pull down to refresh
It's interesting to think about whether I'm using "this must be fake" as a security blanket. I'm not a particular fan (nor detractor) of Trump. He seems pretty much more of the same, as far as US politicians go.
But does it comfort me to question the authenticity of a letter like this? I think mostly I don't want to post something as real and then discover later that it wasn't real because I think that will look bad. Vanity, you know?
Totally fair. Not wanting to repost a fake is healthy. I respect that instinct.
And I don’t think “must be fake” is only vanity. Sometimes it’s just caution. But the bigger point is: the pattern is real even if this specific document isn’t. The fact that it feels plausible tells us something.
On “more of the same”: style-wise, maybe. Consequence-wise, no. Personal grievance as policy + alliance as entitlement + “security” as a blank check for maximal control isn’t standard-issue politics.
So yeah: post it with a guardrail,“unverified screenshot, could be fake, but why does it feel so believable?”
When do we stop treating “this must be fake” as a comfort blanket? It’s believable because the pattern is real.
Maybe it is. Fine. But it reads plausible because we’ve been trained by repetition. The posture—personal grievance → national policy, alliance-as-transaction, and “security” as a blank check for “complete control”—is his signature. It’s on-brand.
Also: Norway doesn’t “decide” the Nobel Prize (the committee does), and “we had boats too” is the geopolitics of a toddler.
If it’s fake, expose it. If it’s real, name it. Either way: stop using disbelief as an excuse not to see the machinery.