If you want to know the actual hundred-plus year history of really bad things happening in Ukraine, check out thepostil.com. This site is an on-line imprint of St. Augustine Press and it contains lengthy, scholarly articles written by people having impeccable military, diplomatic and academic credentials. The long and bloody – and extremely violent – history of this region is nothing like what you read in Western press.

Yes, you can still find information on the web if you just know where to look.

The fact that some-one has a military, diplomatic, or academic background doesn't mean they can't write propagandist, right-wing rubbish. A site that also claims to "work for the return of Christendom" is hardly impartial. I'm sure that it goes down well in Tennessee, but as the old song says "You can do that in America, but you can't do that there here!"

Eurovision results were no surprise... Except for France and Germany getting no points at all.

News today: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-...rkiv/101067682

Other issues aside...

If I'm reading St Augustine Press' website correctly, it's a Christian book publisher in Indiana. How is it not "Western press"?

Hmm, it seems I'm getting my topics mixed up. I've been posting Ukraine-stuff on the Twitter thread...
Anyhow, yesterday's post really belongs here:
You can whip up a bloody violent past for any country to then justify siding with the agressor.
Nobody's denying that Ukraine had one. Just like most other countries in the world.
It simply isn't the point.

People are not happy with france and germany and handling russia. Instead of showing russia that they won't be able to restore USSR, they spam call and send gas money and just show weakness. Meanwhile US and UK are showing strength - the only language russia understands.

During prosperity - germany is a good ally to have - they give out money to boost economies. During war - germany is a useless ally, harmful even. Losers of both world wars, losers of this war too, god dammit germany, get your shit together.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIItoD1Ebh0 like, what the hell is this crap.

Meanwhile UK - Boris is a scummy politician, playing dumb, but this is a good way to cleanse the russian oligarch money stains and he wants to be remembered like Churchill. And US does what US does, spending tons of money in military operations.

Which is only one of the reasons why I don't watch Eurovision. It's not about good music. It's about ethics. I don't care who has the best ethics.
"Germany" trying to win every year with just another pointless English pop boredom makes me reconsider my choice to openly identify as a German, by the way.

Also, I wish that Ukrainian nationalism would finally be accepted as nationalism by the world.

Admiral James Stavridis, USN, Ret.
@stavridisj
James Stavridis, Vice Chairman, The Carlyle Group, PhD, Admiral, US Navy(Retired) former Supreme Allied Commander at NATO

".
@djrothkopf
speculates on lessons of Ukraine on future US defense spending. I'm quoted saying don't assume the performance of potential adversaries like China would be like Russia's inept showing in the blood and the mud of Ukraine.
https://thedailybeast.com/if-were-go...er&via=desktop
via
@thedailybeast" https://twitter.com/stavridisj/statu...83013050204161

Emphasis mine.

I wish that all nationalism, would finally be accepted as foolishness by the world.

Nationalism is different from pride over one's heritage. IMHO, it seems like nationalists always want their country to win.

Many American nationlists like to pridefully boast that the United States of America is the "land of opportunity".

Question: does every opportunity in America represent the loss of an opportunity in another country?

I so detest the "America First" nationlistic slogan. I guess not enough Americans heed the cartoon advice they give their children.

I wish that humanitarian globalism would finally be accepted by the world.

Before I am an American (or any other nationality), I am human. Before I am a programmer (or any other trade), I am human. Before I am musician (or any other art), I am human. Before I am even me, I am human. Humanity is a priori, and comes with an a priori ethical code that transcends nation borders, ethnic heritages, and even civics. According to this code of humanity that is written in heart and not in statute, we understand that no person or group of person is automatically entitled to be first.

If nationalism is belief in one's nation's entitlement to be first, then I'm totally opposed to it.

Perhaps, there is a purer form of nationalism that I am overlooking, because I've been exposed to too much American Nationalism, which, tainted by manifest destiny, corrupts pure nationalism. I suppose its ok to be prould of one's country's achievements to achieve sovereignty, (depending on how it was obtained), and to be proud of your ethical heritage (even though you had no say in which race or geographic region you were born into), and to be proud of your olympic team, (athletes at their finest, afterall).

But, inherent in nationalism, is a seperatism, that humanity rejects, because before we are any nationality, we are first people.

Which is the reason why countries (and their borders) even exist. If a country's population could agree that they don't care whether to win, chances are that the country won't have a bright future. (This explicitly excludes neutral countries like Switzerland - sometimes, their foreign policy makes me jealous. I wish that my country wouldn't want to have so many soldiers and guns to fight "bad people" all over the globe.)

Nationalism itself isn't the problem - patriotism is. Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.
But even the assumption that a loved country (like Ukraine seems to be right now, just because people don't like their opponent) was nationalist can be greeted with hatred today.

Civilization has declined quite a lot.

Thank you. That says it even better, in far fewer words.

How does a country win? By working harder and having stronger economy? By military might? By convincing its people that its provided a better quality of life than the other nation provided for theirs, even if it had to use violent force to so provide?

Personally, I do not like borders... they are like cages. My country has become a cage, in which I can fly out of, but not back into: the twentyfirst century will witness an increase of American refugees abroad (unvaccinated American citizens who are not allowed re-entry). I hope the global media really zooms in on the camps of American refugees... anyways, I rant.

With all the peoples in all of these cages, who are the zookeepers? Who makes the rules?

The point is, if people continue to tacitly surrender the sovereignty of their humanity to the sovereignty of whichever ecopolicitcal prison they were born into, the ecopolicitcal prisons will continue to be inhumane. And inherent in nationalism is a tacit concent to the sovereignty of your chosen state. This tacit concent is based on a theory of "social contract": but, if the state breaks its side of this social contract, tacit concent is no longer binding. Thus it is better to tacitly concent to sovereignty of humanity by virtue of being human, than to any nation. Human first; nationality second. If nationality is second, then nation states are not sovereign.

George Soros?

... No, let's not go down that rabbit hole. The problem is that people aren't heard between two elections. What we - both your and my country - needs is more democracy. Ask the ones being reigned, not those who reign. If people were asked, the world would be in peace.

... Says the guy with the Russian flag in his sig.