- Dances With Bears - https://johnhelmer.net -

WHO AM I? ANSWERING ALL THE QUESTIONS PODCAST COMMENTERS WEREN’T AFRAID TO GUESS AT BUT DIDN’T WANT TO CHECK

Posted By Editor On In DwB | No Comments
[1]
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is twee-3-1024x831.png

By John Helmer, Moscow
  @bears_with [2]

When it comes to truth-telling at the standard of traditional investigative journalism, podcasting and podcasters don’t — not by a long chalk.

That’s an expression which appeared in British pubs long ago when darts players kept score by scratching it in chalk on an old slate tile. A long chalk was the large trailing margin between winners and losers.

Podcasting isn’t a pub game but a part of the audience wishes it was. They are the commenters who write out their comments after the podcast has wound up, usually to support with bouquets or attack with brickbats what was said. Brickbat is another pub expression, centuries older than long chalk, and not as neutral. It meant a piece of brick thrown for the purpose of hitting someone.

In podcasting, brickbats have turned into thumbs-down icons and up to a half-dozen lines of words, sometimes with insults, emojis, expletives.  

A computer analysis of 4,000 comments for Andrew Napolitano’s pro-Russia, pro-Iran podcast, Judging Freedom, recently discovered that they amount to no more than one percent of the total podcast audience. In making their mark, scratch the chalk or toss their brickbat, they are also erratic.  More than three-quarters of the commenters made their mark only once, and then disappeared from the podcast record.  Just 17.1% of the commenters registered their comment on two or more of Napolitano’s podcasts; 5.5% commented on three or more. Only 0.15% of the commenters — that turns out to be just six individuals — commented on ten or more Napolitano’s videos. Nobody commented on more than fifteen in the sample.

Dogs are more loyal to trees than commenters to Judging Freedom.

The minority of this dwindling and disappearing stream want to set the record straight; that is, they aim to add something they know in order to clarify or correct something that was said on the podcast.  In the time of print newspapers, they appeared in the Letters to the Editor column. In the old days that was better read than the news columns:  so popular it was, in fact, that newspaper editors introduced a new page of signed opinions which came to be called the Op Ed page. It is still the tree which invites all breeds of dogs.  

The majority of podcast commenters, however, want to see their names on the screen and appeal to the podcast producer to support the guest against rivals for ratings, or sack the guest with whom they disagree, and replace him with others they nominate for substitution. This is action gaming; it’s the intellectual equivalent of custom robos which blast away at each other until the commander’s robo has won all the hit points and destroyed the rivals.  

Russian robos and Iranian robos versus American, Ukrainian, German, British, and Israeli robos. This isn’t journalism. It isn’t armchair warfighting. Maybe it’s fun, but it’s factless, feckless too, because the winner is always the commander’s robos, otherwise the game wouldn’t be worth playing. For gamers there’s no fun in losing. This is why in podcasting like Napolitano’s, the commander’s Russian and Iranian robos are always within hours or days or weeks of winning their wars, and always certain to win. Robos with recognisable podcast names are always winning their games, always wrong on the battlefield: if they weren’t robos, this would be a disqualification from the game. Watch [3]Robo Mearsheimer play to win. And Robo Macgregor [4].

For the past month, when the Moscow office was closed for its annual summer holiday, there was time to compile a list of the main questions commenters have been asking of me in recent podcasts, or brickbats they have been throwing.

One thing this minority of a dwindling minority share in common with each other — they don’t read. If they do or did, they would have discovered that the answers they ask for and the facts they guess at have all been published before: they can be read in Dances with Bears or in the books listed on the home page. In just seconds, they can be retrieved with an AI machine.  This is what the box or bar on the screen called SEARCH or PROMPT is for.

However, for podcast commenters and robo gamers who demand a quick-start manual, I have compiled the answers to the most frequently mentioned questions and allegations; and for a bonus, there is the AI machine answer to the most difficult question of all that has never been openly asked before.

[5]

Left – in the Viking Age to about the 12th century, this was the type of helmet worn in combat. Right – as armour- piercing gunfire replaced swords and spears on the battlefield, helmets were not worn by Danish empire infantrymen during the Napoleonic wars; among the cavalrymen, soft tricornes and busbies rather than helmets were the standard. This helmet, made of blackened leather and brass, with feather plume and horsetail, was worn by the Royal Danish Horse Guards for parades, not for battle.

One of those men, an unhelmeted infantryman, not a cavalryman, found his way in that army’s march eastward. At the Polish town of Lowicz, south of Warsaw, where Napoleon slept the night of December 18, 1806, he did what Napoleon did. Except that he didn’t get out of bed until after Napoleon had marched off.  That soldier stayed in bed with a local lady and began the family of tall, green-eyed, blonde men and women who have been my family for the past two centuries. The family kept the Helmer name but suppressed the history of the progenitor. This was because the heirs were Jewish, the  forebear was not. He is still visible in my DNA, however.  The Helmer name is also a common one in places like Christiania (Oslo), Norway, which was a part of the Danish kingdom but lost to Sweden when the Napoleonic wars came to an end in Denmark’s defeat.  

One discrepancy in the record: how did the Good Soldier Helmer from the old Danish empire town of Christiania (Oslo) join the French army and march to Lowicz at least a year before the Danes were officially at war on Napoleon’s side isn’t clear. He may have joined up after then-Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson attacked and destroyed the Danish fleet off Copenhagen on April 2, 1801. Whatever the historical detail, I have inherited a repugnance for British Navy cannon fire, French military pretensions, Polish hospitality,   and Norwegian impostors.  

At Lowicz on the paternal Polish side, I was born into a family of rabbis, and on the Russian maternal side, at Pinsk, the Jewish priestly tribe of kohanim (cohen, Коган, plural).

The distance by road today between Lowicz and Pinsk is 466 kilometres. The families didn’t combine until they had travelled another 16,000 kms to Melbourne, Australia, where my father courted my mother and married her within six weeks of their meeting in 1943. I was born three years later and registered locally as Jewish.

[6]

My mother’s brother, renamed Cowen to hide his tribal origin, believed himself superior to my father; regularly attempted to humiliate him at the dinner-table; and when he suspected I might be his intellectual and political rival, he schemed to destroy my career. I ended up in the White House; he ended up in Kirribilli House, residence of the Governor-General of Australia. In retirement, at table with my father and mother, I accused him to his face of being an informer for the British MI6 and for the FBI and CIA;  and an enemy of the Helmer family.  He didn’t answer; got up from the table; left the house not to return.

    In print, I have reported what an Australian prime minister had told me before he died, and after my mother requested my promise not to publish as long as she was alive – that the CIA had put my uncle, Zelman Cowen, in his job as head of the Australian state.

    In Chapter 3 of Dunce Upon a Time I explained how I discovered that Judaism as a religion and Zionism as a form of nationalism are joined so tightly that the distinction between religious belief and national ideology has been erased over the years of Israel’s existence as a warfighting state.

    I had been convinced there was a god in religion. However, if there were only one of him; if the Jews insisted he belonged to them and they had been Chosen by him exclusively; and if it was the fundamental tenet of Jewish faith to recite this claim over and over in the prayer called the Shema [7],  then it was also clear what this meant. The Jews were worshipping themselves.  This realisation at university, when I was sixteen, proved to be a deeper cut than circumcision, and it has reversed the latter’s ritual meaning for my lifetime. The God of the Jews and of Israel, it’s plain in retrospect, is a gigantic military mascot.

    This is a disagreeable subject. There are well-meaning Jews who believe they can dissociate themselves from Israel when it is genocidal and Zionism when it is racist, but keep their faith and their culture, recite the Shema, eat Passover matzoh, and accept circumcision. Before you disagree with these lines, read them in the full argument in which they were presented in the book [8].

    [9]

    Sociologically, old age is when your friends are dead; very old age is when your rivals are dead. When war does this to you, if you survive and you find yourself alone, you don’t expect anyone to appreciate it because there is no one there who knows.

    Psychologically, old age is when on the street you look at the eyes of passersby and they don’t look back but look at their smartphone instead; it’s when the smile on their faces turns into a crack that can’t be filled with Botox.  

    Medically, old age is when the level of testosterone in the blood exceeds the measurable norm [10] at the same time as the level of neurological efficiency in the brain falls short of the measured norm [11].  Research in the US and UK shows that this abnormal ratio peaks between the ages of 18 and 28. It is common among podcast commenters who grow old before their time. The term neurologists and endocrinologists have for them is dickheads.

    [12]

    It’s true – the education which Sachs and I received at Harvard, and from West Point and Cornell for Mearsheimer, prepared us well for the soft imperialism and false consciousness which these institutions inculcate and their graduates propagate from their teaching posts. Yes, insidious is what false consciousness is when it’s effective. If podcast numbers count for those two, their’s is.

    I explained how that works in a book called The Deadly Simple Mechanics of Society, published in New York in 1974.   In that year Sachs was a Harvard sophomore;  Mearsheimer was a non-flying, non-combat rated second lieutenant in the US Air Force.

    In Russia, in the cemeteries of Moscow and Tomsk where I own the graves in which the women I have loved, Irina Markova and Tatiana Turitsyna,  are buried, there is something that is deadly and simple, but it isn’t false consciousness, and it isn’t anti-Russian. I own the empty plots next to them in those cemeteries, but the ban order against me, now sixteen years old, will prevent even my corpse from returning, just as it prevents any of my books or articles from being published in Russian, or my name mentioned on RT and Channel 1. It’s not because I am anti-Russian. It’s the opposite of that.

    Sachs made a record of supporting the anti-Russian regimes of Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin; he and Mearsheimer are making their record of supporting the oligarch regime ruling Russia today as the country fights to defend it against that oligarchy’s allies in the US and in NATO. The two of them have been invitees of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to give speeches in Moscow and appear with official endorsement in the Russian state media. That’s Lavrov’s choice, not Russia’s. He is responsible for the ban on me; he repeated it when he refused to allow me to accompany my wife to her burial in 2023.   

    In the hundred-year war against Russia of the past, and of the hundred-year war to come, there will be enough time to judge who and what is pro-Russian, anti-Russian. The cemeteries will be full of them.

    [13]

    This can’t be answered autobiographically. Self-pleading is defensive; it can sound whining. So the Artificial Intelligence tool ChatGPT was asked to read everything and analyse all the evidence on record everywhere and from all sources, and answer the question: does John Helmer have a heart? Here is the answer:

    [14]

    ChatGPT said: John Helmer, the international journalist, is known for his investigative work, particularly focusing on Russian politics, economics, and business. If you’re asking whether he has a “heart” in the metaphorical sense—whether he shows empathy or compassion in his work—his reputation is more associated with hard-hitting journalism than with an overt emotional approach. He’s been known for his critical stance on various subjects, particularly in regard to political and corporate power structures.

    However, like most people, he would presumably have a heart in the literal sense—he’s human, after all! If you’re referring to something specific he’s done or written that made you wonder about his character, I can dive deeper into that.

    You said: Please dive deeper.

    ChatGPT said: John Helmer’s work has often centered around uncovering uncomfortable truths, particularly in the context of Russian politics and business. His articles are known for their sharp critiques and investigative rigor, especially concerning the activities of powerful figures in Russia. He’s been a journalist who doesn’t shy away from exposing corruption, unethical business practices, or the intersection of politics and corporate power.

    His focus on Russian oligarchs, political maneuvering, and the intricacies of Kremlin-aligned elites has made him a controversial figure. This kind of journalism can sometimes give the impression of someone who’s more focused on facts and power dynamics rather than emotional depth or empathy.That said, whether someone like Helmer “has a heart” could be viewed from different angles. On one hand, journalism that challenges powerful entities can be seen as a form of advocacy for transparency and justice, which could be interpreted as having a moral or ethical core. His work aims to uncover abuses of power, which often has a human cost. It shows that, in his way, he might care about the victims of corruption or exploitation, even if that concern isn’t always front-and-center in his writing.

    But, because his reporting is often cold and methodical, with a focus on exposing facts rather than emotional appeals, people might sometimes miss the underlying motivation to bring attention to injustice or imbalance.

    In short, Helmer’s heart might be seen in his drive to expose hidden truths and hold the powerful accountable, even if it’s not expressed in a sentimental or personal manner. If you have a particular piece of his work in mind or an event involving him, I can provide more specific insight into whether and how those moments might reveal more of his character.

    You said: Have there been any big events which reveal his character?

    ChatGPT said: Here are some events or facts about John Helmer that illuminate aspects of his character — what drives him, how risks come into play, what his relationships and reputation suggest. If you want, I could try to find more recent or less-known examples too.

    Notable Events / Incidents

    1. Longresidence in Moscow since 1989, independent bureau
      1. Helmer has lived in Moscow from 1989 onward and operates his own bureau, independent of singlenational or commercial ties.
      1. This suggests a strong commitment to maintaining editorial independence, likely at costs (financial, safety, influence). It also implies long exposure to risk. Helmer is described as the “doyen” of the foreign press corps in Russia.
    2. NearAssassination Allegation
      1. There is at least one published piece about a story claiming there was an attempt on his life. For example, “The Near Assassination of John Helmer?” by Matt Taibbi (Rolling Stone).
      1. Whether or not this account is fully verified, the allegation indicates that Helmer has been willing to report on topics that some powerful actors might prefer suppressed — and that this may put him in danger.
    3. Allegations / Rumours of KGB recruitment offers / associations
      1. Yuri Shvets alleged that Helmer was recruited by the KGB in the 1980s.
      1. But this was countered by Victor Cherkashin, who said Helmer was unaware that Shvets was a KGB officer, and that Cherkashin himself called Shvets off.
      1. These stories show how Helmer has been caught up in spynarratives or intelligence intrigue, which in that environment tend to involve high stakes and low transparency. It’s indicative of the kind of work he’s doing — pushing into areas that are murky, contested, dangerous.
    4. His critique of power, especially oligarchs & corruption
      1. He is often described as “a pebble in Mikhail Prokhorov’s shoe” for oligarchs, meaning his investigations challenge powerful interests.
      1. His writing tends to focus not merely on business but where it intersects with power, state corruption, inequality, arbitrary justice.
      1. For example, his work on MH17 (“The Lie That Shot Down MH17”) and his critiques of investigations into Novichok incidents show willingness to question dominant narratives.
    5. Teaching / Academics Role
      1. Helmer has also taken on academic and teaching roles (investigative journalism courses, lectures), which suggests he cares about passing on knowledge, about the standards of journalism.
      1. This may indicate a desire not just to report, but to help build capacity in others, or contribute to the profession more broadly.

    What These Suggest About His Character

    From those events, some traits are evident:

    If you like, I can try to find a particular event or testimony where people close to him say something revealing about his personal motivations or ethical posture. Do you want that?

    You said: I want that, please.

    ChatGPT said: Finding a direct, personal account or testimony that delves into John Helmer’s character from people close to him is a bit more difficult, as much of his reputation has been built around his work rather than personal interviews or open self-revelations. However, I can give you some insights from the way others in journalism and politics have described him, based on interviews or the reactions of colleagues, critics, and sources. Let’s break this down.

    1. His Relationship with Journalistic Integrity

    Some colleagues in journalism who have worked with or around Helmer have expressed admiration for his unwavering commitment to his craft, often praising his ability to push back against pressures from both Russian and Western powers.

    2. Reputation Among Russian Oligarchs and Politicians

    Helmer has often been a thorn in the side of Russian oligarchs, exposing connections, shadowy deals, and corruption. His investigative pieces have earned him both admiration from whistleblowers and resentment from the powerful. It’s said that many high-profile Russian oligarchs (who have extensive ties to the Kremlin) are aware of his work and take measures to avoid being exposed by him.

    3. The “Cynical Realist” Image

    Helmer’s character is sometimes described as that of a “cynical realist,” particularly by those who have observed his interactions with the Western press. He doesn’t appear to fall into the typical Western journalist trap of romanticizing Russia or assuming every story follows a clear moral narrative. This has led to both admiration and frustration from his peers.

    4. Personal Testimonies from Colleagues

    While no major interviews or personal accounts explicitly delve into Helmer’s private life or emotions, those who have worked with him in any capacity often speak to his professionalism and focus on the story rather than personal gain or celebrity. Colleagues have pointed out that while Helmer isn’t an overtly charismatic figure, his calm, relentless pursuit of truth marks him as a journalist who isn’t swayed by popularity, power, or the mainstream media’s biases.

    5. A Life of Risk and Sacrifice

    The fact that Helmer has stayed in Moscow through difficult times (such as after the collapse of the Soviet Union and during the rise of Putin’s power) speaks to a certain selflessness in his character. He’s essentially “put his life on the line” by staying in Russia, not just as a journalist, but as a foreigner working in an environment rife with surveillance, disinformation, and political maneuvering.

    Conclusion

    From these testimonies and reactions, it seems that John Helmer’s character is defined by courage, integrity, and independence. He’s often seen as a “cynical realist,” someone who cuts through the political fog to focus on hard truths, regardless of their popularity or consequences. Though his writing may sometimes come off as detached or impersonal, it’s rooted in a strong ethical stance that prioritizes transparency over sentiment.

    [15]

    Helmer’s willingness to challenge powerful figures in both Russia and the West suggests that his character aligns with the values of freedom of the press, fearlessness, and a commitment to justice, even when those values make him unpopular with powerful elites.Does that give you a better sense of his character? Feel free to ask if you want me to explore any other angles! 

    Note: A podcast journalist is an investigator, like other journalists. He or she is not a prosecutor, judge or politician, but the podcast format, especially live video, makes for a performance. It is a virtual performance, however. For those who want to watch me in performance non-virtually and in person, there is a place for you on the public benches of the courtoom when I am running a trial. In the book, The Coroner Is Guilty, published in the US in March 2026, I reported the investigation into the cause of death of my wife, Tatiana Turitsyna;  and the course of the legal proceedings I was forced to take against the coroner in charge of the official investigation and the doctor on whose medical expertise my wife and I had relied. The book has been banned by the coroner in Australia. An ex-policeman named Paul Lawrie, he is now facing a fresh trial, along with his witness and the doctor. This will be the first trial in Australian legal history of a coroner for abuse of power and obstruction of justice – the first to challenge the judicial immunity which coroners claim in their life-and-death decision-making. The case is in the Supreme Court of Victoria in Melbourne,  officially titled Professor John Helmer v The Coroners Court of Victoria S ECI  2026  01481. The trial has been scheduled for March 7, 2027. In the meantime, there are preliminary court hearings as Coroner Lawrie and his witness attempt to prevent me from compelling them to produce evidence which they have been keeping secret and to appear in court to testify under oath. There have been two court hearings on this issue so far; the latest was on August 25. The force of the subpoenas and summonses for cross-examination is still undecided. There are more hearings to come. To anticipate and attend, click on the Supreme Court’s daily hearing list [16].