i see the whole, having more sympathy for Russians than I initially did being one example. And I've nothing against Ukrainians—they've been bamboozled—but what's commonly referred to as the Kiev regime, along with the West, I've got much anger for.

The details are too long for the answer I wanted to provide. The doodle may help. Those who, like me, aren't plagued by ideology and willing to dedicate a fair bit of time to sift through available info from a wide array of sources, including on the field people, well, we all pretty much seem to be following a line like the bottom one where all the hard facts that come to light fall pretty much in line with that version. On the other hand, European and North American narratives are all over the place, constantly having to adjust lies to the hard facts that come out.

It's the patterns, mostly, but you gotta be dedicated and give more than cursory glances at news or listen to the collective buzz, and for the patterns to be identifiable and meaningful, you gotta dedicate time to understanding various dynamics and cultural traits and... 

All outlets protect themselves with sporadic articles that contain the hard truth so they can claim objectivity; they make sure these get as little traction as possible, and they're never the stories that manage to draw any attention from other media outlets, who aren't to touch those. After a while, you recognize these without trying.

I know I already mentioned it and I'll try to post some—I am just one guy with only 24 hrs a day, I recently learned—but I've series of screenshots that show the absurd incongruence demonstrated by some outlets who are clearly saying anything from one day to the next. 

Any how, these 'truth' stories always converge with the version that get's one accused of being a Putin lover, which is the bottom one. And there's failings in what gets communicated between outlets sometimes (CBC, BBC, DW, France 24, are tightly coordinated, for example) or 'bloopers' that make it online but get ripped down super duper fast.

The censorship. That, too, carries significant info after some time; each case is unique and must be treated as such, but when it comes in waves, there's a certain change in narrative to be expected.

And banning Scott Ritter, yet, again... think what you will of the man, they've done nothing but try to silence him, and not for the reasons they give.  

There's an informal community as well as a formal one and the forces at play serves as a loose fact-checking system that's much more efficient than one would think, but much of that relies on one's intent and the trustworthiness they can establish, so there's an unofficial weeding out process, too.

I've only offered casualty counts twice and those numbers were eventually proven to be closer to reality than anything offered by Ukraine or the West, confirmation eventually coming from them. The last I offered was 100,000 more than anyone else's, and i was in the right range, it seems. I heard Western ex-militaries put the number of Ukraine casualties above a million. That seems high, though, but it confirmed that 40,000 was full of crap, as did the US counts at 90,000 that jumped to 190,000, etc.

No one knows for sure—it's impossible to have an exact count—but Russians are slaughtering Ukrainians.

And it all could have stopped long ago, even avoided. So easily.

This I can assure all: As far as the version that's held and pushed by Western leaders and mainstream media goes, there's very little there that I believe.

And if I say that I've dedicated at 15 hrs a day to "getting" info, and communicating it, then, I wouldn't be surprised if I were short and it's actually more.

That's why I get so very pissed off when Bonnell stops playing video games to glance at a WaPo or NYT or Politico et al. article to, 30 seconds later, confirm the mainstream narrative as the undeniable truth.

Dude, you're better than that.