hi ismaele... regarding the questions at the end - i didn't respond.. here is my take.. you are doing a fine job and you ought to be the one to decide on how often you post, what topics you post on and how long or short they are... if i missed anything, i am sorry... just keep doing what you think is best... don't worry about what others think!!!
as for the articles you shared - the first one really explains how the european union has been captured by usa interests and how the usa continues to dominate europe, in spite of anything europe says... we see this in the recent elections in france and germany where people want something very different.. ultimately i think it will spell the end to the european union and all this subservience to the usa... but, it might take some time...
regarding the pervasive intrusion of the intel agencies - 5 eyes and etc - into every facet of social media, especially google, and etc - the eu has not adopted a policy of independence and instead seems more then willing to go along with this fearmongering from the intel agencies which requires spying on everyone... i stay off social media for these reasons and more... we all have to figure it out to the best of our abilities... cheers james
Yes, the EU bureaucrats and the people at the top in European countries are just vassals of the Outlaw US Empire. Full stop! I also cannot see this EU surviving the next few years, as the divide between its bureaucrats and the people increase.
You are right too about the pervasive intrusion of the intel agencies into our lives, especially on social media. Every now and then we are reminded about it: Snowden, Assange, Durov, etc... but nothing happens, actually it seems to get worse. I myself left that cesspool of FB a while ago, when it started banning anything that does not align to the mainstream line of thought and that goes against NATO's propaganda.
Yes, I agree that Ismaele knows best and that should be the priority. However, my personal take is there is plenty of short-term ephemeral commentary on what is going on and not much of longer think pieces, which take longer to ruminate on and to produce.
That said, I am happy with the viewpoint this Substack provides and the quality of articles.
"Recently I have noticed a few mixed reactions to my posts: some subscribers are leaving, while new ones are joining and both old and new ones “like” my articles."
Perhaps I can help? In addition to using Substack as an information/opinion source, I'm also studying the ecology of the medium, as Marshal McLuhan might have put it. What kind of authors post what kind of material and what sort of audience do they attract, for example. I say 'audience" as opposed to "readers" since this is a mixed media environment that contains elements of all previous media, from written to spoken word, to visual and audio. In a sense Substack is a microcosm of the internet itself, and while there are other similar platforms, this one seems to be the most efficient, in the sense of enabling multi-path communication to the point where the ground between the author and reader begins to merge.
On the question of mixed reactions, you are always going to get a variety of responses, some good, some bad, depending on the reader's 'belief system' as described by Alfred Korzybski in his epic yet largely unknown work, 'Science and Sanity' which I recommend as foundational for anyone engaged in the art of communication. Here's the book:
On the question at hand, I would say there are basically three types of readers who are motivated to subscribe to someone's channel.
First is the True Believer. As the name suggests, they are looking for confirmation of their own beliefs and are likely to become disgruntled and leave when (if) the content diverges from their assumptions about the author or the content. In the case of authors whose 'belief system' is already well established, a kind of echo chamber evolves, where readers in the second category tend to leave once they've recognized the syndrome.
This second category consists of people doing their own research based on a skeptic's point of view, where they are willing to examine other positions or 'beliefs' that may not coincide with their own. I would place myself in that category. We tend to settle in channels where both reader and author engage in intelligent informed debate, free of acrimony and bias. Of course this is an ideal situation which is only partially achievable since we all bring our own hidden assumptions to the table - the point being to find out what those hidden assumptions are by exposing them to constructive criticism.
The third category, which is probably the most abundant, is what I call 'impulse subscribers.' My own channel is a case in point. Because I don't advertise anywhere, I get subscribers based entirely on comments I make on other channels. So if I say something someone agrees with, they might subscribe on the notion that we have a shared 'belief system' only to find out later that the intersection is only partial. For example, I always get a few cancellations when I post Islamic material. I assume this is because the particular subscriber has a favourable outlook towards Russia (the main theme) but also has a negative outlook towards Islam, which is fairly common in conservative circles. You can usually spot the impulse subscriber by the number of channels they subscribe to, more than anyone can possibly read or keep track of, in some cases over 100! You'll also spot them in the statistics that Substack kindly provides. If I see six months of inactivity from a subscriber I just remove them from the list after checking to see if their own channel provides anything of value. It rarely does.
"So, in order to better understand my readership, I would like to know from you, dear readers, what you think of the frequency, length and content of my posts, so that I can better tailor them according to your taste, while keeping the same style (which I hope is not the issue, but feel free to drop a comment if that’s the case!):"
I'll make a point here which I notice someone else has also made. The old expression, 'build it and they will come' definitely applies here, so the important thing to ask is not what your readers prefer (they'll be all over the map, as in the Aesop fable of the man the boy and the donkey) but what are YOU trying to achieve? For this you need to ask yourself, what am I doing, why am I doing it, and what are the results and consequences of my actions? This is something we ought to ask ourselves about everything we do, to the point it becomes automatic.
To sum it all up, do what you feel you do best - the old adage "write about what you know' applies here, but also write about things you want to know more about - which is to say, ask questions of your audience - it is after all, a two way street (well, more like one of those traffic circles you find in Paris or Madrid, but you get the idea).
As far as what I value most about your content, I would say the articles from Italy. If you're going to do global geopolitical or cultural analysis you need a multitude of global sources, the more independent of their respective mainstream media the better. This is something I specifically look for, as there's no real lack of independent voices in the English language alternate press, in fact redundancy becomes a problem at times. I want to hear from people everywhere, and in the European context, Italy is underrepresented, so there's part of my motivation.
Final observation. The audience is only half the equation, the other half being the authors. Here again, there are three categories (that I've noticed - perhaps there are more?). Writers attempting to make a living. The subject material is usually some aspect of their profession carried over to this medium. They can be accomplished authors or pure amateurs. Substack really is a level playing field in that regard, however, one has to bear in mind that their primary motive is to earn an income, and that can influence their content. Second category is those who start out with altruistic intent, but having gathered a following (usually based on some grand controversy, such as the recent pandemic or war in Ukraine) find the income thus generated to be more important than pursuing the original goal, which is a search for the truth wherever it may lead. These authors tend to avoid third rails, and when challenged will usually ignore the challenger and rely on their audience to deflect them. I've lost count of how many channels I've abandoned for this reason. No response from the author, and a defensive, sometimes abusive, response from the True Believers clustered around them. Unfortunately, I find much of the 'vaccine skeptic' movement fits this category, and pointing out contradictions in their hero's positions is most often a waste of time.
Then there are writers who have no need for the extra income and are doing what they do out of sincere conviction. I tend to favour these, and I (humbly) consider myself in that category. I don't need the money, but if someone feels what I do is worth paying for, they can send it directly to my favourite charity, which I link to in most of my posts.
I hope this was helpful. It is long-winded - unfortunately I tend to write that way - but there's a lot to unpack in the simple questions you asked us, so there it is. Write from the heart is my best advice, and don't worry to much about what your audience expects. Keep it honest and sincere and that's the kind of readers you'll attract.
Thanks. One point I forgot to add is that I believe change occurs at the margin. That is to say, most good ideas originate from individual, not collective efforts. Consider the effect Gutenberg's invention of movable type had on publishing and general literacy as one example. It literally changed the world. McLuhan wrote about this in Gutenberg Galaxy, an indispensable work for anyone involved in media studies or practice.
The point here is that to be influential one doesn't need a large audience. One only has to motivate the right people - people who will take an idea they find somewhere and use it to build something significant. In a medium such as this, where the interaction is as important as the content, often small is better. There are substacks with thousands of subscribers, and when you look at the comments on a particular article they often number in the hundreds. Who has time to read all that? You just get lost in the noise. I avoid those kinds of sites and focus more on the smaller efforts where the author is willing to engage. It then becomes a collaborative process - part of an informal network rather than a strict hierarchy, which the more popular sites tend towards.
I would love to subscribe but I'm literally penniless...the content is great - and although I said I lprefer the ME - I like everything and the length of the articles I heard Col Wilkerson give his talk and it was good and he did an interview the same day with Judge Napolitano which was also good - here - https://youtu.be/WEcV4jt0Us0 which i thought was very worthwhile listening to as well. The first article about the huge unelected power of the EU and that witch in charge van der leyen - was excellent - but the European countries are free to leave I think - I'm thinking Hugary and Slovenia will leave soon.
No worries. You don't even need to pledge. I have not even activated the function to collect money! :) It's only free subscription. All my articles are and will always be free.
Hi Ismaele - thanks for that, although the little description doesn't say much about you - do you have a website as well ? The english translations of Italian were perfect - you certainly are more highly educated than this reader !!
hi ismaele... regarding the questions at the end - i didn't respond.. here is my take.. you are doing a fine job and you ought to be the one to decide on how often you post, what topics you post on and how long or short they are... if i missed anything, i am sorry... just keep doing what you think is best... don't worry about what others think!!!
as for the articles you shared - the first one really explains how the european union has been captured by usa interests and how the usa continues to dominate europe, in spite of anything europe says... we see this in the recent elections in france and germany where people want something very different.. ultimately i think it will spell the end to the european union and all this subservience to the usa... but, it might take some time...
regarding the pervasive intrusion of the intel agencies - 5 eyes and etc - into every facet of social media, especially google, and etc - the eu has not adopted a policy of independence and instead seems more then willing to go along with this fearmongering from the intel agencies which requires spying on everyone... i stay off social media for these reasons and more... we all have to figure it out to the best of our abilities... cheers james
Thanks for your kind words, James.
Yes, the EU bureaucrats and the people at the top in European countries are just vassals of the Outlaw US Empire. Full stop! I also cannot see this EU surviving the next few years, as the divide between its bureaucrats and the people increase.
You are right too about the pervasive intrusion of the intel agencies into our lives, especially on social media. Every now and then we are reminded about it: Snowden, Assange, Durov, etc... but nothing happens, actually it seems to get worse. I myself left that cesspool of FB a while ago, when it started banning anything that does not align to the mainstream line of thought and that goes against NATO's propaganda.
kudos to you for all you are doing to enlighten others..
Yes, I agree that Ismaele knows best and that should be the priority. However, my personal take is there is plenty of short-term ephemeral commentary on what is going on and not much of longer think pieces, which take longer to ruminate on and to produce.
That said, I am happy with the viewpoint this Substack provides and the quality of articles.
ditto!
Those people get it. The USA is the enemy of humanity. What the Americans did to Europe is criminal.
"Recently I have noticed a few mixed reactions to my posts: some subscribers are leaving, while new ones are joining and both old and new ones “like” my articles."
Perhaps I can help? In addition to using Substack as an information/opinion source, I'm also studying the ecology of the medium, as Marshal McLuhan might have put it. What kind of authors post what kind of material and what sort of audience do they attract, for example. I say 'audience" as opposed to "readers" since this is a mixed media environment that contains elements of all previous media, from written to spoken word, to visual and audio. In a sense Substack is a microcosm of the internet itself, and while there are other similar platforms, this one seems to be the most efficient, in the sense of enabling multi-path communication to the point where the ground between the author and reader begins to merge.
On the question of mixed reactions, you are always going to get a variety of responses, some good, some bad, depending on the reader's 'belief system' as described by Alfred Korzybski in his epic yet largely unknown work, 'Science and Sanity' which I recommend as foundational for anyone engaged in the art of communication. Here's the book:
https://oceanofpdf.com/?s=science+and+sanity
and here's a good synopsis of Korzybski's work:
https://www.holybooks.com/science-and-sanity-by-alfred-korzybski/
I would also recommend Stuart Chase's "The Tyranny of Words" which is an easier to read condensation of Korzybski's work.
https://oceanofpdf.com/?s=stuart+chase
On the question at hand, I would say there are basically three types of readers who are motivated to subscribe to someone's channel.
First is the True Believer. As the name suggests, they are looking for confirmation of their own beliefs and are likely to become disgruntled and leave when (if) the content diverges from their assumptions about the author or the content. In the case of authors whose 'belief system' is already well established, a kind of echo chamber evolves, where readers in the second category tend to leave once they've recognized the syndrome.
This second category consists of people doing their own research based on a skeptic's point of view, where they are willing to examine other positions or 'beliefs' that may not coincide with their own. I would place myself in that category. We tend to settle in channels where both reader and author engage in intelligent informed debate, free of acrimony and bias. Of course this is an ideal situation which is only partially achievable since we all bring our own hidden assumptions to the table - the point being to find out what those hidden assumptions are by exposing them to constructive criticism.
The third category, which is probably the most abundant, is what I call 'impulse subscribers.' My own channel is a case in point. Because I don't advertise anywhere, I get subscribers based entirely on comments I make on other channels. So if I say something someone agrees with, they might subscribe on the notion that we have a shared 'belief system' only to find out later that the intersection is only partial. For example, I always get a few cancellations when I post Islamic material. I assume this is because the particular subscriber has a favourable outlook towards Russia (the main theme) but also has a negative outlook towards Islam, which is fairly common in conservative circles. You can usually spot the impulse subscriber by the number of channels they subscribe to, more than anyone can possibly read or keep track of, in some cases over 100! You'll also spot them in the statistics that Substack kindly provides. If I see six months of inactivity from a subscriber I just remove them from the list after checking to see if their own channel provides anything of value. It rarely does.
"So, in order to better understand my readership, I would like to know from you, dear readers, what you think of the frequency, length and content of my posts, so that I can better tailor them according to your taste, while keeping the same style (which I hope is not the issue, but feel free to drop a comment if that’s the case!):"
I'll make a point here which I notice someone else has also made. The old expression, 'build it and they will come' definitely applies here, so the important thing to ask is not what your readers prefer (they'll be all over the map, as in the Aesop fable of the man the boy and the donkey) but what are YOU trying to achieve? For this you need to ask yourself, what am I doing, why am I doing it, and what are the results and consequences of my actions? This is something we ought to ask ourselves about everything we do, to the point it becomes automatic.
To sum it all up, do what you feel you do best - the old adage "write about what you know' applies here, but also write about things you want to know more about - which is to say, ask questions of your audience - it is after all, a two way street (well, more like one of those traffic circles you find in Paris or Madrid, but you get the idea).
As far as what I value most about your content, I would say the articles from Italy. If you're going to do global geopolitical or cultural analysis you need a multitude of global sources, the more independent of their respective mainstream media the better. This is something I specifically look for, as there's no real lack of independent voices in the English language alternate press, in fact redundancy becomes a problem at times. I want to hear from people everywhere, and in the European context, Italy is underrepresented, so there's part of my motivation.
Final observation. The audience is only half the equation, the other half being the authors. Here again, there are three categories (that I've noticed - perhaps there are more?). Writers attempting to make a living. The subject material is usually some aspect of their profession carried over to this medium. They can be accomplished authors or pure amateurs. Substack really is a level playing field in that regard, however, one has to bear in mind that their primary motive is to earn an income, and that can influence their content. Second category is those who start out with altruistic intent, but having gathered a following (usually based on some grand controversy, such as the recent pandemic or war in Ukraine) find the income thus generated to be more important than pursuing the original goal, which is a search for the truth wherever it may lead. These authors tend to avoid third rails, and when challenged will usually ignore the challenger and rely on their audience to deflect them. I've lost count of how many channels I've abandoned for this reason. No response from the author, and a defensive, sometimes abusive, response from the True Believers clustered around them. Unfortunately, I find much of the 'vaccine skeptic' movement fits this category, and pointing out contradictions in their hero's positions is most often a waste of time.
Then there are writers who have no need for the extra income and are doing what they do out of sincere conviction. I tend to favour these, and I (humbly) consider myself in that category. I don't need the money, but if someone feels what I do is worth paying for, they can send it directly to my favourite charity, which I link to in most of my posts.
I hope this was helpful. It is long-winded - unfortunately I tend to write that way - but there's a lot to unpack in the simple questions you asked us, so there it is. Write from the heart is my best advice, and don't worry to much about what your audience expects. Keep it honest and sincere and that's the kind of readers you'll attract.
Thanks for spending the time to write such a long and detailed comment. Greatly appreciated.
And I agree with you on most, if not all, points.
There is a lot to unpack and digest.
Thanks. One point I forgot to add is that I believe change occurs at the margin. That is to say, most good ideas originate from individual, not collective efforts. Consider the effect Gutenberg's invention of movable type had on publishing and general literacy as one example. It literally changed the world. McLuhan wrote about this in Gutenberg Galaxy, an indispensable work for anyone involved in media studies or practice.
The point here is that to be influential one doesn't need a large audience. One only has to motivate the right people - people who will take an idea they find somewhere and use it to build something significant. In a medium such as this, where the interaction is as important as the content, often small is better. There are substacks with thousands of subscribers, and when you look at the comments on a particular article they often number in the hundreds. Who has time to read all that? You just get lost in the noise. I avoid those kinds of sites and focus more on the smaller efforts where the author is willing to engage. It then becomes a collaborative process - part of an informal network rather than a strict hierarchy, which the more popular sites tend towards.
I would love to subscribe but I'm literally penniless...the content is great - and although I said I lprefer the ME - I like everything and the length of the articles I heard Col Wilkerson give his talk and it was good and he did an interview the same day with Judge Napolitano which was also good - here - https://youtu.be/WEcV4jt0Us0 which i thought was very worthwhile listening to as well. The first article about the huge unelected power of the EU and that witch in charge van der leyen - was excellent - but the European countries are free to leave I think - I'm thinking Hugary and Slovenia will leave soon.
Hi Ann,
No worries. You don't even need to pledge. I have not even activated the function to collect money! :) It's only free subscription. All my articles are and will always be free.
Check out my philosophy and line of thought in the About section: https://geopolitiq.substack.com/about
Hi Ismaele - thanks for that, although the little description doesn't say much about you - do you have a website as well ? The english translations of Italian were perfect - you certainly are more highly educated than this reader !!
No, no website and I prefer staying anonymous.