It's hard being vegan, BUT NOT BECAUSE OF THE FOOD.

LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf4RGF4mNCA

Less than two minutes long: a synopsis would spoil the ending. ;-)

Comedy and/or/as Political Reality: "Russia's border doesn't end anywhere."

When Vladimir Putin first said this, he immediately followed it up with the clarification, "That was a joke." [Source = BBC.]

At a televised event (dare I say, "a junket"?) a nine year old boy answered a question about the country's furthest borders (or "limits") with the answer that Russia's borders ended at the Bering Strait —please allow to me point out that this would be a prime candidate for Trump's policy of renaming everything "America", if Donald Trump ever happened to look at that part of a map. Vitus Bering was a Russian navy officer, although neither born nor raised in Russia. We may certainly imagine that Trump might decide that "The Straits of America" has a more poetic sound to it. "The Trump Strait" is a name already taken, apparently.

It is quite possible that this was a joke Putin had told before, and it is possible he rehearsed it for this occasion, but —spontaneously or not— he interrupted the boy's answer to say some words to the effect that, "No no, Russia's border doesn't end anywhere at all." Again, there may or may not be a bit more of an abstract sense of "limits" (and "limitlessness") intended by the original Russian phrase —an inference, on my part, based entirely on what I've seen in English.

This is now commonly stated propaganda in the Russian newspapers, although it is a propaganda statement with its own sense of irony and intrigue. It is a catchphrase that can be used to point out the absurdity of Russian expansion, rather than its inevitability —or perhaps a combination of the two —suggesting that it is absurd and inevitable in equal measure.

Snopes dug up a different history of the catchphrase, dating to October of 2023, long after the geography quiz junket of 2016, but also long enough ago to be forgotten today:

[Vladimir Putin:] You know, this was said for the first time in a conversation with one of the former Presidents of the United States, when he was looking at a map of the Russian Federation at my home in Ogaryovo; it certainly was a joke.

We all know this, but I would like to repeat: Russia remains the largest country in the world by area. On a more serious note, this primarily makes sense at the civilisational level. Our compatriots live [around the world] in large numbers; the Russian world is of a global nature; Russian is one of the official languages of the United Nations. In Latin America alone – I recently met with their parliamentarians – there are 300,000 Russians living there. They are everywhere: in Asia, in Africa, in Europe and certainly in North America.

So, again, speaking seriously, as a civilisation, Russia has no borders, just like other civilisations have no borders either. Take India or China; look how many representatives of China, or how many representatives of India live in other countries. Various civilisations overlap and interact with each other. And it would be great if this interaction was natural and friendly, aimed at strengthening this balance.

[Source = Snopes]

My nihilism certainly extends to (and repudiates) nationalism, but this rarely comes up in conversation: the idea of a universal civilization is in the same category as hot ice or a square circle —or, for that matter, inclusive snobbery.

The significance of a civilization can be inferred from whatever it excludes: if you can't get into the opera house wearing sandals, you're uncivilized, and it either is or represents civilization. If the sober exclude the addicts, or the vegans exclude the carnivores, etc. etc.

Civilization is editorial in nature: your magazine is only as good as the articles you refuse to publish. And your civilization —as a whole— is just as bad as whoever and whatever you make excuses for (as the magazine may be judged by its worst article, column, or even cartoon).

Burning Down the Universities: A Modest Proposal for Education Reform.

LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO0GA2yi9yE

The Nihilist Philosophy of Education.

Either you do the reading or you don't, either you're able to understand it or you're not: the authoritarian aspects of the university system don't help with either one —nor even with verifying how much you've learned afterwards.

LINK: https://youtu.be/w0Z_AaHHCRY

Truths too terrible to tell: à-bas-le-ciel.

This was a reply to a comment on the livestream titled, Sparta: Socialism in Principle, Aristocracy in Practice —Plutarch Gaiden 3.5

There's a kind of stunned silence that people manage to sustain for a lifetime: the vast majority of people absolutely cannot deal with the reality of what they see on the page —and they retreat into some kind of excuse-making mentality that is quite alien to me (i.e., this is some kind of reflex or instinct I do not have).

I have heard Muslims and Ex-Muslims talk about this (more rarely, Scientologists), namely: an instinct to slip into a kind of reverie rather than deal with the brutal reality of JUST HOW STUPID AND EVIL the "sacred text" is that you're staring at —and just how stupid and evil your own friends and relatives must be (possibly also university professors, etc.) to make excuses for it.

I am both adored and despised for discussing so many topics that the majority of members of my audience can't handle: I can absolutely guarantee that NOBODY is going to discuss this with me.  It's harder for (modern, English-speaking) people to deal with than all the delusions and demons I've slayed before.  And I remind you: it is incredibly difficult (e.g.) for women to recognize that they've inflicted brain damage on their own children by taking drugs during pregnancy (to give just one example out of hundreds of "truths too terrible to tell" that have been told on à-bas-le-ciel).

You do realize the intellectual caliber of my competition here…

The English language should have just one word for this sort of situation: this could be parody, this could be self-parody… but no, instead… considered as a work of art… it's an utterly unintentional indictment of the very people involved in creating it…

[Title:] Why Are We Reading Plutarch's Lives?

LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VfEKnRcEyk

Ukraine: Recent History that Remains Unwritten.

Quote, "The draft proposed holding talks over a period of 10-15 years regarding the status of Crimea, which Russia annexed from Ukraine in 2014." Who am I quoting? Reuters, in the absence of real journalism. What is the point of the quotation? In 2022, Ukraine allegedly proposed that they would leave the Russian occupation of Crimea unchallenged for a period of "ten to fifteen years" as part of a peace plan now referred to in retrospect as if anyone knew anything about it.

There was a meeting in Istanbul on March 29th of 2022: that, at least, is an historical fact.

What is not known is why Vladimir Putin ordered his northern army to withdraw from the steps of Kyiv on approximately the same day: the current incarnation of Wikipedia (i.e., a text that can change at any time) states blandly, "Russia began withdrawing its forces from the Kyiv area on 29 March…". This was an army that had marched from the north and was ordered to return to the north, i.e., the Belarusian border.

Of all the oddities in this badly recorded and barely observed war, this raises several of the most important unasked questions: what was Vladimir Putin offered (or threatened with, or told) that resulted in the orders being given to abandon that (very successful) offensive against Ukraine's capital city terminus ante quem March 29th of 2022?

It may be easily said that the Istanbul negotiations accomplished nothing at all, and many sources (from all sides) now do state this… but, in fact, (1) these negotiations resulted in one of Putin's most crucial victories being turned into a defeat (i.e., the Russians abandoned their offensive position in the suburbs of Kyiv, where they were already close enough to destroy the city with very cheap artillery arrays unloaded from the back of a truck, etc.) and (2) they revealed Ukraine's willingness to abandon Crimea for what sounds like a period of time presumed to be long enough for Vladimir Putin to die of natural causes ("let's say ten to fifteen years").

And why? Why did either one of these things happen? Based on available information, neither one of them make sense; perhaps there is unavailable information that would suddenly reveal how both make sense. And it is hard to imagine that anyone other than Joe Biden played the crucial role, unseen and undocumented, on the sidelines: it is very hard to imagine that France or Germany (or China) stepped in and somehow compelled that northern army to return to Belarus —with the carrot or the stick.

Sparta: Socialism in Principle, Aristocracy in Practice.

PLUTARCH GAIDEN: EPISODE 3.5!

I certainly hope you all know the meaning of the word Gaiden: 外伝. ;-)

LINK: https://youtube.com/live/SkpW33jcSfE

JJ McCullough is Right About Canada

In part a riposte to J.J. McCullough…
LINK: https://www.youtube.com/@JJMcCullough/videos
…And in part a riposte to a video titled, "JJ McCullough Is Wrong About Canada", from a channel (oddly) called The New Travel:
LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMpngsJSMyc

And here's the link to the video I uploaded myself, JJ McCullough is Right About Canada: https://youtu.be/gwVpxfx1wJw

[Other voices:] "I was also eight months pregnant at the time…"

The link should take you to the 3:22 mark…

just a few seconds later, the quotation that I've made into the title of this Patreon post ensues.

This is a rare example of Lola Phoenix, the host of the show, flying off the handle like a cast iron skillet cooking up illegal fireworks after decades of metal fatigue.

"I am trying really hard not to be furious on your behalf…"

LINK: https://youtu.be/KBy7InAKtP0&t=202

The video had only 21 views when I clicked on it, incidentally (the prior episode had 12, and the one before it had only 19… despite a relative ocean of time elapsing between each upload). She is famous within an even small demimonde than I.

Keep in mind: as demimondes go, veganism is narrow but deep, whereas nihilism is vast enough to encompass the whole world, and rises up to the zenith of our sky.