WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

It seems like a low risk, low cost, easy method of leveraging a competing country's legal commitment to free expression and weaponising it. It also has built in deniability. Disinformation is far easier to manufacture than it is to debunk. It would be foolish to not take advantage of this.

Why is this far-fetched to many people, when there are accounts of ex KGB personnel who describe in detail the process of their disinformation campaigns dating back to the 1970s?

It seems like a **low risk**, **low cost**, easy method of leveraging a competing country's legal commitment to free expression and weaponising it. It also has built in deniability. Disinformation is far easier to manufacture than it is to debunk. It would be foolish to *not* take advantage of this. Why is this far-fetched to many people, when there are accounts of ex KGB personnel who describe in detail the process of their disinformation campaigns dating back to the 1970s?

(post is archived)

[–] 0 pt

>Russia's main export, natural gas and oil, are surely at odds with inconvenient scientific consensus regarding climate change

lol

No this so called "scientific consensus" is just an excuse, it has nothing to do with the matter at hand; control of energy related supply routes, pipelines and all that, and which currency is used as payment for "the fuel". You want to control energy supply, you want to control the debt, of the nations, of the world (not "you" personally). Nobody cares about the environment, the ecology, as such. It's a front, a convenient excuse, just like the outrages over lack of democracy and human rights abuses.

[–] 0 pt

Even if I grant you all of that, the US has geopolitical ambitions to be less dependent on potential adversaries' energy exports. Renewable energy at the very least enables a degree of energy independence. How would that suit a country that exports non renewable energy? Poorly, to put it mildly.

That said, climate change quickly stops being solely an 'environmental' issue at some point. It is more or less guaranteed to result in serious security risks and will prove to be a hugely destabilising force.

[–] 0 pt

The US has an hegemonic aim, it's definitely not aiming just at autarky since a while now, almost a century. It's more of a "control the world so the world doesn't control you", sort of deal, than a strict "let's be energy independent"

>Renewable energy at the very least enables a degree of energy independence.

Let's get shit straight here, renewable energies are a lame ass option for the vast majority of countries, it usually turns out to be fucking expensive with a piss poor yield, compared to existing solutions. Btw, did you notice pretty much everything is made of plastic? ... What are you going to manufacture china, without plastic? What do you need to make plastic? That's right, you need oil... And cheap energy preferably...

That being said there's nothing humans can do against so called "climate change". Aside from dying en masse, of course... The entire world almost falls apart over a funny flu, so imagine what it's going to be like when they'll start trying to control the climate lol

[–] 0 pt

> Let's get shit straight here, renewable energies are a lame ass option for the vast majority of countries, it usually turns out to be fucking expensive with a piss poor yield, compared to existing solutions.

As were early planes and automobiles,I think we can afford to be a bit more sanguine about the ability of engineers when market incentives have been corrected away from favouring fossil fuels. Besides your only alternative seems to be to protect the existing economy from a temporary reshuffle until we all end up:

> dying en masse