From what I could see, including in the Wikipedia article you linked, there are differences in opinion about how many died resulting from the inquisitions actions. I think there would be agreement that the numbers were much less than those killed in the conquest of the new world, which was taking place at about the same time. — T Clark

It is perhaps the fanaticism, emphasis on terror and the paranoid, intentional nature of the Inquisition that makes it somewhat similar to totalitarian systems.

The closest historical parallel to it would be perhaps the Crusades and other religious wars. Institutionalized religion tends to feature the same belief in singular truths.

However, in most of history there was some form of seperation between state and church. The ideology of the church was (usually) counterbalanced by the pragmatism of those in power. There is no seperation between state and ideology in totalitarian regimes. The state is the ideology.

The advances in information technology allowed states to brainwash their populations with propaganda in ways that simply weren't available before. This probably also played a role in the emergence of totalitarian states, since it allowed states to centralize and enforce uniformity to a much greater degree.

There might also be a link between industrialization and the systematic way these states carried out their mass atrocities.

Totalitarianism was a completely new phenomenon in the beginning of the 20th century, so it was not "business as usual" - something clearly changed.

Scientism may have played a role with its promise of final answers and singular truths. It is a way of thinking which is apparent in especially the Soviet system, where society as a whole was treated literally as a scientific equation with their planned economy.

While I never particularly liked her, Merkel did a good job at providing a political counterbalance towards United States influence in Europe, and even veto'd Ukraine membership to NATO (or threatened to?).

The current German government doesn't seem to possess the same backbone, nor insight into international politics. But even they seem to understand that forcing Russia to build up its armed forces whilst simultaneously giving away their own seems like an odd strategy.

Perhaps it is no coincidence that Germany ousted their last defense minister and appointed a new one yesterday.

You seem to avoid naming concrete examples of liberal ideas that were implemented and how they led to the problems you describe. "Just look at Chile and Kansas" obviously won't do if you're trying to make a convincing point, just like it wouldn't do for me to criticize socialism and end with "Just look at the Soviet Union".

Simultaneously, you ignore my point that we live in highly collectivist societies, as evidenced for example by high tax rates, big government, etc. Again, the idea that we have ever lived in some form of liberal utopia, and that we can blame the liberal utopia for the situation we are in, does not seem to hold much ground.

I’m not scapegoating either. They’re useful covers for the anti-democratic, anti-new deal ruling class. — Mikie

Maybe so. But why then take issue with the ideas of genuine liberals? This is sort of like blaming Nietzsche for Hitler.

But the bottom line here is whether government truly is the problem, and if so what the alternative is. The decisions need to be made one way or another; the entire theory basically transfers decision making to private enterprise, with predictable results. Despite all the pleasant phrases about freedom. — Mikie

The first thing that needs to change is for government to stop being an instrument for big cooperations to achieve special positions in the market - something which is happening today at alarming levels and can only happen because governments have powers they shouldn't have.

One reason for this is the fact that western governments have started to use propaganda on a large scale against their own populations to further their own agendas. To create domestic support, to support political candidates, to promote certain corporate interests, etc.

In this war against the common man information is the primary weapon. Censorship, ommiting truth, and downright spreading lies are everyday activities for the modern western government, and a great deal of this is done wherever big corporate interests meet the interests of the political elite.

If you ask what the alternative is: my first step would be complete government transparency. Every document, every recording, every word uttered by a politician in power or government official should be available to the public from day one. If the truth can't stand the light of day, then the writing is already on the wall.

If there is no transparency, there are no checks and balances, and without those an upright government is pure fantasy.

I’ve yet to see Hellenistic analyses of the self. — Mikie

Plato's concept of the tripartite soul, for example. Homer's sophrosyne, that went on to inspire many thinkers after him like Zeno, Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, etc.

The words "Know thyself" were inscribed on the Temple of Apollo in Delphi.

The ancient Greeks did plenty of thinking on that subject.

If we look at how families function, most of these ideas about individualism, collectivism, etc, completely break down. — Mikie

How so? Would you say the individual that is made profoundly unhappy by their family still owes them their loyalty?

As with government, it only becomes a problem when the relations become defunct, and I think what you're describing only makes sense in a family that functions properly.

Surely. I'll assume your question isn't disingenuous.

The era of neoliberalism, which we're still living in (as you know), was advocated for years prior to their implementation (in the late late 70s -- Carter but mostly Reagan, Thatcher, most directly under Pinochet and the Chicago Boys) mostly from the Austrian school. You can look to the Mont Pelerin Society, the University of Chicago, and others for examples. They were in the background throughout the New Deal era and had always been against those policies. They came in to fashion during the crises of the 70s. — Mikie

The reason I asked is because I do not believe their ideas have ever been truly implemented. Maybe small snippets here and there, to varying degrees of success. It's, in my opinion, is a mistake to believe there recently has been an era of rampant economic freedom. Such freedom hasn't been seen for a hundred years, perhaps more. Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't exist in the modern age.

That's why I asked what beliefs of these people have been turned into policy, and how did those policies translate into the problems you perceive.

The underlying assumption, as repeated again and again, is that government is the problem. Plenty of evidence for this claim, of course -- and plenty to blame the government about. But notice what's advocated and what the result has been: globalization, destruction of unions, tax cuts, privatization. We see the results all around us. Wealth inequality is a major one, but there's plenty of others: environmental destruction; defunding of public schools; real wage stagnation; greater corporate concentration; etc. — Mikie

While it's true that many of the thinkers you listed named government as the problem, when in our lifetimes have we ever seen a substantial decrease in government spending in the western world? I don't think that has ever happened. There has never been a sincere move towards smaller government.

While today's situation is far from ideal - that much we agree on - I think appointing liberalism or individualism as the scapegoat is far too easy, and not supported by much evidence. The fact of the matter is we live in highly collectivist societies. Over a THIRD of our income goes directly into the pockets of the state. That's not a liberal utopia. That's a liberal nightmare.


On the topic of globalization; I do not believe globalization is a problem caused by liberalism. I think it is a phenomenon all its own, caused primarily by technological advances, and no country liberal or otherwise (except maybe North Korea?) can escape it.


If you ask me, today's biggest issues can be summarized as follows: governments have grown too large, all sorts of unsavory lobby groups have seeped into the cracks - large cooperations, ideologues, foreign agents, etc.

The result is governments that are incapable of carrying out their primary tasks towards their citizens, while simultaneously having forged an unholy alliance with big business against the ordinary man.

However, the problem is not that governments are too weak, it is that they are too strong! While at the same time too corrupt to leverage that power towards the advantage of citizens.

A corrupt political system will never do anything but benefit the powerful, and it is infinitely better to live under a weak but upright system, than under one that is strong and corrupt (and those often go hand in hand).

No, more like the last 400. Probably less. At least today's conception. — Mikie

As far as I know, elaborate conceptions of the self are common in some of the oldest philosophical texts known to man, like those stemming from the ancient Indian and Hellenistic periods.

The default state of a human being? Care. But that's Heidegger-heavy and probably more appropriate for another thread. I have no doubt that people have desires and needs and so forth. So do all animals. But it's not the whole story, and it's not (in my view) fundamental. The interpretation of it as fundamental, the belief that it's the "true" and default state of a human being, is flawed -- it's incomplete and secondary. — Mikie

Actually, I think this is highly relevant, and I would like to explore it more.

If we suppose that the human being desires something to care about (presumably other people) and this is vitally important for the human being's happiness, how can caring not be in his self-interest? And doesn't that confirm what I stated earlier, that pursuing one's self-interest often times involves the well-being of others around us?

Turns out most people who talk about “self interest” (Friedman, Hayek, Mises, Sowell, Ryan, etc.) just happen to advocate for policies that have eroded democracy and lead to inequality not seen since the pharaohs. — Mikie

Is that so? Please explain when their ideas were adopted, and how it led to the problems you describe. But before you do that, perhaps you might also want to explain how exactly individualism relates to liberal economic theory, because that link isn't immediately apparent to me.

It’s taking “I should have the right to own slaves” and making a theory of it. — Mikie

Ironically, that's a much closer description of collectivism than it is of individualism. After all, it's the collectivists who claim the state has a right to the individual's cooperation.

The very idea of self is a fairly recent invention. — Mikie

Recent meaning invented within the last three-thousand years?

It’s not the most natural and it’s not the “default.” — Mikie

Then what would you argue is the default state?

Yes— the motto of Ayn Rand and other self-absorbed persons. — Mikie

Pursuing self-interest and being selfish are not the same.

The well-being of others can be and often is a part of our own sense of happiness.

Man spends the vast majority of his life pursuing self-interest, and luckily so, because there's no one else who will do it for him, or has a better sense of what constitutes that self-interest. It is man's default state. The fact that is equated to selfishness or sociopathy is very suspect. Why this resentment towards the most natural drive imaginable?

In the past crimes against civilians were denied at all levels, however implausibly. Now, while the Russian MoD hypocritically claims that the strikes are aimed against "military control centers and energy infrastructure linked to them," state media and lower-level officials are openly acknowledging and even praising the destruction of critical civilian infrastructure. — SophistiCat

Destroying critical infrastructure, civilian or otherwise, is not a crime under IHL. You'd be surprised at how much is permitted under IHL as long as the use of force is proportional to the military advantage gained.

Deliberately targeting non-combatants is clearly forbidden, however when non-combatants are injured or killed during attacks on military targets (again, critical infrastructure is a legitimate military target) this is still not a crime and assuming the criterium of proportionality is adhered to is considered collateral damage. This applies even if civilian casualties were expected beforehand.

Ironically, a lot of IHL is written through a military lens. For example, while it is not allowed to purposefully undertake actions to starve a civilian population, it says nothing about freezing a population as a result of destruction of the power grid.

The likely reason for this is because civilian food stockpiles are by and large not interesting military targets, whereas the power grid is an important military target.

In short, doing things on the battlefield that are considered criminal under IHL is a complicated matter.

It's perhaps more accurate to say power uncovers and frees up the corrupt parts of one's nature - parts that one might not even be aware of.

The great dilemma of power is that ultimately the only counterbalance to it is the character of the wielder, which is why many myths deal with the quest for virtue, wisdom and what it means to wield power responsibly.

I'd say the fear of losing, which I will instead characterize as the drive for power to consolidate itself, is a manifestation of corruption (note power, not wealth!), as the desire to control others is inherently corrupt.

I see no reason why power would breed nobility. If anything we see that the elite of society have a much greater tendency to misbehave and abuse power, though this might simply be due to the fact that they're in a position in which they can. Historical instances have proven that it doesn't take much for the common man to devolve into atrocity when given power either.

On the rare occasions that a virtuous individual comes to power and uses it to do good, that is a product of the character they cultivated beforehand.

It’s just dressed up Ayn Rand — i.e., an excuse to be a selfish asshole. — Mikie

You'll find that when individuals have the freedom to pursue their own self interest, the vast majority of them will seek voluntary, mutually beneficial cooperation with other individuals.


The "selfish asshole" trope seems to be very popular here - a testament to a dark view of humanity under which, apparently, we are all secretly selfish assholes, and our selfish nature is only kept in check by the power of the state and those wise and benevolent enough to support it.

This, of course, is all projection. The state is and always has been the instrument of the most powerful, and most selfish, and its ideologically-driven supporters are no less selfish! In the state these powerless wretches found a surrogate for their will to power.

There's something unnerving about watching people defend politicians, whether they're Biden or Trump. Like they don't understand that the job of every politician is to deceive the public.

Libertarian socialism¹ (s.g. economic democracy²). — 180 Proof

This sounds quite interesting, however I am trying to understand how a system of socialism could exist without a large, powerful government to coordinate it.

Is the socialism to flourish as a result of voluntary cooperation?

Leave. — javi2541997

As I said:

That the altruistic spiel that accompanies collectivist rhetoric is merely window dressing becomes apparent as soon as they are presented with a dissident. Their answer will always be the same: "If you don't like it, you may leave!" — Tzeentch

But the individual, of course, will not leave. They have as much the right to live where they do as anyone else, and the state especially has no right to make them leave.

Clearly the collectivist believes otherwise - they believe they are entitled to the individual's cooperation, which is why they demand their departure when the individual refuses.

This entitlement stems from a belief that they are right, and therefore the individual has no right to refuse, and no right to exist if he does.

You see now why collectivism brings up unpleasant memories for many.

They killed themselves for many complex reasons. — javi2541997

Surely for someone to commit suicide they must be deeply unhappy, or am I missing something?

Who cares if a Spaniard is happier than a Chinese citizen? — javi2541997

You, apparently. Weren't you just now wondering about that?

I was speaking about effectiveness. I don't care if they are happy or sad, ... — javi2541997

But individuals do care about whether they are happy or sad. My question was what the individual is supposed to do when the "collective" they are living in is making them unhappy.

Should they simply accept their fate and find consolation in the fact that this is, apparently, a by-product of an "effective" society, whatever that may mean?

The stubborn truth is of course that there is no good reason for them to accept being sacrificed, and people generally don't.

But why happiness should be a factor to consider of in terms of functionality? — javi2541997

I never said it should, and you didn't answer my question.

The pursuit of happiness is something all people have in common, so it seems like a sensible thing to use as a base for coexistence. What would you replace it with?

The concept of death in Japan is different from the western world. — javi2541997

The Japanese view the national suicide rates as a major social issue. Moreover, child suicide has apparently been peaking and the cause of much worry.

Japan Appoints a 'Minister of Loneliness' after seeing suicide rates increase for the first time in 11 years

Child suicides in Japan are at a record high

Japan's child suicide crisis

I doubt many Japanese would agree this is normal, regardless of their views on life and death. Do you believe this is normal?

I wonder if a person from Andalucía in Spain - which is one of the poorest regions of Europe and with a high unemployment ratio - is happier than an individual of Asian countries. — javi2541997

Happiness and life satisfaction - wonder no more.

First of all: what is happiness? — javi2541997

That's for each to determine for their own - it's certainly not up to a "collective" to decide for others what constitutes happiness.

We have to take care of the individual, that's for granted. But this doesn't mean that one group has to step down just for one person. That would be selfish and ineffective. — javi2541997

How would that be any more or less selfish than asking of the unhappy individual to simply sacrifice themselves?

I guess that's why the economy of my country is in the 16th position and theirs are the 1st, 3rd and 5th of the world. These are pure facts not personal opinions. — javi2541997

South Korea and Japan also have notoriously high rates of suicide, so I guess that answers part of the question of how they deal with unhappy individuals. As for China, well... If you believe economic prosperity is worth living under an authoritarian dictatorship then our ideas about what is happiness must lie very far apart.

In the other hand: if the collective is effective, both sides win, the individual and the group. — javi2541997

The issue is who determines whether "the collective" is effective.

If I, the individual, am deeply unhappy within "the collective", what good is it for me to console myself with the idea that "the collective" is effective? Apparently "the collective" didn't include me, because it's not effective at making me happy at all.

Should the unhappy individual simply sacrifice this one life they're given for the sake of some imaginary higher power we call "the collective"?

The individual doesn't exist there, but the group or collective is unstoppable due to their efficiency. — javi2541997

This sounds like a nightmare.

The problem is that there is no such thing as "a collective", there are only conglomerates of individuals. "The collective" is simply a pretense of the individual to attempt to absolve themselves of their will to power over others by appealing to a higher authority - "the collective" - which by virtue of representing something greater than the individual supposedly may justly boss the individual around.

What we're left with is the same old all over again - individuals bossing other individuals around.

That the altruistic spiel that accompanies collectivist rhetoric is merely window dressing becomes apparent as soon as they are presented with a dissident. Their answer will always be the same: "If you don't like it, you may leave!"

Where it differs most from normal investments is that you can pay directly with crypto, whereas with a 'normal' investment you would first have to liquidize your investment before you can pay with it.

I'd say that's not necessarily a ground-breaking difference, but it certainly is convenient in today's day and age. On top of that, being able to make purchases online without any kind of bank involved means there's a high level of anonymity.

But all in all there's nothing "special" about cryptocurrency, other than that it was hyped at some point and a lot of gullible people lost money.

Any investment is essentially an alternate banking system.

In my opinion, investing should always be done with a great deal of care.

Before one invests into anything, one should have a thorough understanding of what it is and what it derives its value from.

A lot of laypeople jumped on the crypto bandwagon knowing practically nothing and throwing all caution to the wind, and predictably got burned. In my opinion, that is primarily their own fault.

Now that the hype is over, cryptocurrency will probably stabilize around a more honest price that more accurately reflects its true value. My view is that as long as cryptocurrency is an effective means of maintaining financial independence, it will retain its value.

I believe when/if financial repression becomes more widespread, its value will go up. However, there is a risk that if cryptocurrency continually undermines governmental drives for more control over citizens' wallets, governments will try to find ways to ban it like China did. If that happens it may swiftly crash.

It's evil because it undermines the Federal Reserve System. — javi2541997

There are few institutions more evil and less preoccupied with the welfare of the ordinary person than the Federal Reserve.

Undermining it is exactly the point; undermining people's dependence on state currencies the quantity and thus value of which is controlled by the state. Politcians and politicized government institutions like the Federal Reserve have time and again proven not to be able to wield power responsibly. Moreover, states are already flirting with totalitarian levels of surveillance and control over people's financial behavior, state-owned digital currencies being the latest iteration of that.

Undermining that is not evil - it's essential freedom. No wonder the CCP banned it - freedom is the last thing they want their citizens to have.

I tried googling the numbers and did not get matching results. — Paine

Sweden, 23,600 active military personnel
Estonia, 7,200 active military personnel
Latvia, 16,700 active military personnel
Lithuania, 23,000 active military personnel
Finland, 23,800 active military personnel

(first hit on Google if you type: "<country> active military personnel", lazy I know)

~100,000 active military personnel, spread out over a massive area.

These numbers clearly in no way present the image of countries that are fearing an invasion. For reference, Ukraine had over 300,000 active military personnel at the onset of the Russian invasion and it has only a fraction of these country's combined GDP. Hell, Sweden alone doubles Ukraine's GDP.

As a defensive force you only need to field a third of any offensive force. Assuming EU members will support each other, how far/close are we to such a figure? — Benkei

Europe combined comes fairly close to equaling Russian numbers, or perhaps slightly surpassing their numbers, but that doesn't convey the full picture. The issue is with operational readiness of European armies, who have been neglecting their armed forces and thought large-scale land warfare to be a thing of the past. Sources elude me for a moment, but experts have theorized that Ukraine and possibly Poland are the only nations in Europe that could have kept up with the type of combat seen in Ukraine today. Not the French, not the Germans, not the British, etc. despite their armed forces being relatively sizable, and their equipment likely better than the Ukrainians'.

In regards to the idea that one can defend against a force with one third of its number - that's military shorthand, but reality can be much more stubborn than that.

When the Russians invaded Ukraine, they did so with a force of roughly 200,000, against a Ukrainian force of 300,000.

Or when the Germany army invaded France in 1939, they roughly doubled France's number and France got, as we all know, completely swept aside.

From what sources are you getting this information? — Paine

These countries' active military personnel and materiel combined add up to a fraction of what, for example, Ukraine is currently fielding to fight the Russians. That information is publicly available, aka you can simply Google those numbers.

They have neither the manpower nor the equipment to wage prolonged war, even if we assume all the materiel is up-to-date and functional, which is a big 'if', considering pretty much every European country gave up on the idea of large-scale land warfare and neglected that part of their armed forces over the last decades.

Err yes, Europeans are worried about security. — jorndoe

I've already laid out an argument why I don't believe that's true, the most notable point being that there's barely any nation within Europe that maintains a military that can grant a credible deterrent, except Poland. If Poland says they're worried about a potential Russian invasion, I believe them, because they consistently act the part.

The main buyers of Swedish arms are not European nations trying to protect themselves from the Russian invader, but Arabs intent on committing genocide in Yemen.

One might expect that if, A) European nations were living in fear of an imminent Russian invasion and, B) Swedish military manufacturing would play a role of any signifance should such an invasion take place, the Swedes would be in big business right now.

Yet we see nothing of the sort, probably because neither A nor B are true.

Really? Haven't taken any measures? — ssu

Sweden has roughly 24,000 active military personnel. That's less than one tenth of the Ukrainian military when the invasion began, while Sweden has thrice the GDP of Ukraine.

Moreover, its military is outdated and mostly comprised of late '80s materiel.

It's a textbook example of a military that was left to atrophy after the Cold War ended.

It will take more than the Swedish government announcing "plans" to drag it out of the mud. Besides, that type of rhetoric is to be expected since they wanted to and did join NATO. They could hardly send the message that now that the United States will be covering their defense bill, they'll be sitting on their loins and spending the defense budget on social security and "progressive" government projects instead, but we all know that's exactly what is going to happen.


You have to differentiate between governments doing things, and governments doing things that are actually proportional to what you're proposing they are facing. You proposed they face a threat to their survival and a Russian invasion.

That's clearly not what is driving their actions.

Especially Sweden is likely acting on a potential deterioration of the security situation in Europe in the mid to long-term (which is markedly different from facing a existential threat or imminent invasion) and figured the economically smart thing to do is join NATO, because then the United States will be paying their defense bill instead of them having to pay it themselves.


I much sooner accept it when a country like Poland claims they fear an invasion, because they are actually acting the part. They have a functional, well-maintained military and their defense spending (read: their actions, and not just words) reflects that perceived threat.

Poland has double the GDP of Finland, yet its military (active personnel) is five times the size of the Finnish military.

Again, when we analyse the actual actions of states and put them into perspective, we are presented with a very different picture than what you are trying to paint.

Or is somehow Sweden, Finland, the Baltic States not in Europe? — ssu

There's a difference between actions and rhetoric. The former being worth taking note of, and the latter generally being no more than windowdressing.

None of these states have militaries that are on a modern operational level, nor have they taken any steps towards making them so.

Isn't it strange that countries that supposedly live in fear of invasion every day take no steps towards protecting themselves?

And that obviously would have continued... — ssu

It did continue. Nothing changed since 2014 in relation to Europe's appalling military condition, something which it has been called out for by the United States on several occasions.

The only military that made significant improvements since 2014 is the Ukrainian military, because they legitimately feared a Russian invasion.

It should speak volumes that Ukraine, a relatively poor country, sports Europe's most effective military. And it is taking a beating as we speak. Yet, despite pursuing a policy that practically forces Russia to expand its military, there's not a hint of urgency in Europe's military expenditures.

Calling the invasion of Ukraine an atrocious breach of etiquette and appallingly bad mannered was an attempt at sarcasm which, apparently, failed. — BC

Went right over my head. Fair enough then, I agree with your point of view.

Your post contradicts itself. On one hand you note that states do not have ethics - a nice realist point-of-view with which I can definitely sympathize, but then you go on to call the invasion appalling, atrocious, etc., which is a clearly moral judgement.

There's the hypocrisy.

Europe isn't worried about their security. That's why nearly every European country let their armed forces atrophy beyond repair, with Poland being perhaps the only notable exception.

Ukraine has the most powerful military in Europe by far, and there's been no sign whatsoever the other European countries have any interest in trying to catch up. Instead, they're sending whatever is left of their militaries to Ukraine, further diminishing their own capability to defend themselves!

Furthermore, they're pursuing a policy that has as its logical effect that a large force build-up by Russia will take place, yet again, there's no sign whatsoever European countries are gearing up to meet a Russian war machine they themselves are helping to create.

That in no way implies to me these countries are afraid they'll need to defend their borders any time soon. This is just an argument of convenience.

The American elite doesn't want to deal with this issue.

Immigration equals higher GDP.

Geopolitical power is for a large part about how many warm bodies you control.

That's why despite serious domestic protest nothing ever happens.

The European elite operates on the same principle.

The ease with which a government can squeeze money from the citizen’s wealth is profound. You just tack it on and you’re 1 trillion yen richer. — NOS4A2

And don't forget about "mystery" inflation that just so happens to evaporate government debts at the expense of the citizen's buying power.

Zelensky (and many Ukrainian presidents before him) was so foolish to think he could play the United States and Russia against each other.

They predictably did not succeed in beating the great powers at their own game, and got used as a pawn instead. The United States is doing the minimum it can to maintain its credibility as a military ally, while mostly just watching as Ukraine gets clobbered by the gorilla it told the Ukrainians to pick a fight with.

Even if they had succeeded at causing a United States intervention, did they honestly believe Ukraine wouldn't pay a horrible price for that?


I wouldn't go so far as to say Zelensky is as responsible as Putin for the war. Russia is principally responsible for the war. Zelensky, his predecessors and the United States are principally responsible for the conflict that sparked the war.

Motivation of the US is pretty clear, but it's really hard to interpret European leadership's motivation in this ... — boethius

The majority of European "leadership" is an ideologically driven bunch inspired by the likes of Klaus Schwab. Authoritarian to the core, they'll jump on every crisis opportunity to further their personal agenda and tighten the reigns on the population of Europe.

Crises give governments extraordinary powers, and they are currently using those to pass all sorts of far-reaching legislation, from attempts at forced vaccinations during covid, to mass-surveillance, digital IDs and digital currencies. Notice the common thread - control, control, control.

There simply are no 'allies' of Putin on the left outside of Russia that have any significant impact, ... — Isaac

I would go further, and say that Putin has no impactful allies anywhere in the western world. If any kind of influential "Russia lobby" existed, surely some type of public debate would have formed over the fifteen year period that led up to the war in Ukraine.

Instead we have seen no debate whatsoever, and for example a stance that is critical of the role of the United States in Ukraine, while supported academically, is nowhere to be found in public discourse and even stigmatized.

Alarmism about a "Russia lobby" is probably the work of actual lobbyists trying to, as you said, control the narrative.

We know that the vaccines likely were never meant to stop transmission, and now we also learn that, as far as this study goes, vaccination for some reason might increase the chance of infection.

Government narratives that focused on pressuring people to get vaccinated to protect others are getting more far-fetched by the day, yet the adverse effects and even deaths they caused are very real.

Governments basically under false pretenses pressured people into taking vaccines that had a non-trivial chance of severe adverse side-effects.

I hope this once again underlines the importance of respecting people's right to choose what they inject into their own bodies, and the dangers of giving governments who believe they have a monopoly on wisdom carte blanche to force their policies on their citizens.

Just thought I'd drop this little gem in here:

Good points.

I wonder whether as societies grow larger, they are less able to take into consideration the needs of their individual members, because it seems as though the gap between reality and societal norms increases.