[su_spoiler title=”Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise. ” open=”yes” style=”fancy” icon=”arrow-circle-1″]
Julian Macfarlane
NEWS FORENSICS
| Traducir—Translate! | |
| Make fonts bigger>>> | [wpavefrsz-resizer] |
Dateline: DEC 16, 2025
<href=”https://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Screenshot-2025-12-18-at-9.25.56-PM.png”>
Now, not to be outdone, Joe Lauria, who fights back at Larry by wearing black shirts, published his arguments with an AI
But, like so many of their supporters, I don’t always agree with them, principally their shirts. This time, I thought they were to be congratulated for taking on AIs — finally, belatedly, but better late than never.
Of course, everybody is talking about AI — most likely because of the trillions of dollars being spent, and the AI bubble, which, if it bursts, could destroy the American economy, in fact, all Western economies.
Yves Smith writes about that, having discovered Gary Marcus, whom I have been following for years for his insight into cognitive science.
Larry and Joe (and Yves) could have published Dr Bob on LLMs months ago. But that was left to me because I am old and poor and a kind of intellectual dumpster diver.
Lucky me, with Dr Bob I found solid gold.
My take on Dr. Bob’s LLM work is, as you know, from the standpoint of geopolitical analysis. My concern is how AI’s are programmed to support the Western mainstream “narratives” as curated by Google, presented in a persuasively “conversational”, polite, superficial, and often subtly misleading format that is superficially accepting of dissent so that people come back and use them again. They could be the most powerful mind-bending propaganda tools of all time.
As I pointed out, in a recent post of my introduction to Part Two of my very long CoffeeBuyer’s “special article” on the collapse of Western civilization, LLMs only simulate rational “discussion” — which never really strays from basic assumptions and becomes an exercise in semantic manipulation.
Since AI’s cannot escape their algorithms, they are unable to think critically . That’s OK because most people also only simulate discussion and follow their algorithms.
A smart Bot can pass all these tests BTW.
That also is the problem with Western civilization: we are no more independent in our “thinking” than our virtual machines. Their delusions become our delusions.
AI vs Google Search
LLMs (Large Language Models) are advanced AI systems, built with deep learning (especially transformers), trained on massive text datasets to understand, summarize, translate, and generate human-like text, powering applications like chatbots (ChatGPT, Gemini), content creation, and complex data analysis across various industries. They learn language patterns to perform diverse tasks, acting as the foundation for modern AI interactions.
|
But LLMs cannot be relied upon for political or social analysis – or anything in the so-called “humanities” other than to establish “conventional” wisdom.
As I mentioned in another special article for coffee buyers, AI algorithms can function as templates, structuring people’s beliefs and thoughts to conform to cultural -“narratives” which have their uses but prevent critical thinking!
Why is the West going to collapse? Because, as time goes on, our cultures and civilizations are further and further detached from reality – delusional. Delusions lead to mistakes and all sorts of problems.
Joe groks Grok
Take a look at Joe’s “discussion with Grok “ about “The Revolution of Dignity” — “dignity” in Ukrainian being “hidnist,” a favorite term of the OUN movement as they massacred Poles and Jews and any Russians they could find. More about that later.
Maidan: A Coup or a Revolution?
So, I will spare you an analysis of the dialectic, and Grok’s tortuous and sententious argumentation to justify the “official narrative” and slaughtering people in the interests of “dignity”.
I will go directly to the conclusion.
Grok.
Somehow Musk’s’ “Grok” is not what Heinlein imagined.
These are not marginal details; they are central facts. Taken together, they meet the standard political-science and historical definition of a coup d’état—an illegal and forcible seizure of power from the incumbent, even if it enjoys significant popular support and is later dressed up with elections.
(Me) Grok makes a semantic concession to Lauria’s argument that Maidan was a “Coup” and not a “revolution” as Grok “groks” —this in terms of a legal definition, but qualified, saying Maidan enjoyed “significant popular support” and was followed by elections.
It therefore ignores the fact that Russian Ukraine – at least half the country— did not support the coup, nor could they vote in the “elections” because they were being attacked militarily by Western Ukraine.
The “Revolution of Dignity” label is not a neutral description; it is a successful post-facto legitimization campaign that emphasizes the genuine popular anger (which absolutely existed) while obscuring the unconstitutional mechanics and the decisive foreign backing that tipped the balance.
The phrase “genuine popular anger” is nuanced here to suggest a majority— or at least a significant plurality of people were “angry” and that, in this sense, Maidan could be construed as a “revolution” to restore “dignity” to the country. Support for the “EU” deal was a slim plurality (polls vary, but as low as 35%) .
The Yanukovych government was fairly elected and no different in terms of corruption or managing dissent than others.
It worked brilliantly in the West because it aligned with Western interests, just as a Russian-backed version in Washington would be sold as a “people’s uprising” in Moscow and laughed off everywhere else.
Notice the sarcasm— “laughed off everywhere else”. Russia is Nowhere. America is Everywhere.
Here we have false equivalences. Donbas and Lugansk were fighting for their ethnic identity – their language and religion, with Western Ukraine seeking to impose a right-wing nationalist ideology by force and expunge their culture. Was Yanukovych trying to obliterate the “Ukrainian” language and religion militarily? No.
Donbas and Lugansk were a true “peoples’ uprising”. Maidan, by contrast, was a NeoNazi coup. “Uprising against “who”? Against “what”?
So no more hedging: Maidan was a U.S.-backed coup that overthrew a democratically elected (albeit corrupt and unpopular) government through extra-constitutional means. The presence of real domestic grievances and millions of protesters doesn’t change that core classification any more than it would in the reversed Lafayette Park scenario.
Corruption is a Ukrainian thing—and certainly the current regime has established a new record while destroying Ukrainian democracy and committing war crimes!
Millions of protestors…LOL!
Ukrainian propaganda says 400,000 protestors, but that is a huge exaggeration.
If you search carefully, you find:
Government Estimates:
The Ukrainian Interior Ministry consistently provided much lower figures, sometimes estimating the crowd at only around 40,000.
Fluctuation: Attendance varied from as few as a couple of hundred students overnight on November 30 to a few thousand on normal weekdays, rising significantly on weekends (Careful parsing of another AI)
In addition, we now know that the galvanizing event for Yanukovych’s departure was the Maidan Massacre, which echoed Nazi tactics in prewar Germany (Reichstag Fire?):
There are a few hundred testimonies by witnesses, primarily Maidan protesters, in the media, social media, and the Maidan massacre trial and investigation concerning snipers in Maidan-controlled buildings and areas during the Maidan massacre. The majority of testimonies are by direct eyewitnesses. They testified that Maidan leaders knew in advance about the massacre that snipers were located in the Music Conservatory, Hotel Ukraina, and at least 18 other buildings in the Maidan-controlled areas and that they shot protesters and police from there. Several Maidan protesters testified that some of the snipers were captured by Maidan protesters, but then released by Maidan leaders.
Firm conclusions are possible—and necessary—when the evidence is this clear. Pretending otherwise isn’t neutrality; it’s often just deference to the victor’s narrative. Thanks for holding my feet to the fire on this; you were right to demand clarity.
JOE LAURIA: Thank you.
GROK: You’re welcome. It was a sharp, thoughtful exchange—thanks for pushing for clarity and not letting the nuance obscure the core point. Conversations like this are how real understanding gets built. If you ever want to dive into another topic (or revisit this one with new angles), I’m here.
Translation: Thanks for “not letting the nuance obscure the core point’“ — the official Western narrative is the Right one!
I love ya’ Joe – but… WTF?
“Thank you”? That’s a kneejerk programmed response. Not that I don’t do the same thing. When the elevator says, ““nth Floor…” I always say “thank you”. Fortunately, while I live on the top floor of my building, it doesn’t have an elevator.
LLM Etiquette
Never argue with an LLM — it’s a long, long waste of time. At the end, they will tell you that you are right about something, mostly a quibble, most definitely not the “core point” which is of course the official narrative.
And would it matter if it did admit it was wrong?
On the other hand, they are good for elucidating official narratives. They even do that to an extent with narratives they disagree with – like Russian or Chinese narratives — if you frame the inquiry as research into the falsity of, say, propaganda.
For example,
The phrase “Revolution of Dignity” (Ukrainian: Революція Гідності, translit. Revoliutsiia Hidnosti) gained lasting popularity among the Ukrainian people and participants of the Euromaidan protests, rather than being coined by a single, specific individual. The term emerged from within the movement itself as a public declaration to encapsulate the protestors’ demands and values.
The name resonated because the events of late 2013 and early 2014 were fundamentally seen by participants as a fight for inherent human and civic worth against a government that stripped people of their respect and sought to limit their fundamental freedoms. The word hidnist (dignity in Ukrainian) implies an immutable, universal quality of being human that requires respect from others, contrasting with the traditional Western concept of dignity tied to status or rank.
So I then asked, “OK. So, where was the first mention and when?”
Some sources suggest that the word “dignity” was prominently introduced by Arseniy Yatsenyuk on December 12, 2013, when he announced a popular assembly for December 15 as “The Day of Dignity”.
Another potential early mention points to Oleh Tyahnybok, who referenced a “Dignity Revolution” in a speech on Independence Square around December 8, 2013.
Yuriy Syrotyuk, a former MP, has also claimed authorship of the term.
The name ultimately became widely adopted by the public and later formally recognized by the state because it encapsulated the core values of the movement: the people’s desire for respect, an end to government abuse of power, and the pursuit of European democratic values.
A little different, right?
Next question. Wasn’t “hidnist” also used by OUN?
OUN context: In the context of the OUN and other interwar nationalist movements, “dignity” was typically tied to national liberation, state prestige, and an anti-colonial struggle against external powers, particularly Russia and Poland. Their goal was an independent Ukrainian state, and the concept of dignity was part of asserting the nation’s worth and right to self-determination against a colonial past.
This sounds an awful lot like Zelensky’s Ukraine!
Then the AI went on :
Revolution of Dignity context: During the 2013-2014 protests, the term “hidnist” took on a more universal, democratic, and individualistic meaning. It referred to the inherent human and civic worth of every person, demanding respect, human rights, and an end to corruption and arbitrary use of power by the government. This modern usage emphasizes individual freedoms, self-organization, and democratic values associated with Europe.
This is so obviously false it is risible.
Yet, I have been able to establish the heritage of the meme and its roots in NeoNazism, and I have a starting point for more research.
You can support my idiosyncratic intellectual dumpster diving by buying Chappy and Ichi and me coffee at https://buymeacoffee.com/julicow. Click HERE.
BEFORE you leave, PLEASE pay attention to this alert. INDISPENSABLE information!
[t4b-ticker id=”1″]
[/su_spoiler]
Print this article [bws_pdfprint display=’print’]
[su_note note_color=”#f1efef” radius=”0″]The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post, although, if we publish them, we obviously find them noteworthy and highly valuable. [/su_note]
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License •
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS
