On groupthink and unnecessary defeats

"Russia's best weapon is not General Cold, but General Underestimation," wrote Czech blogger Martin Chmela a few days ago. It is the most brilliant analytical observation to be made in the West since the start of the war in Ukraine.

What unites all Russian military victories over the West since the beginning of the 18th century is Western strategists' fundamentally wrong estimates of how big an army Russia is capable of building, its ability to supply reserves, the capacity of the Russian arms industry, etc. From King Charles XII of Sweden to Joe Biden, no one had even a rough idea of what power they were up against and what they should be preparing for.

If today we are talking about the NATO debacle in Ukraine, then we must add that the key architects of this Russian victory are those who created the false impression that Russia's military capabilities are roughly at the level of Moldova and that Russia will be just another Libya. From Generals Hodges and Peter Paul (he's the former communist elite agent who defected to Soros after the regime collapsed and eventually became NATO commander and Czech president) to organizations like the Institute for the Study of War to media intellectuals, they all worked for Putin's victory. Every time open debate was prevented, Russia grew stronger.

Make no mistake, nothing could change the NATO debacle, not even a surprise strike that temporarily seized a piece of land in a district with no critical weapons production, no headquarters, and no vital supply routes. Nothing. They didn't even force the Russians to withdraw enough troops to make a difference on the front. They have utterly wasted and destroyed the last elite troops Ukraine still had left.

Except that in addition to the general underestimation, there is also the colonel overestimation. That one side or the other deploys a huge force against something absolutely insignificant or even non-existent. Curtis Yarvin uses the term "hypochondria" and we see it again and again in the current class conflict.

Remember January 6, 2021, when a few hundred people ran into the US Capitol, as is customary during protests there for various demands (the last time Palestinian jihadists ran in). The demonstrators expected to be spoken to and to receive a list of demands. Instead, panic broke out that a revolution was underway. As Curtis Yarvin noted, even with the greatest conceivable aggression, the most the protesters could have achieved was to occupy the chamber and force the congressmen to meet in alternate rooms. Was that to destroy the American political system? However, members of the American power elite probably really believe this.

Again, the result of the action is irrational in the sense that it does not lead to the intended goal of consolidating the power of the ruling group.

Superficial people can rejoice in how mentally degenerate the other side is. But more thoughtful people should ask themselves: Is it not the case that I am committing the same mental error? After all, it is normal for a person to notice a certain error in the other side but not notice it in himself.

And those who read these columns regularly may still remember that in the first half of the year I pointed out a number of cases where the "alternative" commits exactly the same errors of thought as the cafe.

One of those mistakes is that people encourage each other to take an initially realistic view and escalate it to the absolute extreme. The Russians are corrupt. Corrupt and incompetent! Applause. Corrupt and incompetent and cowardly! More applause. Corrupt, incompetent and so cowardly they'll run away at the first shot! More applause. And so on.

But the alternative debate on the harms of vaccines looked no different, and you won't find more intelligence in Alex Jones than in the offices of the European Union.

How to defend yourself? By open discussion. This includes having someone come forward in the discussion who says the opposite of what you want to hear. It'll piss you off and ruin your mood. But you don't give in and wonder what arguments there are for your position. Would he find them strong too? Wouldn't it be better to rephrase your views a little? Maybe it would be better to quietly forget that part of your views and just defend the rest.

How many times have you encountered something like this at an opposition debate or conference? How often is a scandalous speaker invited?

If it's not part of your bubble's habits, then your view is probably cartoonish and unnecessarily exacerbated as well. And groups with distorted views don't win class conflicts or wars.