"Germany’s Habeck warns of an Austria-style right-wing wave
The economy minister and Green Party chancellor candidate says Germany could follow Austria’s far-right path, as the CDU signals willingness to erode its firewall against the AfD ahead of a pivotal election."
Unlike the Austrian centre right party now agreeing to do a deal with the far right Freedom party, the CDU has still refused to do a deal with the AfD.
In Austria the situation was different too as the Freedom party won most seats at the last Austrian election while the CDU/CSU is still forecast to win most seats at the German election next month not the AfD
DeepSeek is just a form of the old business maxim that it is better and more profitable to take something already being done and make it cheaper/better than trying to do something entirely new
DeepSeek is just a form of the old business maxim that it is better and more profitable to take something already being done and make it cheaper/better than trying to do something entirely new
I like the cut of your jib. I’m thinking of a new “betting politically” website. Will you come in on the ground floor?
DeepSeek is just a form of the old business maxim that it is better and more profitable to take something already being done and make it cheaper/better than trying to do something entirely new
I like the cut of your jib. I’m thinking of a new “betting politically” website. Will you come in on the ground floor?
Why dont we run the website name through some kind of generative AI tool to see what it comes up with.
DeepSeek is just a form of the old business maxim that it is better and more profitable to take something already being done and make it cheaper/better than trying to do something entirely new
It's also worth noting that they didn't start from scratch: they took the Facebook LLaMa model and built out from that.
On topic, as to whether parties actually lie or are simply economical with the truth, it depends whether you are in power or opposition and whether you want the people you are talking to to support you or not.
Deliberately misrepresenting the policy position of your opponents is a favourite ploy so we have one contributor who persistently asserts Liberal Democrats and Greens as being NIMBY and opposed to all development yet it’s my experience, if politically advantageous, Conservatives will jump into the NIMBY trenches with gusto.
The other tactic is to conflate central Government with local Government. A lot of perfectly good Conservative councillors paid the price in 2022, 2023 and 2024 for the antics of the party at national level but they chose to wear the blue rosette.
Then you have the “false forecast” - Labour will let in 300 million immigrants, the Greens will ban all cars, the Conservatives will sell your grandparents, under the Liberal Democrats no one will ever have the wobbles, etc, etc. It panders to a stereotypically negative view of each party.
In politics, if you can’t win on your own record, make sure the electorate think your opponent won’t win on theirs…
They are the work of the very Devil himself, an abomination second only to sub samples.
Seriously, equating the numbers of pollsters with differing weightings and methodologies is trying to compare apples, parsnips and radishes. Put them all together and you won’t get anything too easy to digest.
Those watching the shifting geopolitical sands in the Pacific might be aware of the rising tensions between New Zealand and Kiribati. The latter, it seems, has moved firmly into the Chinese orbit with various economic deals.
It is now Kiribati’s second largest aid donor after Australia with New Zealand third.
The Chinese are in partnership with the Kiribati Police & Prisons Service - the Pacific Island has no armed forces. As we know, Kiribati used to be the Gilbert Islands and gained independence in 1979.
DeepSeek is just a form of the old business maxim that it is better and more profitable to take something already being done and make it cheaper/better than trying to do something entirely new
It's also worth noting that they didn't start from scratch: they took the Facebook LLaMa model and built out from that.
In conversations DeepSeek constantly refers to itself in its CoT as “ChatGPT” and references its makers “OpenAI” - so, somehow, it has absorbed a whole bunch of OpenAI instructions/training
However this has happened before with other models. They all blur into each other
For the second time in the past few days, Trump is “joking” about violating the Constitution and running for a third term:
“I’ve raised a lot of money for the next race that I assume I can’t use for myself… I think I’m not allowed to run again. I’m not sure, am I allowed to run again?”
Ha ha. There’s only one reason he says things like that, and it’s because it makes a certain section of the media go absolutely bonkers.
Meanwhile the new administration has hit the ground running, and the news is either going on about such trivialities or finding celebrities to let out tears in favour of foreign criminals being deported.
Those watching the shifting geopolitical sands in the Pacific might be aware of the rising tensions between New Zealand and Kiribati. The latter, it seems, has moved firmly into the Chinese orbit with various economic deals.
It is now Kiribati’s second largest aid donor after Australia with New Zealand third.
The Chinese are in partnership with the Kiribati Police & Prisons Service - the Pacific Island has no armed forces. As we know, Kiribati used to be the Gilbert Islands and gained independence in 1979.
China’s doing a lot of that in the Pacific and Africa, gradually buying themselves influence. It’s all part of a very long-term strategy.
For the second time in the past few days, Trump is “joking” about violating the Constitution and running for a third term:
“I’ve raised a lot of money for the next race that I assume I can’t use for myself… I think I’m not allowed to run again. I’m not sure, am I allowed to run again?”
Ha ha. There’s only one reason he says things like that, and it’s because it makes a certain section of the media go absolutely bonkers.
Meanwhile the new administration has hit the ground running, and the news is either going on about such trivialities or finding celebrities to let out tears in favour of foreign criminals being deported.
It's wk1. Good luck sustaining the bullshit for four years.
A total co-incidence that the ship that dragged its anchor across a fibre cable between Sweden and Latvia, just happened to be Chinese-owned and had just left port in Russia.
On topic, as to whether parties actually lie or are simply economical with the truth, it depends whether you are in power or opposition and whether you want the people you are talking to to support you or not.
Deliberately misrepresenting the policy position of your opponents is a favourite ploy so we have one contributor who persistently asserts Liberal Democrats and Greens as being NIMBY and opposed to all development yet it’s my experience, if politically advantageous, Conservatives will jump into the NIMBY trenches with gusto.
The other tactic is to conflate central Government with local Government. A lot of perfectly good Conservative councillors paid the price in 2022, 2023 and 2024 for the antics of the party at national level but they chose to wear the blue rosette.
Then you have the “false forecast” - Labour will let in 300 million immigrants, the Greens will ban all cars, the Conservatives will sell your grandparents, under the Liberal Democrats no one will ever have the wobbles, etc, etc. It panders to a stereotypically negative view of each party.
In politics, if you can’t win on your own record, make sure the electorate think your opponent won’t win on theirs…
Between 2022 and 2024 the locals would remove any reference to the Conservative Central to somehow show they were 'independent' and Conservative with a small 'c'. That is despite paying CC or their local party a tithe.
It was pretty clear they were in for the drop, even though they were claiming otherwise. Was that their biggest lie?
For the second time in the past few days, Trump is “joking” about violating the Constitution and running for a third term:
“I’ve raised a lot of money for the next race that I assume I can’t use for myself… I think I’m not allowed to run again. I’m not sure, am I allowed to run again?”
Ha ha. There’s only one reason he says things like that, and it’s because it makes a certain section of the media go absolutely bonkers.
Meanwhile the new administration has hit the ground running, and the news is either going on about such trivialities or finding celebrities to let out tears in favour of foreign criminals being deported.
I don’t think that’s why he’s saying it. It’s very clever “normalisation”. Before him no presidents in the modern era would be questioned about it, talk about it or joke about it because it was a given that you couldn’t be elected three times.
Trump and his outriders have now made it part of the conversation so it’s gone from nobody wasting time talking about something verboten to enough people saying “can he/will he” which will then spin out into a lot of his supporters saying “why can’t he?” And then getting very agitated.
This is a cheap “negative-stealth” drone designed to look bigger than it is, like an enemy aircraft on radar, and draw fire from expensive air defence systems.
Not sure why they’re boasting about having shot one down, they’re literally designed to be shot down while the actual missiles and drones get through. Gives a good insight into why Russian air defences have been so bad in recent weeks though.
The problem with banning AI talk is that it’s like banning atomic bomb chat in 1945, or dreadnought discussions in 1910.
1906.
There was talk of not building Dreadnoughts, inside the Admiralty, in 1905. Which managed to miss the point that the Americans had ordered some (albeit without turbines). The Japanese had reached the point of discussing all big gun battleships - it was clear their next class would be.
1910 was when Churchill (and others) proposed bilateral arms control - if the Germans agreed to cancel dreadnoughts, the U.K. would cancel the “response” ships.
If they start taking Hindutva and Manosphere extremism more seriously it would be progress. Hindutva misinformation is particularly rife on Twitter, and rabidly Islamophobic as well as pro-Putin.
This is a cheap “negative-stealth” drone designed to look bigger than it is, like an enemy aircraft on radar, and draw fire from expensive air defence systems.
Not sure why they’re boasting about having shot one down, they’re literally designed to be shot down while the actual missiles and drones get through. Gives a good insight into why Russian air defences have been so bad in recent weeks though.
Flying decoys, like that, have been around for about a hundred years.
The problem with banning AI talk is that it’s like banning atomic bomb chat in 1945, or dreadnought discussions in 1910.
1906.
There was talk of not building Dreadnoughts, inside the Admiralty, in 1905. Which managed to miss the point that the Americans had ordered some (albeit without turbines). The Japanese had reached the point of discussing all big gun battleships - it was clear their next class would be.
1910 was when Churchill (and others) proposed bilateral arms control - if the Germans agreed to cancel dreadnoughts, the U.K. would cancel the “response” ships.
Churchill was not First Lord of the Admiralty until 1911. He only proposed the Naval Holiday on 12th March 1912 when presenting the Naval Estimates to Parliament (and twice again in subsequent years).
In fact his proposal was probably not serious, as there was not the slightest chance the Germans would accept it. It was a way of proving to his Liberal colleagues that he had taken every opportunity, however unrealistic, to stop the arms race so that they would support the Naval Estimates with a slightly clearer conscience.
And we are lucky that they did not, as the "response ships" in the 1913 Estimates, the Queen Elizabeth-class superdreadnoughts, turned out to be vital at Jutland and important even during World War II.
As so often, half-baked and naive disarmament proposals are dangerous and counter-productive when you're dealing with aggressive and militaristic countries like Imperial Germany or Putin's Russia.
Bernard Arnault is exploring a potential acquisition of struggling French Artificial Intelligence company Mistral citing a need for France to "maintain it's edge in artisanal goods post ASI." https://x.com/techbrospod/status/1883952340023280083
Mistral just raised €600m at a €5.8bn valuation.
France is working on an authentically French rival to Deepseek, but every time they try to launch it, it goes on strike.
Won’t they just regulate it out of existence ?
France’s corporate sector has done pretty well in recent years. It manages to have twice as many companies in the Fortune 500 as Britain, and was briefly ahead of Germany on that measure, but is behind us in number of tech unicorns.
Yes, but how many of them are new companies.
My point is about regulation and in France, as in the EU, there is a trend now to regulate tech and the new industries which will stifle innovation.
The problem with banning AI talk is that it’s like banning atomic bomb chat in 1945, or dreadnought discussions in 1910.
1906.
There was talk of not building Dreadnoughts, inside the Admiralty, in 1905. Which managed to miss the point that the Americans had ordered some (albeit without turbines). The Japanese had reached the point of discussing all big gun battleships - it was clear their next class would be.
1910 was when Churchill (and others) proposed bilateral arms control - if the Germans agreed to cancel dreadnoughts, the U.K. would cancel the “response” ships.
No, Churchill was not First Lord of the Admiralty until 1911. He only proposed the Naval Holiday on 12th March 1912 when presenting the Naval Estimates to Parliament (and twice again in subsequent years).
In fact his proposal was probably not serious, as there was not the slightest chance the Germans would accept it. It was a way of proving to his Liberal colleagues that he had taken every opportunity, however unrealistic, to stop the arms race so that they would support the Naval Estimates with a slightly clearer conscience.
And we are lucky that they did not, as the "response ships" in the 1913 Estimates, the Queen Elizabeth-class superdreadnoughts, turned out to be vital at Jutland and important even during World War II.
As so often, half-baked and naive disarmament proposals are dangerous and counter-productive when you're dealing with aggressive and militaristic countries like Imperial Germany or Putin's Russia.
His talk about a battleship holiday began much earlier. Before he became First Lord. Interestingly, he was encouraged in this by Fisher.
Who thought, already that battleships were the past. Money saved on battleships would be (partially) used for more submarines, destroyers and (battle)cruisers - at least that is what Fisher was talking about.
Evening all. Have we discussed the case of the father found guilty of murdering his daughter - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly9zx02rejo - even though the only witness, his wife, insists it was accidental?
Seems, from the reporting, to rest in part on expert testimony that the knife could not have accidentally caused the fatal wound - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c04n7yyqz9po - i.e. that it's just not plausible for an accidentally thrown knife to hit so that it pierces ribs cage and reaches vital organs in that way. However, the alternative, that an apparently untrained man managed a single stab wound with that precision, without apparent motive and with his wife in the room and that his wife would then be complicit in passing it off as an accident - well, that seems vanishngly unlikely too.
Maybe there's more to it (reporting often isn't great) but it seems to rest on that testinmony and a bit of confusion in stories of what actually happened. Even if the man was holding the knife, you surely have to completely disbelieve the wife's testimony to come to premeditated murder rather than manslaughter. Just seems a very odd case, but maybe there's compelling evidence that wasn't considered interesting enough to make the story?
Having read that it seems likely they are both lying. "Some tongs flicked up the knife so it penetrated four inches into her chest" seems on the face of it extremely implausible.
CIA has concluded the Covid pandemic was “more likely” to have leaked from a Wuhan lab than emerged naturally. Chinese officials have long labelled this a “conspiracy theory” and, right from the start, were supported in that interpretation by much of the western MSM, especially the left-leaning MSM like the Guardian, NYT and BBC, some of whom smeared anybody who even gave the lab theory the time of day.
Hasn't it been obviously more likely - and generally viewed as more likely - for about four years now?
I mean, at the start there was a desperate attempt to avoid finger pointing, which was both understandable but also fundamentally unhelpful, and which damaged the reputation of science generally. But we've now swung to a point where yeah, we know that, and I don't think people in the MSM has been pushing the zoonotic line for a long time.
So it feels a little bit like punching a slow kid in the mouth again and again for something they did five years ago.
But if it's true, it is industrial malfeasance on a hitherto unimagined scale. The operators of the lab, the US and China should pay everyone affected by Covid punitive damages. Those affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill claimed millions in damages, but the affects of Covid were millions of times worse.
Being the most likely scenario doesn't make it a certainty.
It does if the other theory can be proven to be impossible.
Come on: while lab leak is most likely, we have no idea how it took place, and therefore no reasonable way of assessing relative culpability.
Let's assume it happened.
At the one end of the scale it could be because someone on a transport flight bringing a bat to Wuhan got bit, and then his wife worked at the wet market.
At the other end of scale, there was an accident that allowed a virus to escape that was created as part of gain of function research.
And there are a dozen possibilities along that continuum. If it was something akin to the former, then why should the US have any responsibility at all?
Why do you see either end of your scale as more likely than “a wild animal with the virus was caught and brought to the wet market”?
For the second time in the past few days, Trump is “joking” about violating the Constitution and running for a third term:
“I’ve raised a lot of money for the next race that I assume I can’t use for myself… I think I’m not allowed to run again. I’m not sure, am I allowed to run again?”
Ha ha. There’s only one reason he says things like that, and it’s because it makes a certain section of the media go absolutely bonkers.
Meanwhile the new administration has hit the ground running, and the news is either going on about such trivialities or finding celebrities to let out tears in favour of foreign criminals being deported.
I don’t think that’s why he’s saying it. It’s very clever “normalisation”. Before him no presidents in the modern era would be questioned about it, talk about it or joke about it because it was a given that you couldn’t be elected three times.
Trump and his outriders have now made it part of the conversation so it’s gone from nobody wasting time talking about something verboten to enough people saying “can he/will he” which will then spin out into a lot of his supporters saying “why can’t he?” And then getting very agitated.
Its watching the window move in real time.
Yep, we've had detailed explanations of why Trump run can't run for a third term. But it's funny how it's suddenly become a topic of discussion - and it's one that the right is bringing up, not the left.
I wonder just how much will be justified as "owning the libs". We've already had a Nazi salute and the freeing of violent insurrectionists.
For the second time in the past few days, Trump is “joking” about violating the Constitution and running for a third term:
“I’ve raised a lot of money for the next race that I assume I can’t use for myself… I think I’m not allowed to run again. I’m not sure, am I allowed to run again?”
Ha ha. There’s only one reason he says things like that, and it’s because it makes a certain section of the media go absolutely bonkers.
Meanwhile the new administration has hit the ground running, and the news is either going on about such trivialities or finding celebrities to let out tears in favour of foreign criminals being deported.
I don’t think that’s why he’s saying it. It’s very clever “normalisation”. Before him no presidents in the modern era would be questioned about it, talk about it or joke about it because it was a given that you couldn’t be elected three times.
Trump and his outriders have now made it part of the conversation so it’s gone from nobody wasting time talking about something verboten to enough people saying “can he/will he” which will then spin out into a lot of his supporters saying “why can’t he?” And then getting very agitated.
Its watching the window move in real time.
The main reason Trump keeps hinting about a possible third term, is because he thinks he should be able to have a third term if he wants one. Anyone suggesting anything else is either delusional or disingenuous.
On topic, who'd have thought that somebody whose past papers, according to Google scholar, include such doubtless invaluable gems as: "Inside a White Power echo chamber" and "Tweeting ourselves to death: The cultural logic of digital capitalism" and "Selling black places on Airbnb: Colonial discourse and the marketing of black communities in New York City" would find or invent evidence to blame disinformation mostly on the populist right?
Perhaps more incredible is that Dutch taxpayers think they get value for money in paying him to produce this drivel.
On topic, who'd have thought that somebody whose past papers, according to Google scholar, include such doubtless invaluable gems as: "Inside a White Power echo chamber" and "Tweeting ourselves to death: The cultural logic of digital capitalism" and "Selling black places on Airbnb: Colonial discourse and the marketing of black communities in New York City" would find or invent evidence to blame disinformation mostly on the populist right?
So, you think White Power echo chambers *don’t* exist online?
On topic, who'd have thought that somebody whose past papers, according to Google scholar, include such doubtless invaluable gems as: "Inside a White Power echo chamber" and "Tweeting ourselves to death: The cultural logic of digital capitalism" and "Selling black places on Airbnb: Colonial discourse and the marketing of black communities in New York City" would find or invent evidence to blame disinformation mostly on the populist right?
So, you think White Power echo chambers *don’t* exist online?
No, but I've seen plenty of centrist and lefty circle jerks too.
They are a product, not of a malign Nazi conspiracy, but rather of stupidity and poor education, in particular inexperience in telling biased and junk sources from non-junk sources, and an egalitarian belief that everybody's perspective is equally valuable, regardless of their expertise and experience.
Let me turn that around. Do you think that some academic with that publishing history would be likely to find as much liberal left disinformation as populist right?
If you do, I have a great crypto scheme I know you'll love.
Those watching the shifting geopolitical sands in the Pacific might be aware of the rising tensions between New Zealand and Kiribati. The latter, it seems, has moved firmly into the Chinese orbit with various economic deals.
It is now Kiribati’s second largest aid donor after Australia with New Zealand third.
The Chinese are in partnership with the Kiribati Police & Prisons Service - the Pacific Island has no armed forces. As we know, Kiribati used to be the Gilbert Islands and gained independence in 1979.
China’s doing a lot of that in the Pacific and Africa, gradually buying themselves influence. It’s all part of a very long-term strategy.
Thank goodness nothing is happening to further enhance that long term strategy.
On topic, who'd have thought that somebody whose past papers, according to Google scholar, include such doubtless invaluable gems as: "Inside a White Power echo chamber" and "Tweeting ourselves to death: The cultural logic of digital capitalism" and "Selling black places on Airbnb: Colonial discourse and the marketing of black communities in New York City" would find or invent evidence to blame disinformation mostly on the populist right?
So, you think White Power echo chambers *don’t* exist online?
No, but I've seen plenty of centrist and lefty circle jerks too.
They are a product, not of a malign Nazi conspiracy, but rather of stupidity and poor education, in particular inexperience in telling biased and junk sources from non-junk sources, and an egalitarian belief that everybody's perspective is equally valuable, regardless of their expertise and experience.
Let me turn that around. Do you think that some academic with that publishing history would be likely to find as much liberal left disinformation as populist right?
If you do, I have a great crypto scheme I know you'll love.
So, if you agree White Power echo chambers exist online, what’s the problem with studying them? And what’s the problem with someone who has studied them then studying something else?
Comments
In Austria the situation was different too as the Freedom party won most seats at the last Austrian election while the CDU/CSU is still forecast to win most seats at the German election next month not the AfD
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-population-falls-third-consecutive-year-2025-01-17/
How the Conservatives can use the Eisenhower Matrix to improve their priorities
Sam Burnham"
https://thecritic.co.uk/kemi-badenoch-must-stop-wasting-time/
On topic, as to whether parties actually lie or are simply economical with the truth, it depends whether you are in power or opposition and whether you want the people you are talking to to support you or not.
Deliberately misrepresenting the policy position of your opponents is a favourite ploy so we have one contributor who persistently asserts Liberal Democrats and Greens as being NIMBY and opposed to all development yet it’s my experience, if politically advantageous, Conservatives will jump into the NIMBY trenches with gusto.
The other tactic is to conflate central Government with local Government. A lot of perfectly good Conservative councillors paid the price in 2022, 2023 and 2024 for the antics of the party at national level but they chose to wear the blue rosette.
Then you have the “false forecast” - Labour will let in 300 million immigrants, the Greens will ban all cars, the Conservatives will sell your grandparents, under the Liberal Democrats no one will ever have the wobbles, etc, etc. It panders to a stereotypically negative view of each party.
In politics, if you can’t win on your own record, make sure the electorate think your opponent won’t win on theirs…
They are the work of the very Devil himself, an abomination second only to sub samples.
Seriously, equating the numbers of pollsters with differing weightings and methodologies is trying to compare apples, parsnips and radishes. Put them all together and you won’t get anything too easy to digest.
It is now Kiribati’s second largest aid donor after Australia with New Zealand third.
The Chinese are in partnership with the Kiribati Police & Prisons Service - the Pacific Island has no armed forces. As we know, Kiribati used to be the Gilbert Islands and gained independence in 1979.
However this has happened before with other models. They all blur into each other
Meanwhile the new administration has hit the ground running, and the news is either going on about such trivialities or finding celebrities to let out tears in favour of foreign criminals being deported.
At best.
President Trump announces the U.S. will be placing tariffs on all semi-conductors and pharmaceuticals imported from 🇹🇼Taiwan in the very near future
https://x.com/FinanceLancelot/status/1884023740826280053
Good luck sustaining the bullshit for four years.
https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1883907362362413473
It was pretty clear they were in for the drop, even though they were claiming otherwise. Was that their biggest lie?
Trump and his outriders have now made it part of the conversation so it’s gone from nobody wasting time talking about something verboten to enough people saying “can he/will he” which will then spin out into a lot of his supporters saying “why can’t he?” And then getting very agitated.
Its watching the window move in real time.
https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1883849732528685459
This is a cheap “negative-stealth” drone designed to look bigger than it is, like an enemy aircraft on radar, and draw fire from expensive air defence systems.
Not sure why they’re boasting about having shot one down, they’re literally designed to be shot down while the actual missiles and drones get through. Gives a good insight into why Russian air defences have been so bad in recent weeks though.
It looks like there is a report out today expanding the definition of extremism, interesting to see how that pans out.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3rwvjlln9wo
1910 was when Churchill (and others) proposed bilateral arms control - if the Germans agreed to cancel dreadnoughts, the U.K. would cancel the “response” ships.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/27/misogyny-identified-as-breeding-ground-for-extremism-in-leaked-report?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
If they start taking Hindutva and Manosphere extremism more seriously it would be progress. Hindutva misinformation is particularly rife on Twitter, and rabidly Islamophobic as well as pro-Putin.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/denmark-announces-21-bln-arctic-military-investment-plan-2025-01-27/
In fact his proposal was probably not serious, as there was not the slightest chance the Germans would accept it. It was a way of proving to his Liberal colleagues that he had taken every opportunity, however unrealistic, to stop the arms race so that they would support the Naval Estimates with a slightly clearer conscience.
And we are lucky that they did not, as the "response ships" in the 1913 Estimates, the Queen Elizabeth-class superdreadnoughts, turned out to be vital at Jutland and important even during World War II.
As so often, half-baked and naive disarmament proposals are dangerous and counter-productive when you're dealing with aggressive and militaristic countries like Imperial Germany or Putin's Russia.
My point is about regulation and in France, as in the EU, there is a trend now to regulate tech and the new industries which will stifle innovation.
Who thought, already that battleships were the past. Money saved on battleships would be (partially) used for more submarines, destroyers and (battle)cruisers - at least that is what Fisher was talking about.
I wonder just how much will be justified as "owning the libs". We've already had a Nazi salute and the freeing of violent insurrectionists.
Perhaps more incredible is that Dutch taxpayers think they get value for money in paying him to produce this drivel.
They are a product, not of a malign Nazi conspiracy, but rather of stupidity and poor education, in particular inexperience in telling biased and junk sources from non-junk sources, and an egalitarian belief that everybody's perspective is equally valuable, regardless of their expertise and experience.
Let me turn that around. Do you think that some academic with that publishing history would be likely to find as much liberal left disinformation as populist right?
If you do, I have a great crypto scheme I know you'll love.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38320067
https://x.com/anneapplebaum/status/1884140667527651679?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
NEW THREAD