“It’s hard to be sure through the immense veil of western media spin how much of what is said about the disobedient communist government is a distortion of the facts, but we can be absolutely 100 percent certain that it is a sovereign nation, and that the US power establishment has an extensive, consistent history of lying to manufacture support for war. Be intensely skeptical. That’s all I’m saying here.”
That’s the lede. Why did you bury it in a slurry of name-calling and obscenities? Do you not want people to actually read your work with an eye to comprehending your message? I’ve worked with writers who didn’t care to communicate. I’ve never understood the impulse to release a barrage of words that only serve to either pump up the choir or shut down any hope of communication with anyone who doesn’t already grok and agree with one’s views. Maybe you can explain that to me.
Invoking someone’s zealous agreement if they’re already onboard with your message and think your invective is indicative of strength seems ineffective. Sparking someone else’s anger at being told they’re a moron for any reason is counterproductive.
Why do you write these polemics? To be congratulated on your use of salty language, and putting those “not us” folks in their place, or to communicate something you earnestly care about? If it’s the latter, you’re driving away potential allies and, I think, getting in the way of your own goals.
I’m not being snarky or snide, here. I’m sincerely puzzled by the way you sabotage the core of your message—in this case, a plea for healthy skepticism—by couching it in insult and hyperbole.
