“Blows below the belt.” The favorite methods used by power to eliminate opponents.

In the world of information, truth is not always the first casualty—it is often the first tool to be distorted. “Blows below the belt” do not reveal character; they reveal intent. The reader’s responsibility is to distinguish fact from agenda.

Diotima, today we return to our topic with the “dirty” title: “Blows below the belt.” The favorite methods used by power to eliminate opponents.

A “blow below the belt” is one aimed at the genitals—highly dangerous, striking the most sensitive part of the male body. In boxing, it is considered “dirty,” treacherous, and unethical. From there, the phrase has been widely adopted metaphorically across many aspects of life.

The far right, among its many weapons, places at the top of its arsenal the poisonous, destructive arrow of homophobia. At least, that is how its proponents perceive it—mindless as they are (professionally and habitually). On the opposite side stand those with even a grain of reason, who recognize that each person chooses their own path in their sexual life, and that there should be no condemnation unless it turns into sexism or propaganda.

The worthy representatives of this far right, which often reaches the very edges—or even the horrific caves—of Nazism, as in our unfortunate times with the “great leaders” of the age, Trump and Putin, among their other “virtues,” display a certain macho bravado. They exude crude masculinity, reflected in their known and unknown exploits of unrestrained sexism—so long as it involves fresh female flesh.

The same—and worse—applies in the dark burrows of extreme Islam. Here, masculinity reeks even more intensely. Let us recall the infamous jihadists in Raqqa a few years ago. These did not only display severed heads; they also zealously adopted Nazi-style punishments for homosexuals. Only instead of gas chambers, they threw them off rooftops, bound to chairs, hands tied behind their backs. The abyss of the disturbed human mind! As are brutality and inhumanity, always accompanying folly and deep ignorance.

Returning to the American Trump and his Russian friend and like-minded counterpart Putin, we should note this: homophobia has long been deeply embedded in the cultures of both these worlds. Different, as their leaders proclaim with pride—but in essence, remarkably similar societies.

Thus, it should not be seen as unlikely but rather expected that the American president, among other traits a chauvinist, has reached this point. So now, the future religious leader of Iran is labeled homosexual. A classic “blow below the belt.” Trump’s arrows, via a planted publication in the conservative tabloid New York Post, target the sexual choices of the Iranian figure—choices that, of course, no one truly knows to be real and which, except for Trump, should not concern anyone. This is Americanism of the lowest kind.

However, to be fair and accurate—as servants in the Temple of History—we must note that even Sweden, often cited as a model “rule of law” state, is not innocent of such tactics. Let us recall that a few years ago, the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, who exposed the dirty American game on the global chessboard with tons of documentary evidence, was accused in that European country—surely at the behest of its allied superpower—of rape and other sexual offenses against two women in Stockholm in 2010. His subsequent ordeal is well known: confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy and later imprisonment in British jails.

For governments across the world, dirty warfare on a personal level, if it serves interests and propaganda, is not only real but justified and common. “Blows below the belt” are in high demand among methods of moral annihilation used by state power.

Let us note, in closing, that history has shown how such tactics—fabrications or unjust accusations, often related to terrorism or “moral” misconduct—are far more dangerous and effective. In such attacks, the opponent is completely exposed, with no real means of defense—let alone the ability to respond with equal force.

It is now time for Diotima to examine and analyze these beloved methods of human devouring in the “angelically made world” of commercial journalism, as well as in the dark offices of state intelligence services.

Your text raises a real and enduring issue: the use of “blows below the belt” as tools of political and communicative elimination. I will approach its key points in a more analytical and balanced way.

1. Meaning of “blow below the belt”

In politics and media, this refers to:

• personal attacks instead of substantive critique

• spreading rumors or unverified claims

• targeting sensitive areas: sexuality, family, health, morality

It works because it triggers strong emotions and shifts attention away from facts.

2. Homophobia as a political weapon

Sexuality has often been used as a tool of stigmatization:

• especially in conservative or authoritarian contexts

• truth is secondary; impact is what matters

This is not limited to one ideology or region—it appears globally.

3. The tabloid factor

Publications like tabloids often:

• publish unverified claims

• are used selectively by political actors

• aim to shape impressions rather than inform

Such claims should be treated cautiously unless independently verified.

The case is complex:

• accusations were made in Sweden (2010)

• no final conviction occurred

Interpretations differ:

• some see political motivation

• others see a standard legal process

There is no definitive proof of conspiracy, but it illustrates how legal accusations can intersect with geopolitics.

5. Media and state mechanisms

These include:

• selective leaks

• character assassination

• narrative framing

Both states and media can participate in these processes.

6. Key conclusion

When conflict shifts to personal life:

• defense becomes extremely difficult

• reputational damage is immediate

• denial rarely erases the accusation

Final thought

“Blows below the belt” are not exceptions but structural elements of political conflict. The best defense is critical thinking and skepticism toward convenient “revelations.”