Language is critical in the propaganda war, my latest idea for a phrase that could help to counter the propaganda:
When we are trying to make sense of anything in this world, we need to start with the facts and then form our theories based on those facts. Unfortunately people often start with a theory and then work backwards, dismissing or even completely ignoring any inconvenient facts that don’t fit in with their theory.
A common feature of debates about current affairs these days is the frequent use of the phrase “conspiracy theorist” to dismiss those who for example believe that sars-cov-2 is a bio-weapon that was engineered in a laboratory in China. However many who use this phrase “conspiracy theorist” suffer from exactly the same kind of bias that they are accusing others of; they start from the theory that there is no conspiracy, and then they ignore all the inconvenient facts that might contradict their belief. In other words, these people might just as reasonably be described as conspiracy denialists.
Good question, actually I just put it in quotes because some people have disputed whether it was an invasion at all, but I don’t personally have an opinion on that because again I don’t know the reality there. Maybe I will rephrase that to be clearer about my meaning though.
I didn’t want to get into that debate on this topic, so I’ve rephrased that bit as follows:
We could also point out that the Prime Minister of Russia was the guest of honour at the Cyber Polygon WEF meeting, in spite of the fact that Russia had expanded into the Crimea just a few years before. That expansion did not appear to have troubled Klaus Schwab in the slightest even though the legitimacy of the expansion was disputed by other nations.
Chauncey - By the straightforward definition of the word “invasion”, Russia’s military onslaught on a part of Ukraine was an invasion. Its present military onslaught is also an invasion.
Russia is an enemy of the West, a constant nuclear armed threat, at present invading another county. Whose feelings are you sparing by hesitating to call its invasions what they are?
By using the word “expansion” you sweeten the guilt of the aggressor. It implies an arguably reasonable act.
OK I’ll call it an invasion but I’ll make it clear that I’m neutral in that debate personally:
We could also point out that the Prime Minister of Russia was the guest of honour at the Cyber Polygon WEF meeting, in spite of the fact that many nations regard Russia’s occupation of the Ukraine as an invasion, and that fact did not appear to have troubled Klaus Schwab in the slightest.
Actually according to Wikipedia it’s not just Western nations.
I really would like to understand why you are “neutral” on that issue. Please explain to me why you are reluctant to call the invasion what it was. I’m not just nagging, I want to understand because I’m genuinely baffled.
I wasn’t referring to what went on this year, which certainly can be described as an invasion regardless of the motivations for it. What I was referring to was the occupation of the Crimea in 2014 which began with a referendum (at least according to the notoriously corrupt news organization called Reuters):
If (additional) troops only moved in after such an overwhelming referendum (which is my understanding of what happened) then I’m not completely sure it merits the term “invasion”. Some Russian troops were already in the region under a previous agreement as well. Of course some dispute the validity of the referendum and so on, but I don’t know who is right about all that, that’s why I was implying there was some dispute about it, that’s all. In our era of uncertainty I’ve only got the corrupt news organizations’ word for it that additional troops were moved in to the region as well, so there’s a lot of fog around this whole situation at least in my mind. Anyway hopefully my revised wording avoids all controversy because I’m now just simply stating that many nations regard Putin’s moves as an invasion, which is a fact.
We could also point out that the Prime Minister of Russia was the guest of honour at the Cyber Polygon WEF meeting, in spite of the fact that many nations regard Russia’s occupation of parts of the Ukraine from 2014 as an invasion, and that fact did not appear to have troubled Klaus Schwab in the slightest.
Yes, there’s alot of fog and confusion surrounding the whole thing, caused by the complicated history of Ukraine and Russia, the extremely corrupt history of U.S./ Ukraine relations (including Joe and Hunter Biden), the role of globalist, Ukrainian, and Russian oligarchs, the CIA, and the heavy propaganda being put out by all sides. It’s a mess of epic proportions.
I’m not sure about the invasion label, people say that Israel intervening in Lebanon was an invasion and was dubbed it as they called it “Zionist imperialism” even though Israel’s intervention in Lebanon was a security concern for Israel due to PLO members backed by Iran. The same goes for Russia-Ukraine situation which could be considered a national security concern for Russia. Just take this video from a past clip before Zelensky became president of Ukraine he said that the people of Crimea didn’t want the Russians language erased from every school curriculum.
You may be right certainly as far as the definition of the word goes, the dictionary definition implies conquest and putting troops into a region is sometimes just about defence and security. It doesn’t matter for this post though because as above I’ve edited it in any case to say that other countries regard Putin’s moves as an invasion, which is true. Others can decide whether they think that the other countries are correct or not, but I didn’t want to get into that debate on this post as it’s distracting from my main point about the scamdemic (which most of us here I think are now agreed about?).
