🤡 Magnificent how liberal propagandists are suddenly defending Maduro 🤡
Two days ago, Maduro was the evil dictator, Putin’s evil puppet.
Today? He’s the sovereign, democratically elected leader of Venezuela — allegedly kidnapped by the evil dictator Trump.
Meanwhile, Robert Fico has magically become a hero, simply because he posted on Facebook condemning the U.S. action.
Yesterday Fico was evil too — after all, he’s a friend of the evil dictator Orbán Viktor.
And of course!
Now Vlagyimir Putyin must also be a hero — and so is the Iranian Ayatollah — since they’re Maduro’s friends, meaning they don’t like Donald Trump.
Sure, sure!
The Iranian Ayatollah has actually been “one of the good guys” for a while now — after all, he dislikes the evil dictator Benjamin Netanyahu, who happens to be a friend of the evil Trump and the evil Orbán.
Perfectly logical, right?!?!
Long live the progressive, liberal geniuses! 🤡
1. Double-key morality (situational ethics)
The core logic of the text is not what happened, but who did it.
The same actor is labeled:
- yesterday as an “evil dictator,”
- today as a “sovereign, democratically elected leader,”
depending on whether they:
- are opposed to Donald Trump, or
- temporarily align with the interests of the current “enemy’s enemy.”
👉 This is not inconsistency but a deliberate switch:
the moral standard is not universal, but camp-dependent.
2. Enemy relabeling
The text ironically exposes a common propaganda pattern:
- Nicolás Maduro
- Vlagyimir Putyin
- the Iranian ayatollah
are not judged based on their own actions,
but on who they are currently opposing.
“If he doesn’t like Trump → he’s suddenly acceptable.”
This creates a binary worldview:
- Trump / Orbán Viktor / Benjamin Netanyahu = absolute evil
- anyone opposing them = automatically relativized, excused, or rehabilitated
3. Moral cascade (chain legitimization)
The text deliberately sketches an exaggerated chain:
- Maduro → good
- because he’s a friend of Putin → Putin becomes “less bad”
- because the Iranian ayatollah is on the same side → he too becomes acceptable
This is logical contamination:
if A is good, and B is A’s ally, then B must also be “less bad.”
👉 This is not reasoning — it is emotional contagion.
4. Selective memory (motivated forgetting)
The phrase “yesterday he was still evil” is crucial.
Propaganda does not deny the earlier claim —
it simply treats it as no longer relevant.
Psychologically this means:
- cognitive dissonance → not resolved, but skipped
- the audience is conditioned not to remember consistently
5. Facebook diplomacy as a moral stamp
The example of Robert Fico is particularly revealing:
A single Facebook post:
- “condemning the U.S. action”
→ moral absolution
→ status change: from “villain” to “king”
👉 This is the overvaluation of symbolic gestures,
where a statement matters more than actual political conduct.
6. Tribalism (us vs. them)
Throughout the text, the underlying mindset is shown to be:
- not value-based,
- not law-based,
- not fact-based,
but tribal:
“The enemy of my enemy is morally usable.”
This is not liberalism —
it is an identity-political reflex.
7. The function of the clown emoji 🤡
The clown emoji is not decoration; it is a rhetorical device:
- ridicule → shutdown of thinking
- creation of a sense of moral superiority
- infantilization of the opponent
👉 The final message is not “they are wrong,”
but: “they are ridiculous, therefore not worth taking seriously.”
Conclusion – what is exposed?
This text does not attack an opinion;
it exposes a mode of thinking:
- momentary interest → moral judgment
- actors are interchangeable
- principles are not stable
- labels of “good” and “evil” are transferable
That is why it is effective —
and that is why it is dangerous.