i like the topics of his content, but found him annoying and his analyses too basic to continue watching. his content/analyses might be thought provoking to young people or people new to conspiracies, but he's so full of himself. foh.
He’s got confidence and charisma, and has stopped giving a fuck about playing along with niceties of fakery, the “everything is fine” attitude of SSRI-popping self-hating people. So of course he comes off as full of himself.
that i'm fine with, but that's not what i'm talking about. i'm talking about his lack of self awareness and his subconsciously pawning off of unoriginal superficial analyses as his own cause he thinks they're deep or something . also, he's basically a de facto american (most of his life lived in the US, educated in the US, earns in dollars using american english) but he constantly shits on all americans by referring to the leadership as 'the americans' as if the US is a monolith, but somehow he isn't a part of it just because he has a foreign identity to hide behind. he rarely does that when referring to russia or china. most of the time, when he refers to actions of their leadership, he'll say russia is doing this or china is doing that. i've been aware of this guy since the GFC when he used to submit articles to ZH. i find him annoying cause i don't see any originality about his analyses yet he does. he's 120 IQ at best but believes he's 160+. who gives af, i'm a nothing special myself. if u see value in listening to him, rock on.
He’s studied Russian history extensively, think it was his major or minor at his Ivy league school.
Obviously, he’s a bit biased, as everyone is, but if you watched oliver stone’s ukraine on fire, you’d see that exactly half of ukraine is “pro-Russia.” It’s not “stockholm syndrome.”
Ukraine was a corrupt cesspool that shat on it’s citizenry, not unlike Russia in some regards, but I’d prefer my dictators put their cards on the table instead of hiding behind the ruse of “progressive democracies.” I think he’s worth his salt, imho.
I don’t have to argue that the US had to go to war to protect its economy, it did. And i didn’t like it. But the lie was WMD.
Now let’s play a game. Let’s pretend Canada was firing mortars into Michigan for 8 years, and killed 14,000 people including many children. It is admitted to by the UN, but nobody does anything to help. Then, Would you support going to war with Canada?
I can’t believe I’m wasting my time even talking back to you. And don’t talk to me about “rights,” fagget. You should be on linkedin applying for a job at a biolab making weaponized anthrax. But first, look up George Carlin’s spiel about “rights.”
i like the topics of his content, but found him annoying and his analyses too basic to continue watching. his content/analyses might be thought provoking to young people or people new to conspiracies, but he's so full of himself. foh.
He’s got confidence and charisma, and has stopped giving a fuck about playing along with niceties of fakery, the “everything is fine” attitude of SSRI-popping self-hating people. So of course he comes off as full of himself.
that i'm fine with, but that's not what i'm talking about. i'm talking about his lack of self awareness and his subconsciously pawning off of unoriginal superficial analyses as his own cause he thinks they're deep or something . also, he's basically a de facto american (most of his life lived in the US, educated in the US, earns in dollars using american english) but he constantly shits on all americans by referring to the leadership as 'the americans' as if the US is a monolith, but somehow he isn't a part of it just because he has a foreign identity to hide behind. he rarely does that when referring to russia or china. most of the time, when he refers to actions of their leadership, he'll say russia is doing this or china is doing that. i've been aware of this guy since the GFC when he used to submit articles to ZH. i find him annoying cause i don't see any originality about his analyses yet he does. he's 120 IQ at best but believes he's 160+. who gives af, i'm a nothing special myself. if u see value in listening to him, rock on.
He’s studied Russian history extensively, think it was his major or minor at his Ivy league school. Obviously, he’s a bit biased, as everyone is, but if you watched oliver stone’s ukraine on fire, you’d see that exactly half of ukraine is “pro-Russia.” It’s not “stockholm syndrome.” Ukraine was a corrupt cesspool that shat on it’s citizenry, not unlike Russia in some regards, but I’d prefer my dictators put their cards on the table instead of hiding behind the ruse of “progressive democracies.” I think he’s worth his salt, imho.
I don’t have to argue that the US had to go to war to protect its economy, it did. And i didn’t like it. But the lie was WMD.
Now let’s play a game. Let’s pretend Canada was firing mortars into Michigan for 8 years, and killed 14,000 people including many children. It is admitted to by the UN, but nobody does anything to help. Then, Would you support going to war with Canada?
I can’t believe I’m wasting my time even talking back to you. And don’t talk to me about “rights,” fagget. You should be on linkedin applying for a job at a biolab making weaponized anthrax. But first, look up George Carlin’s spiel about “rights.”
The opinion of a smooth brain.