If you happened to be alive during the years of 2016 to 2020, you can probably recall the routine issuance of frantic bulletins that “Nazis” were suddenly on the march in the US. Not just that some ludicrous, ragtag group of self-identified Nazis could be occasionally spotted in the wild — which had always been a somewhat regular, albeit
It's hard to see where an organization like the ADL, founded explicitly to counter blood libel and hate against the Jewish people, can possibly benefit from allowing actual neo-Nazis to take to the streets unchallenged in the United States, much less (presumably) approve of shipping arms to a government-linked Neo-Nazi militia group halfway across the world. Weren't we instructed to "punch a Nazi" during the Trump era? Now we're arming them and saluting them and calling them defenders?
One needn't back the Russian invasion of Ukraine to ask what's wrong with this picture. Prior to the invasion, if you advocated siding with Nazis for *any* reason, perhaps short of an invasion of aliens via UFO, you'd be viewed as a hate-filled bigot and banished from public life. (Even in the case of the alien invasion I think you'd have a hard time justifying it in the prestige press, frankly.) Now it's all well and good because of... Vladimir Putin?
This is utter insanity. The Nazis have gone from being a well-earned byword for evil for the best part of a century to brave defenders of a steelworks in the space of a few months.
I reckon they gave the Skokie nazis enough rope to hang themselves. Nothing wrong with that, of course. But the idea that the beer-bellied gang of idiots that showed up in Illinois posed any threat to anyone was absurd. It cost the ACLU very little to defend their principles then. It would cost them much more now.
Prior to about three months ago, if as a public figure you'd said that collaborating with Nazis was acceptable under any circumstance - even the invasion of the United States - you would have been instantly and completely banished from public life. It turns out, shockingly enough, that there are shades of gray here.
When we all take the Ukraine filters off our Facebook profile, do you think such measured, sober cost-benefit analyses of Nazi collaboration will remain in our discourse? I certainly hope not, but the past two weeks have given me pause. We're seeing some very, very strange bedfellows in opposition to Russia.
Regardless of whether or not one is in the right to oppose Russia, it doesn't follow that the enemy of one's enemy is one's friend. As with so many of our recent conflicts, we're going to learn that lesson too late. We're arming a latter-day Mujahideen for short-term geopolitical aims, only this time they like Hitler. I wouldn't be hugely surprised to find many equipped with US permanent residence. Those that don't, who knows what will become of their billions of dollars of weaponry once CNN stops paying attention.
And we are collectively OK with this because they are 1) brave and 2) fighting Putin. Be that as it is, it wasn't our fight in the first place, and that's doubly true when the fight is being waged in no small part by Nazis.
In what way? Specifically? Here's why I think it's not silly: this was a domestic volunteer force - an insurgency against the pro-Russian and Russian-backed forces in the Donbass and Eastern Ukraine. Much like the Afghan Mujahideen, their formation was not carried out by the state, but rather was a partisan uprising. Like the Mujahideen, they are driven not just by a nationalism but by a particular creed (Mujahideen were Islamists; Azov are Nazis.) Like the Mujahideen, they find themselves in a condition of "cooperative tension" with the state whose nation they seek to defend; while they are embedded into the Ukrainian National Guard, they can operate independently of its command structure. (In the case of a full Ukrainian victory - complete territorial gain of lost territories, or even all territories minus Crimea - I fully expect some Azov to 'go rogue' and continue an offensive, much as several Mujahideen groups did in the aftermath of Soviet withdrawal.)
And most pertinently for us as US taxpayers, precisely as with the Mujahideen we are sending huge amounts of materiel to them* with no idea of where it's going to end up or for what ends it will be used, with no plans for its decomissioning after the war, and with little thought for anything but how Azov and Ukraine can be used in our own proxy war (that time against the USSR, this time against its successor state, Russia.)
What is so silly about this comparison? Would you find comparison to the so-called Northern Alliance in Iraq less odious?
*Admittedly the Ukrainian state is the middleman here, but let's face it - who's likely to take the fight to the Eastern front?
Well, they're a small part of the Ukranian army. I'm sure they'll get some weapons.... and I'm sure there'll be some that continue some pretty right wing odious stuff after the war... I doubt they'll become the Ukraine version of the Taliban. I doubt they'll keep going into Russia if they win.
Also, I understand what they say about most Azov etc fighters not being Nazi's to be true.
All war is horrible. The Ukrainians at the urging of the USA provoked this war. The Nazis in Azovstal Are committing war crimes. They may be brave but they are definitely not on the right side
Russia was very clear about what would happen if NATO did not back off. They are just as clear about what will happen if Finland joins NATO. Ukraine is a proxy-war against Russia. The US did not have to push it.
Right and wrong is a moral judgment. I don’t care to waste my time debating “god”. I’d rather the world be at peace.
"Russia?" what? The USA is pushing, Russia is pushing back.
The "money shot" here is:
"Want to plead for negotiation rather than escalation? Go right ahead, but do not allow such language to wishfully avoid the single, hard, determinative question in this conflict: Who will accept defeat?"
“Subsequently, Trump was accused of having confirmed his Nazi-enabling intentions when he was seen to have equivocated in his denunciation of the offending Nazis”.
C'mon Michael, you are wayyyy better than this. I am so sick of hearing this lie that he somehow expressed sympathy for the Nazi's in Charlottesville. If you actually look at his Press Conference you will see that TWICE he veered wayy out of his way to say that 'when I talk about good people I'm not including the Nazi's. They deserve to be condemned totally'. Twice.
But here we are, four years later, and people are still letting the lie stand that he was sympathetic to the Nazi's. Our pathological liar in the White House even continues to say that Trump's sympathy for Nazi's was the event that compelled him to run for the White House.
Please, can we stop giving this claim that Trump supported the Nazi's credence, when it's clearly a lie? I know you wrote the paragraph in a way that was meant to point out that some people back then made that claim... but c'mon half the people reading your column still believe he actually did just that! And he didn't. Shouldn't the truth matter?
Commenter "mhj" in this thread is correct. I had no desire to re-litigate the nuances of Trump's remarks -- only to recount that the controversy occurred.
Tracey said Trump was "accused of" these things and was "seen to." He did not say they were true, and his phrasing seems carefully calculated to not give that impression.
This is how I read it too. The whole opinion piece was making the point that everyone with and R behind their name was being smeared as a Nazi, not that any of it was true. The entire point is that it’s all B.S. with the D pundits now ignoring genuine Nazism as it suddenly suits their goals
That sickens me, too, and I also think Tracey could have been more straightforward in saying Trump was falsely accused of those things, but he is the author and that editorial choice was his to make. In context, I think his meaning is clear. Maybe he is addressing a different (more left-leaning) audience and didn't want to litigate a different issue that he thought would distract from his main goal... I do not know.
But, his meaning was clear only in full context, because in different contexts (i.e., hit pieces) that kind of phrasing is used by dishonest journos (like the NYT, WaPo, LAT, CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, MSNBC, CNN,...) to cast aspersions on the targets without taking responsibility for the accusations (or being obliged to provide evidence). In those articles, the "fact" is that someone is making accustions, and the journo walks away from whether there is any truth to those accusations. That is a despicable practice, the people and organizations that do it are beneath contempt, but unfortunately also very common among certain types of people.
So while I think Tracey's meaning (in context) was clear, it is reasonable to question why he chose that approach, which lies close to its opposite. I think he was sincere in saying these were accusations but implying they were/are unproven or wrong--but that differs from the techique used in below-the-belt hit pieces only in context, the words could be the same.
Lost a life long friend over the Charlottesville hoax. I will no longer abide lies. From anyone. Must second my disappointment with that sentence. I am here for truth.
I can't say I'm surprised. After all, the ADL and SPLC are two of the most dishonest organizations to ever pose as activists. The ADL was founded early in the Twentieth Century as a reaction to the arrest and trial of Jewish factory manager Leo Frank for the murder of 13-year-old factory girl Mary Phagan. It is believed that Frank had been having sex with the girl and other girls in the factory and that he murdered her when she came in for her paycheck. (My personal opinion is that her death was accidental, that she fell and hit her head on a machine in the room where they were dallying but Frank lacked the character to report it.) Jews in the North went absolutely wild and accused the prosecution of antisemitism when Frank's Jewishness was never a factor.
The SPLC was started by a con artist direct mailer to support the Democratic Party in the South. It has ALWAYS been a shill for the DNC. It's founder, Morris Dees, has since been fired by the organization even though he built it from the ground up.
Neither organization is to be trusted. They claim to ferret out "hate groups" when there is no more virulent hate group in the country then they are.
As for the Asov regiment, battalion or whatever you want to call it. It appears they are no more. The remnants are cowering like rats in a former steel mill where they were hiding behind civilians. However, the Nazi ideology is widespread in Ukraine where Nazi Stefan Bandera is hailed by a heroic nationalist.
The Southern Pottery Barn Center inspired a lot of great exposé magazine pieces over the years. The canonical one may have been Ken Silverstein’s in Harpers 22 years ago but another only a decade ago by Charlotte Allen was an excellent follow-up. There were many more good ones more recently, I can’t remember them all. I think this only succeeded to publicized how effective their grift was, HRC and ACLU now copy the exact same biz model as innovated by the since-ousted Dees
My favourite cover for the neo-Nazi Ukrainian “defenders” is that there couldn’t be such a Nazi element openly operating on the ground, in the military and intelligence because Zelenskyy is Jewish…
The guy is Jewish, Nazis couldn’t possibly be running vast portions of Ukraine’s military and intelligence. End of story.
Clever, no?
My favourite comeback to that came from the Russian Foreign Minister, Lavrov (and yes, I’m quoting a Russian, therefore I must be an agent):
Lavrov on Italian TV: "The fact that Zelensky is Jewish does not deny the Nazi elements in Ukraine. I believe that Hitler also had Jewish blood."
Another great article Michael. Most of us living in the Substack Ghetto are pretty much up to speed on this atrocious reality. However the proverbial “man in the street”, sorry, the proverbial LBGQTXYZ have more important things that occupy their mind. The Four Horsemen appear to have left the starting gate - and they’re off! Good times.
Reporters are feckless sellouts, yes? That’s what Michael is telling us, yes? Why does it fall to Michael to research and tell this story? What is the invisible force that causes them all to knowingly misrepresent? They know, but they persist, what’s the impetus?
I watched the White House correspondents dinner and it is clear they have no qualms, in fact they are altogether chuffed.
Hyperbolic, but seeing as Nazis are the topic, I think it could be the same phenomenon at play when average Germans stood by while their Jewish neighbours were carted off.
Is your spouse guilty of this type of thinking, onboard with the narrative? Are your children? How about your friends? Do you think Michael Tracey is on to something and what would your circle of friends think? Do you have hope? Do you think we can reason our way out of this wholesale embrace of philistinism?
My answer to all these questions: to late, fait accompli, they have won.
What have they won, NARRATIVE CONTROL they tell us the stories we live by and it is within their almost exclusive purview to change those stories: that’s what Michael’s pieces about.
And that's why Donald Trump is the most amazing political genius of all time: one single individual human somehow became both a literal reincarnation of Adolf Hitler AND Vladimir Putin's personal butt puppet.
That's right. This astoundingly brilliant pussy grabber actually UNITED the Nazis and the Russians.
Donald Trump is like the Holy Trinity, only with two irreconcilable parts instead of three. And also the two parts are evil. But other than that he's a one-of-a-kind eternal fuckin' political genius. No wonder the Democratic machine was so afraid of him.
Speaking of weaponry, this piece is a laser guided cruise missile into the awful hypocrisy of the Democratic Party from the Trump to Biden years. From Ukraine to COVID to #MeToo to dark money to the economy there is nothing but double standards
The fact that everyone from the Pentagon and the State Dept. to the NYTimes and the ADL and ACLU turn a blind eye to Azov Nazism demonstrates that every American "in the know" is scared shitless of Russia.
It seems that US power thinkers fear Russia because it's a wildcard. It's not under our control or even our influence. I guess the airtight logic of Western planners is something like: "We can't control Russia. Russia fought Nazis in World War II. QED we must attack Russia with an army of Nazis."
Good and thorough post on this. Not surprising under this climate we have random teenage thugs emulating these outright Nazi types wearing the merch style Azov Battalion clothing available on the internet including Amazon. The topsy turvy world of shallow, trending, constricted thinking - actively prohibiting certain free speech while encouraging more militaristic and authoritarian speech and behavior - is reprehensible.
It's hard to see where an organization like the ADL, founded explicitly to counter blood libel and hate against the Jewish people, can possibly benefit from allowing actual neo-Nazis to take to the streets unchallenged in the United States, much less (presumably) approve of shipping arms to a government-linked Neo-Nazi militia group halfway across the world. Weren't we instructed to "punch a Nazi" during the Trump era? Now we're arming them and saluting them and calling them defenders?
One needn't back the Russian invasion of Ukraine to ask what's wrong with this picture. Prior to the invasion, if you advocated siding with Nazis for *any* reason, perhaps short of an invasion of aliens via UFO, you'd be viewed as a hate-filled bigot and banished from public life. (Even in the case of the alien invasion I think you'd have a hard time justifying it in the prestige press, frankly.) Now it's all well and good because of... Vladimir Putin?
This is utter insanity. The Nazis have gone from being a well-earned byword for evil for the best part of a century to brave defenders of a steelworks in the space of a few months.
I fear this will one day backfire greatly.
Perhaps we should blame the ACLU for defending the Skokie Nazis: https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie
I reckon they gave the Skokie nazis enough rope to hang themselves. Nothing wrong with that, of course. But the idea that the beer-bellied gang of idiots that showed up in Illinois posed any threat to anyone was absurd. It cost the ACLU very little to defend their principles then. It would cost them much more now.
Excellent point. Free speech back then was a noble principle. Now, not so much.
Leaving aside debate as to how many are actually nazis, they are brave and defending a steel plant and on the right side of a pretty horrible war.
Prior to about three months ago, if as a public figure you'd said that collaborating with Nazis was acceptable under any circumstance - even the invasion of the United States - you would have been instantly and completely banished from public life. It turns out, shockingly enough, that there are shades of gray here.
When we all take the Ukraine filters off our Facebook profile, do you think such measured, sober cost-benefit analyses of Nazi collaboration will remain in our discourse? I certainly hope not, but the past two weeks have given me pause. We're seeing some very, very strange bedfellows in opposition to Russia.
Regardless of whether or not one is in the right to oppose Russia, it doesn't follow that the enemy of one's enemy is one's friend. As with so many of our recent conflicts, we're going to learn that lesson too late. We're arming a latter-day Mujahideen for short-term geopolitical aims, only this time they like Hitler. I wouldn't be hugely surprised to find many equipped with US permanent residence. Those that don't, who knows what will become of their billions of dollars of weaponry once CNN stops paying attention.
And we are collectively OK with this because they are 1) brave and 2) fighting Putin. Be that as it is, it wasn't our fight in the first place, and that's doubly true when the fight is being waged in no small part by Nazis.
"We're arming a latter-day Mujahideen for short-term geopolitical aims, only this time they like Hitler.".... This is just silly.
In what way? Specifically? Here's why I think it's not silly: this was a domestic volunteer force - an insurgency against the pro-Russian and Russian-backed forces in the Donbass and Eastern Ukraine. Much like the Afghan Mujahideen, their formation was not carried out by the state, but rather was a partisan uprising. Like the Mujahideen, they are driven not just by a nationalism but by a particular creed (Mujahideen were Islamists; Azov are Nazis.) Like the Mujahideen, they find themselves in a condition of "cooperative tension" with the state whose nation they seek to defend; while they are embedded into the Ukrainian National Guard, they can operate independently of its command structure. (In the case of a full Ukrainian victory - complete territorial gain of lost territories, or even all territories minus Crimea - I fully expect some Azov to 'go rogue' and continue an offensive, much as several Mujahideen groups did in the aftermath of Soviet withdrawal.)
And most pertinently for us as US taxpayers, precisely as with the Mujahideen we are sending huge amounts of materiel to them* with no idea of where it's going to end up or for what ends it will be used, with no plans for its decomissioning after the war, and with little thought for anything but how Azov and Ukraine can be used in our own proxy war (that time against the USSR, this time against its successor state, Russia.)
What is so silly about this comparison? Would you find comparison to the so-called Northern Alliance in Iraq less odious?
*Admittedly the Ukrainian state is the middleman here, but let's face it - who's likely to take the fight to the Eastern front?
Well, they're a small part of the Ukranian army. I'm sure they'll get some weapons.... and I'm sure there'll be some that continue some pretty right wing odious stuff after the war... I doubt they'll become the Ukraine version of the Taliban. I doubt they'll keep going into Russia if they win.
Also, I understand what they say about most Azov etc fighters not being Nazi's to be true.
I don't know what the Northern Alliance is.
OK, so it's less about the comparison and more about the number of them and their impact?
All war is horrible. The Ukrainians at the urging of the USA provoked this war. The Nazis in Azovstal Are committing war crimes. They may be brave but they are definitely not on the right side
I agree that all war is horrible...
just to be clear, do you think Russia is the right side? Or that there's no right side?
Russia was very clear about what would happen if NATO did not back off. They are just as clear about what will happen if Finland joins NATO. Ukraine is a proxy-war against Russia. The US did not have to push it.
Right and wrong is a moral judgment. I don’t care to waste my time debating “god”. I’d rather the world be at peace.
So.... Russia?
"Russia?" what? The USA is pushing, Russia is pushing back.
The "money shot" here is:
"Want to plead for negotiation rather than escalation? Go right ahead, but do not allow such language to wishfully avoid the single, hard, determinative question in this conflict: Who will accept defeat?"
https://www.opednews.com/articles/Ukraine-Negotiation-Kabuki-by-Jim-Kavanagh-Nato-Expansion_Russia-ukraine-War_Ukraine_Ukraine-Crisis-220511-940.html
Really? You might want to do some research on the ADL background.
Like what?
“Subsequently, Trump was accused of having confirmed his Nazi-enabling intentions when he was seen to have equivocated in his denunciation of the offending Nazis”.
C'mon Michael, you are wayyyy better than this. I am so sick of hearing this lie that he somehow expressed sympathy for the Nazi's in Charlottesville. If you actually look at his Press Conference you will see that TWICE he veered wayy out of his way to say that 'when I talk about good people I'm not including the Nazi's. They deserve to be condemned totally'. Twice.
But here we are, four years later, and people are still letting the lie stand that he was sympathetic to the Nazi's. Our pathological liar in the White House even continues to say that Trump's sympathy for Nazi's was the event that compelled him to run for the White House.
Please, can we stop giving this claim that Trump supported the Nazi's credence, when it's clearly a lie? I know you wrote the paragraph in a way that was meant to point out that some people back then made that claim... but c'mon half the people reading your column still believe he actually did just that! And he didn't. Shouldn't the truth matter?
Commenter "mhj" in this thread is correct. I had no desire to re-litigate the nuances of Trump's remarks -- only to recount that the controversy occurred.
Seriously though, what is there to re-litigate? He said what he said - emphatically and twice - and that has been widely misrepresented.
Anyway, you're my favorite journalist out there, so I'll drop it.
It was a clear dog whistle. Or more just a whistle that everyone could hear and then saying "that wasn't a whistle, honest"
Tracey said Trump was "accused of" these things and was "seen to." He did not say they were true, and his phrasing seems carefully calculated to not give that impression.
This is how I read it too. The whole opinion piece was making the point that everyone with and R behind their name was being smeared as a Nazi, not that any of it was true. The entire point is that it’s all B.S. with the D pundits now ignoring genuine Nazism as it suddenly suits their goals
Why not just say the truth? Trump condemned the NAZIS and Antifa and was smeared and lied about by the corrupt corporate press. It sickens me
That sickens me, too, and I also think Tracey could have been more straightforward in saying Trump was falsely accused of those things, but he is the author and that editorial choice was his to make. In context, I think his meaning is clear. Maybe he is addressing a different (more left-leaning) audience and didn't want to litigate a different issue that he thought would distract from his main goal... I do not know.
But, his meaning was clear only in full context, because in different contexts (i.e., hit pieces) that kind of phrasing is used by dishonest journos (like the NYT, WaPo, LAT, CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, MSNBC, CNN,...) to cast aspersions on the targets without taking responsibility for the accusations (or being obliged to provide evidence). In those articles, the "fact" is that someone is making accustions, and the journo walks away from whether there is any truth to those accusations. That is a despicable practice, the people and organizations that do it are beneath contempt, but unfortunately also very common among certain types of people.
So while I think Tracey's meaning (in context) was clear, it is reasonable to question why he chose that approach, which lies close to its opposite. I think he was sincere in saying these were accusations but implying they were/are unproven or wrong--but that differs from the techique used in below-the-belt hit pieces only in context, the words could be the same.
Lost a life long friend over the Charlottesville hoax. I will no longer abide lies. From anyone. Must second my disappointment with that sentence. I am here for truth.
I can't say I'm surprised. After all, the ADL and SPLC are two of the most dishonest organizations to ever pose as activists. The ADL was founded early in the Twentieth Century as a reaction to the arrest and trial of Jewish factory manager Leo Frank for the murder of 13-year-old factory girl Mary Phagan. It is believed that Frank had been having sex with the girl and other girls in the factory and that he murdered her when she came in for her paycheck. (My personal opinion is that her death was accidental, that she fell and hit her head on a machine in the room where they were dallying but Frank lacked the character to report it.) Jews in the North went absolutely wild and accused the prosecution of antisemitism when Frank's Jewishness was never a factor.
The SPLC was started by a con artist direct mailer to support the Democratic Party in the South. It has ALWAYS been a shill for the DNC. It's founder, Morris Dees, has since been fired by the organization even though he built it from the ground up.
Neither organization is to be trusted. They claim to ferret out "hate groups" when there is no more virulent hate group in the country then they are.
As for the Asov regiment, battalion or whatever you want to call it. It appears they are no more. The remnants are cowering like rats in a former steel mill where they were hiding behind civilians. However, the Nazi ideology is widespread in Ukraine where Nazi Stefan Bandera is hailed by a heroic nationalist.
The Southern Pottery Barn Center inspired a lot of great exposé magazine pieces over the years. The canonical one may have been Ken Silverstein’s in Harpers 22 years ago but another only a decade ago by Charlotte Allen was an excellent follow-up. There were many more good ones more recently, I can’t remember them all. I think this only succeeded to publicized how effective their grift was, HRC and ACLU now copy the exact same biz model as innovated by the since-ousted Dees
My favourite cover for the neo-Nazi Ukrainian “defenders” is that there couldn’t be such a Nazi element openly operating on the ground, in the military and intelligence because Zelenskyy is Jewish…
The guy is Jewish, Nazis couldn’t possibly be running vast portions of Ukraine’s military and intelligence. End of story.
Clever, no?
My favourite comeback to that came from the Russian Foreign Minister, Lavrov (and yes, I’m quoting a Russian, therefore I must be an agent):
Lavrov on Italian TV: "The fact that Zelensky is Jewish does not deny the Nazi elements in Ukraine. I believe that Hitler also had Jewish blood."
OUCH!
That was just Lavrov reminding us that there are multiple, high-ranking a-holes on all sides of this war, and he is one of them.
He almost certainly didn't, though, at least not within living or documented memory.
Does anyone ever wonder if they are living in the same world as other people?
Another great article Michael. Most of us living in the Substack Ghetto are pretty much up to speed on this atrocious reality. However the proverbial “man in the street”, sorry, the proverbial LBGQTXYZ have more important things that occupy their mind. The Four Horsemen appear to have left the starting gate - and they’re off! Good times.
DNC and Biden cabal claims that a biggest domestic threat are “white supremacists” – while financing and arming Ukro-Nazis !! What a FRAUD…
Your taxpaying money is paying for salaries of Ukraine soldiers, including card carrying Ukraine Nazis – THINK about that !!
But 70+ years of unspeakable crimes against Palestiniand are "kosher" -- arms and billions of dollars annually
Excellent reporting.
Reporters are feckless sellouts, yes? That’s what Michael is telling us, yes? Why does it fall to Michael to research and tell this story? What is the invisible force that causes them all to knowingly misrepresent? They know, but they persist, what’s the impetus?
I watched the White House correspondents dinner and it is clear they have no qualms, in fact they are altogether chuffed.
Hyperbolic, but seeing as Nazis are the topic, I think it could be the same phenomenon at play when average Germans stood by while their Jewish neighbours were carted off.
Is your spouse guilty of this type of thinking, onboard with the narrative? Are your children? How about your friends? Do you think Michael Tracey is on to something and what would your circle of friends think? Do you have hope? Do you think we can reason our way out of this wholesale embrace of philistinism?
My answer to all these questions: to late, fait accompli, they have won.
What have they won, NARRATIVE CONTROL they tell us the stories we live by and it is within their almost exclusive purview to change those stories: that’s what Michael’s pieces about.
Thanks for such a great essay. My neighbors have I stand with Ukraine Flags.....I would like to scratch out Ukraine and write in Nazis!
Thank God for Rand Paul and the brave 57 Republicans that voted against this war mongering package. Now we fund NAZI’s. Amazing.
Great info Michael. Plus an appropriate amount of tongue-in-cheek remarks to keep a longer article interesting!
And that's why Donald Trump is the most amazing political genius of all time: one single individual human somehow became both a literal reincarnation of Adolf Hitler AND Vladimir Putin's personal butt puppet.
That's right. This astoundingly brilliant pussy grabber actually UNITED the Nazis and the Russians.
Donald Trump is like the Holy Trinity, only with two irreconcilable parts instead of three. And also the two parts are evil. But other than that he's a one-of-a-kind eternal fuckin' political genius. No wonder the Democratic machine was so afraid of him.
Perhaps the CIA is feeling nostalgic.
Speaking of weaponry, this piece is a laser guided cruise missile into the awful hypocrisy of the Democratic Party from the Trump to Biden years. From Ukraine to COVID to #MeToo to dark money to the economy there is nothing but double standards
The fact that everyone from the Pentagon and the State Dept. to the NYTimes and the ADL and ACLU turn a blind eye to Azov Nazism demonstrates that every American "in the know" is scared shitless of Russia.
It seems that US power thinkers fear Russia because it's a wildcard. It's not under our control or even our influence. I guess the airtight logic of Western planners is something like: "We can't control Russia. Russia fought Nazis in World War II. QED we must attack Russia with an army of Nazis."
Good and thorough post on this. Not surprising under this climate we have random teenage thugs emulating these outright Nazi types wearing the merch style Azov Battalion clothing available on the internet including Amazon. The topsy turvy world of shallow, trending, constricted thinking - actively prohibiting certain free speech while encouraging more militaristic and authoritarian speech and behavior - is reprehensible.