Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Mr Pool “3 4 c a 0 3 a a” 6/27/2020 Hash deciphers to: "𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘺: 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘬, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘶𝘴"

Stevie 🔮 $XRP

15,728 subscribers

24,857 views • 3 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Comedy Education

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐁𝐄𝐒𝐓 𝐁𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐊𝐃𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐎𝐅 𝐂𝐀𝐏𝐈𝐓𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐕𝐒. 𝐒𝐎𝐂𝐈𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐕𝐒. 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐌𝐔𝐍𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐘𝐎𝐔’𝐋𝐋 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐇𝐄𝐀𝐑 This creator explained the difference using YouTube—and it’s brilliant. 𝐂𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦: “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘢 𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘛𝘶𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘶𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦.” 𝐒𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦: “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘱𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘴, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘰 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘶𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘴 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱.” 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵.” Then the key insight: “𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘴.” He nailed how they sell it: “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭—𝘪𝘵’𝘴 ’𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦.’ 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯—𝘪𝘵’𝘴 ’𝘱𝘢𝘺 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦.’ 𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘵, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘰𝘳.” A 2024 poll found 𝟒𝟒% 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐞𝐧 𝐙 viewed socialism favorably—until they were told what it actually means (Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation). 𝐂𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐚 𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐞.

𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐁𝐄𝐒𝐓 𝐁𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐊𝐃𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐎𝐅 𝐂𝐀𝐏𝐈𝐓𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐕𝐒. 𝐒𝐎𝐂𝐈𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐕𝐒. 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐌𝐔𝐍𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐘𝐎𝐔’𝐋𝐋 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐇𝐄𝐀𝐑 This creator explained the difference using YouTube—and it’s brilliant. 𝐂𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦: “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘢 𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘛𝘶𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘶𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦.” 𝐒𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦: “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘱𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘴, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘰 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘶𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘴 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱.” 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵.” Then the key insight: “𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘴.” He nailed how they sell it: “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭—𝘪𝘵’𝘴 ’𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦.’ 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯—𝘪𝘵’𝘴 ’𝘱𝘢𝘺 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦.’ 𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘵, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘰𝘳.” A 2024 poll found 𝟒𝟒% 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐞𝐧 𝐙 viewed socialism favorably—until they were told what it actually means (Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation). 𝐂𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐚 𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐞.

M.A. Rothman

75,733 views • 5 months ago

𝐆𝐑𝐄𝐆 𝐆𝐔𝐓𝐅𝐄𝐋𝐃 𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐀𝐋𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐎𝐍𝐄-𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐃 𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐒𝐇𝐔𝐓𝐒 𝐃𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐂𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐂: “𝐒𝐎?” Greg Gutfeld just handed Trump supporters the only word they’ll ever need. “𝘏𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘚𝘰. 𝘏𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍-𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵. 𝘚𝘰. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘕. 𝘚𝘰. 𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵” Gutfeld laid out the fundamental disconnect: “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘴. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘺 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥. 𝘓𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘺𝘭𝘦” Then the analogy that nailed it: “𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘸𝘰-𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘮𝘱𝘺, 𝘯𝘰𝘪𝘴𝘺. 𝘔𝘢𝘺𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈.𝘊. 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘵. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘪𝘵” Gutfeld also posed the question Democrats will never answer: “𝘞𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥? 𝘞𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘵𝘩? 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘋𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵?” His diagnosis of Trump’s method was the most precise anyone has offered: “𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱’𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘰𝘴. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘹 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘵, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘬, 𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘰𝘴” The critics see the chaos and panic. The results-oriented see the 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 — and the pattern keeps working. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐅-𝐛𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐲𝐥𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝: 𝐒𝐨?

𝐆𝐑𝐄𝐆 𝐆𝐔𝐓𝐅𝐄𝐋𝐃 𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐀𝐋𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐎𝐍𝐄-𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐃 𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐒𝐇𝐔𝐓𝐒 𝐃𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐂𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐂: “𝐒𝐎?” Greg Gutfeld just handed Trump supporters the only word they’ll ever need. “𝘏𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘚𝘰. 𝘏𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍-𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵. 𝘚𝘰. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘕. 𝘚𝘰. 𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵” Gutfeld laid out the fundamental disconnect: “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘴. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘺 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥. 𝘓𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘺𝘭𝘦” Then the analogy that nailed it: “𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘸𝘰-𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘮𝘱𝘺, 𝘯𝘰𝘪𝘴𝘺. 𝘔𝘢𝘺𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈.𝘊. 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘵. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘪𝘵” Gutfeld also posed the question Democrats will never answer: “𝘞𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥? 𝘞𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘵𝘩? 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘋𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵?” His diagnosis of Trump’s method was the most precise anyone has offered: “𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱’𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘰𝘴. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘹 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘵, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘬, 𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘰𝘴” The critics see the chaos and panic. The results-oriented see the 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 — and the pattern keeps working. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐅-𝐛𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐲𝐥𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝: 𝐒𝐨?

M.A. Rothman

23,602 views • 5 months ago

𝐊𝐓 𝐌𝐜𝐅𝐀𝐑𝐋𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐀𝐋𝐒 𝐇𝐎𝐖 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐑𝐔𝐍𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐒𝐈𝐓𝐔𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐑𝐎𝐎𝐌: “𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐀𝐊𝐄𝐒 𝐀 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐈𝐒𝐈𝐎𝐍” KT McFarland has been in Situation Room briefings with Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Trump. She just explained why Trump is different from all of them. “𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘙𝘰𝘰𝘮—𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘋𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳” Not Trump. “𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘰, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘺—𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 27 𝘢𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮, 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴” And the part that rattles every bureaucrat in Washington: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘮, 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘱𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘳, 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘴, 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘶𝘱𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦’𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘰𝘧” This isn’t speculation — it’s exactly what happened during the Iran operation. The final Situation Room meeting was 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐤𝐞𝐩𝐭 𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐬 (Time). Trump asked each adviser for their view, then made the call himself: “𝐈 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐰𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐨 𝐢𝐭”. The VP was kept in a separate Situation Room per 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐲-𝐨𝐟-𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐨𝐜𝐨𝐥 (Time). McFarland’s bottom line: “𝘈𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘐’𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵, 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴, 𝘰𝘳 𝘐’𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶” 𝐎𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬. 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟒 𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬.

𝐊𝐓 𝐌𝐜𝐅𝐀𝐑𝐋𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐀𝐋𝐒 𝐇𝐎𝐖 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐑𝐔𝐍𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐒𝐈𝐓𝐔𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐑𝐎𝐎𝐌: “𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐀𝐊𝐄𝐒 𝐀 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐈𝐒𝐈𝐎𝐍” KT McFarland has been in Situation Room briefings with Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Trump. She just explained why Trump is different from all of them. “𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘙𝘰𝘰𝘮—𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘋𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳” Not Trump. “𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘰, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘺—𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 27 𝘢𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮, 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴” And the part that rattles every bureaucrat in Washington: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘮, 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘱𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘳, 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘴, 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘶𝘱𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦’𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘰𝘧” This isn’t speculation — it’s exactly what happened during the Iran operation. The final Situation Room meeting was 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐤𝐞𝐩𝐭 𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐬 (Time). Trump asked each adviser for their view, then made the call himself: “𝐈 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐰𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐨 𝐢𝐭”. The VP was kept in a separate Situation Room per 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐲-𝐨𝐟-𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐨𝐜𝐨𝐥 (Time). McFarland’s bottom line: “𝘈𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘐’𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵, 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴, 𝘰𝘳 𝘐’𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶” 𝐎𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬. 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟒 𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬.

M.A. Rothman

37,384 views • 5 months ago

𝐌𝐊 (𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲) 𝐆𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞(𝐬) 𝐒𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝? Nkosi Dlamini: MK was disbanded in 1993, without informing its leaders, specifically Chris Hani. He was not informed. That never sat well with us. We stuck around, hopeful, but it turned out we were being disbanded, abandoned. You look at the branches of the ANC, we are not recognized. We are not deployed. 𝘍𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘰, 𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘕𝘊 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘢 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯. [𝘈𝘯𝘥] 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘞𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯… 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬, 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘯’𝘵 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘭𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 — 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘭, 𝘪𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘱. 𝘉𝘺 𝘴𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘕𝘊 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯… 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘔𝘒 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘭𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 (𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩) 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘭𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘕𝘊, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘥𝘰/𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦; 𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘴𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘦𝘥 (𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰) 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺. 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘯𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬. 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘕𝘊 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 1912, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥; 𝘣𝘶𝘵… 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 (𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦) 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴; 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺, 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴/𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭 — 𝘓𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯, 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦… 𝘔𝘒 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘑𝘢𝘤𝘰𝘣 𝘡𝘶𝘮𝘢. 𝘈 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴/𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴, 𝘢𝘴 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘴. 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 — 𝘶𝘴, 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘴/𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴, 𝘢𝘴 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦… [𝘉𝘶𝘵] 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘝𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴/𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴, 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘺𝘪-𝘵𝘰𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘣𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘥𝘴, 𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨… 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴/𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥. 𝘜𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 🖇️

𝐌𝐊 (𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲) 𝐆𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞(𝐬) 𝐒𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝? Nkosi Dlamini: MK was disbanded in 1993, without informing its leaders, specifically Chris Hani. He was not informed. That never sat well with us. We stuck around, hopeful, but it turned out we were being disbanded, abandoned. You look at the branches of the ANC, we are not recognized. We are not deployed. 𝘍𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘰, 𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘕𝘊 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘢 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯. [𝘈𝘯𝘥] 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘞𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯… 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬, 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘯’𝘵 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘭𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 — 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘭, 𝘪𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘱. 𝘉𝘺 𝘴𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘕𝘊 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯… 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘔𝘒 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘭𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 (𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩) 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘭𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘕𝘊, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘥𝘰/𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦; 𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘴𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘦𝘥 (𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰) 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺. 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘯𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬. 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘕𝘊 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 1912, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥; 𝘣𝘶𝘵… 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 (𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦) 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴; 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺, 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴/𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭 — 𝘓𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯, 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦… 𝘔𝘒 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘑𝘢𝘤𝘰𝘣 𝘡𝘶𝘮𝘢. 𝘈 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴/𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴, 𝘢𝘴 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘴. 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 — 𝘶𝘴, 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘴/𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴, 𝘢𝘴 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦… [𝘉𝘶𝘵] 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘝𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴/𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴, 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘺𝘪-𝘵𝘰𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘣𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘥𝘴, 𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨… 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴/𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥. 𝘜𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 🖇️

Mr. Tshweu

89,644 views • 2 years ago

𝐃𝐎𝐔𝐆𝐋𝐀𝐒 𝐌𝐔𝐑𝐑𝐀𝐘: 𝟕𝟒% 𝐎𝐅 𝐍𝐄𝐖 𝐁𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐇 𝐉𝐎𝐁𝐒 𝐖𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐓𝐎 𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐈𝐆𝐍-𝐁𝐎𝐑𝐍 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊𝐄𝐑𝐒 — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐀𝐍𝐘𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐖𝐇𝐎 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐀𝐈𝐍𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐀 𝐍𝐄𝐎-𝐍𝐀𝐙𝐈 Douglas Murray just delivered one of his most devastating indictments of the UK political class — and the parallels to America are impossible to miss. The core number: since 2008, 𝟕𝟒% 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐣𝐨𝐛𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧. For 𝟐𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬, British voters have asked for reduced immigration every single election and been promised action. Instead, immigration went up. Murray’s question cuts to the bone: “𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦?” The answer, apparently, is nothing. “𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵, 𝘯𝘦𝘰-𝘯𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘴.” Murray pointed to a single man with a swastika tattoo being used to discredit entire movements: “𝘐𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵? 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵.” Then he exposed the double standard that no British politician will touch. When an imam is caught preaching violence in a mosque, “𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦.” But when working-class Brits protest mass stabbings and terrorism? The entire crowd gets labeled neo-Nazis. Murray’s framework for what’s happening is devastating in its simplicity: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦.” The primary problem is 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭. The secondary problem is public anger. Starmer’s government is obsessed with policing the anger while doing nothing about the cause. The same playbook runs in America. Call border enforcement racist. Label parents at school board meetings domestic terrorists. Smear anyone who questions the status quo as an extremist — then wonder why trust in institutions evaporates. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐠𝐨 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲. 𝐈𝐭 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞.

𝐃𝐎𝐔𝐆𝐋𝐀𝐒 𝐌𝐔𝐑𝐑𝐀𝐘: 𝟕𝟒% 𝐎𝐅 𝐍𝐄𝐖 𝐁𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐇 𝐉𝐎𝐁𝐒 𝐖𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐓𝐎 𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐈𝐆𝐍-𝐁𝐎𝐑𝐍 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊𝐄𝐑𝐒 — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐀𝐍𝐘𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐖𝐇𝐎 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐀𝐈𝐍𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐀 𝐍𝐄𝐎-𝐍𝐀𝐙𝐈 Douglas Murray just delivered one of his most devastating indictments of the UK political class — and the parallels to America are impossible to miss. The core number: since 2008, 𝟕𝟒% 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐣𝐨𝐛𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧. For 𝟐𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬, British voters have asked for reduced immigration every single election and been promised action. Instead, immigration went up. Murray’s question cuts to the bone: “𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦?” The answer, apparently, is nothing. “𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵, 𝘯𝘦𝘰-𝘯𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘴.” Murray pointed to a single man with a swastika tattoo being used to discredit entire movements: “𝘐𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵? 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵.” Then he exposed the double standard that no British politician will touch. When an imam is caught preaching violence in a mosque, “𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦.” But when working-class Brits protest mass stabbings and terrorism? The entire crowd gets labeled neo-Nazis. Murray’s framework for what’s happening is devastating in its simplicity: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦.” The primary problem is 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭. The secondary problem is public anger. Starmer’s government is obsessed with policing the anger while doing nothing about the cause. The same playbook runs in America. Call border enforcement racist. Label parents at school board meetings domestic terrorists. Smear anyone who questions the status quo as an extremist — then wonder why trust in institutions evaporates. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐠𝐨 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲. 𝐈𝐭 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞.

M.A. Rothman

48,897 views • 6 months ago

𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐎𝐑 𝐃𝐀𝐕𝐈𝐒 𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐎𝐍 𝐓𝐎 𝐄𝐔𝐑𝐎𝐏𝐄: “𝐎𝐇, 𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐖𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐔𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐆𝐎 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐎 𝐔𝐊𝐑𝐀𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐓𝐎 𝐃𝐄𝐅𝐄𝐍𝐃 𝐘𝐎𝐔? 𝐁𝐔𝐓 𝐔𝐊𝐑𝐀𝐈𝐍𝐄’𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐀 𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐎 𝐏𝐎𝐖𝐄𝐑. 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐁𝐋𝐄𝐌. 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐎𝐍 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐃𝐎𝐎𝐑𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐏. 𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐎 𝐃𝐎𝐄𝐒𝐍’𝐓 𝐌𝐄𝐀𝐍 𝐌𝐔𝐂𝐇 𝐀𝐍𝐘𝐌𝐎𝐑𝐄 — 𝐁𝐔𝐓 𝐖𝐄 𝐖𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐇𝐀𝐕𝐄 𝐀 𝐒𝐏𝐄𝐂𝐈𝐀𝐋 𝐑𝐄𝐋𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐇𝐈𝐏 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐇 𝐘𝐎𝐔.” In about 90 seconds, Victor Davis Hanson — classicist, military historian, Hoover Institution senior fellow — walked through the end of the 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭-𝟏𝟗𝟒𝟗 𝐀𝐭𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 and the beginning of what replaces it. He did it by ventriloquizing the exact conversation American leaders are no longer willing to have with European capitals. “𝘖𝘩, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘜𝘬𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶? 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘜𝘬𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘈𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦 5. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘱.” “𝘖𝘩, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘢? 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘶𝘱 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯? 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮 𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.” “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢, 𝘵𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘥? 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮. 𝘖𝘩, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘢𝘺? 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮 𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳.” Hanson is not being flip. He is describing a real shift in the American strategic posture. For 75 years, the deal was simple: 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬. Europe spent its peace dividend on 32-hour work weeks, free college, and a carbon regime that deindustrialized its own economy. Meanwhile 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝟏𝟏 𝐨𝐟 𝟑𝟐 𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐎 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 currently hit the agreed 𝟐% 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐃𝐏 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 floor (NATO Secretary General’s Annual Report, 2025). Germany spends 𝟏.𝟓𝟕%. Spain spends 𝟏.𝟐𝟖%. Italy spends 𝟏.𝟒𝟗%. And then European diplomats show up in Washington and ask where the American aircraft carriers are. Hanson’s prescription is not isolationism. It is the exact opposite: “𝘞𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯-𝘰𝘧-𝘵𝘩𝘦-𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱𝘴. 𝘞𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘻𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘸𝘦’𝘥 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘻𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵? 𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦.” In other words: 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐳𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬, 𝐏𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐠𝐚𝐥 — 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 get the American security umbrella. Germany, France, and Spain get to fund their own defense or talk to Moscow directly. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐭𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐝𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐤𝐞𝐩𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐝. 𝐏𝐚𝐲 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐤 𝐮𝐩 𝐚 𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐥𝐞.

𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐎𝐑 𝐃𝐀𝐕𝐈𝐒 𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐎𝐍 𝐓𝐎 𝐄𝐔𝐑𝐎𝐏𝐄: “𝐎𝐇, 𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐖𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐔𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐆𝐎 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐎 𝐔𝐊𝐑𝐀𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐓𝐎 𝐃𝐄𝐅𝐄𝐍𝐃 𝐘𝐎𝐔? 𝐁𝐔𝐓 𝐔𝐊𝐑𝐀𝐈𝐍𝐄’𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐀 𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐎 𝐏𝐎𝐖𝐄𝐑. 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐁𝐋𝐄𝐌. 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐎𝐍 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐃𝐎𝐎𝐑𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐏. 𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐎 𝐃𝐎𝐄𝐒𝐍’𝐓 𝐌𝐄𝐀𝐍 𝐌𝐔𝐂𝐇 𝐀𝐍𝐘𝐌𝐎𝐑𝐄 — 𝐁𝐔𝐓 𝐖𝐄 𝐖𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐇𝐀𝐕𝐄 𝐀 𝐒𝐏𝐄𝐂𝐈𝐀𝐋 𝐑𝐄𝐋𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐇𝐈𝐏 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐇 𝐘𝐎𝐔.” In about 90 seconds, Victor Davis Hanson — classicist, military historian, Hoover Institution senior fellow — walked through the end of the 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭-𝟏𝟗𝟒𝟗 𝐀𝐭𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 and the beginning of what replaces it. He did it by ventriloquizing the exact conversation American leaders are no longer willing to have with European capitals. “𝘖𝘩, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘜𝘬𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶? 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘜𝘬𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘈𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦 5. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘱.” “𝘖𝘩, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘢? 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘶𝘱 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯? 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮 𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.” “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢, 𝘵𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘥? 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮. 𝘖𝘩, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘢𝘺? 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮 𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳.” Hanson is not being flip. He is describing a real shift in the American strategic posture. For 75 years, the deal was simple: 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬. Europe spent its peace dividend on 32-hour work weeks, free college, and a carbon regime that deindustrialized its own economy. Meanwhile 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝟏𝟏 𝐨𝐟 𝟑𝟐 𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐎 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 currently hit the agreed 𝟐% 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐃𝐏 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 floor (NATO Secretary General’s Annual Report, 2025). Germany spends 𝟏.𝟓𝟕%. Spain spends 𝟏.𝟐𝟖%. Italy spends 𝟏.𝟒𝟗%. And then European diplomats show up in Washington and ask where the American aircraft carriers are. Hanson’s prescription is not isolationism. It is the exact opposite: “𝘞𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯-𝘰𝘧-𝘵𝘩𝘦-𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱𝘴. 𝘞𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘻𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘸𝘦’𝘥 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘻𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵? 𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦.” In other words: 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐳𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬, 𝐏𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐠𝐚𝐥 — 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 get the American security umbrella. Germany, France, and Spain get to fund their own defense or talk to Moscow directly. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐭𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐝𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐤𝐞𝐩𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐝. 𝐏𝐚𝐲 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐤 𝐮𝐩 𝐚 𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐥𝐞.

M.A. Rothman

84,850 views • 5 months ago

𝐊𝐄𝐌𝐈 𝐁𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐎𝐂𝐇 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐃𝐄𝐋𝐈𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐖𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐍 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐕𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐑 𝐇𝐀𝐒 𝐁𝐄𝐄𝐍 𝐃𝐎𝐃𝐆𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐀 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐀𝐃𝐄. An LBC caller asked Badenoch how a Muslim could trust the Conservative Party after Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy criticized mass Ramadan public prayer in Trafalgar Square as “an act of domination.” Badenoch did not duck. Her opening: 𝘔𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮. 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 50% 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮. 𝘐 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘍𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘭. 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮. Then the line: 𝘐𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮. Then the closer: 𝘐𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘤, 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵. British law over religious law. British culture over religious deference. The right to criticize ANY religion — Christianity, Islam, all of them — is a non-negotiable feature of a free society, not a privilege the majority granted to the minority. This is the Western mainstream conservative position. Badenoch — daughter of Nigerian immigrants, raised Christian, lived among Muslims her whole childhood — said it on national radio without hedging, without apologizing, and without softening it for the audience. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐚𝐲. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝘝𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 @𝘓𝘉𝘊.

𝐊𝐄𝐌𝐈 𝐁𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐎𝐂𝐇 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐃𝐄𝐋𝐈𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐖𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐍 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐕𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐑 𝐇𝐀𝐒 𝐁𝐄𝐄𝐍 𝐃𝐎𝐃𝐆𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐀 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐀𝐃𝐄. An LBC caller asked Badenoch how a Muslim could trust the Conservative Party after Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy criticized mass Ramadan public prayer in Trafalgar Square as “an act of domination.” Badenoch did not duck. Her opening: 𝘔𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮. 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 50% 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮. 𝘐 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘍𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘭. 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮. Then the line: 𝘐𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮. Then the closer: 𝘐𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘤, 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵. British law over religious law. British culture over religious deference. The right to criticize ANY religion — Christianity, Islam, all of them — is a non-negotiable feature of a free society, not a privilege the majority granted to the minority. This is the Western mainstream conservative position. Badenoch — daughter of Nigerian immigrants, raised Christian, lived among Muslims her whole childhood — said it on national radio without hedging, without apologizing, and without softening it for the audience. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐚𝐲. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝘝𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 @𝘓𝘉𝘊.

M.A. Rothman

711,212 views • 5 months ago

𝐁𝐋𝐔𝐄-𝐇𝐀𝐈𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐍𝐘𝐂 𝐆𝐔𝐘 𝐆𝐎𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐍𝐎 𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆𝐒 𝐑𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐘, 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐑𝐄 𝐌𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓, 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐋𝐀𝐑𝐄𝐒: “𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐈𝐒 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐄𝐓𝐄” This guy lives in Chelsea — one of the most liberal neighborhoods in Manhattan. He has blue hair. Everyone in his building kept asking him if he went to the No Kings rally. He politely said no. Then he turned on his camera and said what he really thinks. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘺𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵. He went further: 𝘐 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘪𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘯. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦. 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳 — 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦. On the rally itself: 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘐 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. Everyone in his neighborhood treated it like a social event — the cool thing to do in Chelsea. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘐 𝘨𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘐’𝘮 𝘢 𝘥𝘰𝘳𝘬. Then the line that says everything about where this country is heading: 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘣𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵-𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘥. 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦, 𝘐 𝘥𝘰. And then: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦. He acknowledged what he supports Trump on: 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐’𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘦. 𝘐 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵. His closing message to his blue-haired peers: 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵. And to conservatives watching: 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘶𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳. 𝘎𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵. 𝘚𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘰𝘵𝘺𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. Then Batya Ungar-Sargon weighed in with the analytical kill shot: 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦. 𝘖𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘺. 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘋𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘥 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘰𝘯. She pointed out the obvious: 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺. And then the best observation of all: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 — 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢 “𝘯𝘰 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴” 𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 — 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯’𝘴 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘪𝘵, 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘥, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘢𝘺. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵. 𝐀 𝐛𝐥𝐮𝐞-𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐠𝐮𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐂𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐂𝐍𝐍 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝.

𝐁𝐋𝐔𝐄-𝐇𝐀𝐈𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐍𝐘𝐂 𝐆𝐔𝐘 𝐆𝐎𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐍𝐎 𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆𝐒 𝐑𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐘, 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐑𝐄 𝐌𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓, 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐋𝐀𝐑𝐄𝐒: “𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐈𝐒 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐄𝐓𝐄” This guy lives in Chelsea — one of the most liberal neighborhoods in Manhattan. He has blue hair. Everyone in his building kept asking him if he went to the No Kings rally. He politely said no. Then he turned on his camera and said what he really thinks. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘺𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵. He went further: 𝘐 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘪𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘯. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦. 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳 — 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦. On the rally itself: 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘐 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. Everyone in his neighborhood treated it like a social event — the cool thing to do in Chelsea. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘐 𝘨𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘐’𝘮 𝘢 𝘥𝘰𝘳𝘬. Then the line that says everything about where this country is heading: 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘣𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵-𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘥. 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦, 𝘐 𝘥𝘰. And then: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦. He acknowledged what he supports Trump on: 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐’𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘦. 𝘐 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵. His closing message to his blue-haired peers: 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵. And to conservatives watching: 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘶𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳. 𝘎𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵. 𝘚𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘰𝘵𝘺𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. Then Batya Ungar-Sargon weighed in with the analytical kill shot: 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦. 𝘖𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘺. 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘋𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘥 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘰𝘯. She pointed out the obvious: 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺. And then the best observation of all: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 — 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢 “𝘯𝘰 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴” 𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 — 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯’𝘴 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘪𝘵, 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘥, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘢𝘺. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵. 𝐀 𝐛𝐥𝐮𝐞-𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐠𝐮𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐂𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐂𝐍𝐍 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝.

M.A. Rothman

188,056 views • 6 months ago

𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐍 𝐂𝐍𝐍 𝐂𝐀𝐍’𝐓 𝐒𝐏𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐎𝐍𝐄 — 𝐉𝐀𝐊𝐄 𝐓𝐀𝐏𝐏𝐄𝐑 𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐒 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏’𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐓 𝐓𝐎 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍 𝐋𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐎𝐍 𝐀𝐈𝐑 Jake Tapper, visibly uncomfortable, read Trump’s Truth Social post word for word on CNN — complete with a content warning for viewers: “𝘏𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘪𝘤 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘴, 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭, 𝘳𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘏𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘶𝘻, 𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘭. 𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘣𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘨𝘦.” Then Tapper read the quote: “𝘛𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘗𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘋𝘢𝘺, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘉𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘋𝘢𝘺, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘸𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘱 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘯𝘦, 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵. 𝘖𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧∗𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘵, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘻𝘺 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴, 𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘭. 𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘤𝘩.” Tapper immediately pivoted to the establishment caveat: “𝘞𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘢 𝘸𝘢𝘳 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘢𝘸, 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯’𝘴 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺.” There it is. CNN’s top anchor just read the most unfiltered presidential threat to a hostile nation in modern history — and his instinct was to 𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐚𝐰 while American pilots are being shot down and a US airman was just rescued from behind enemy lines. Iran is firing missiles at Israel, closing the Strait of Hormuz, and shooting down American jets — and CNN’s concern is whether Trump’s 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞 passes a Geneva Convention smell test. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧’𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲’𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐓𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐝𝐚𝐲.

𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐍 𝐂𝐍𝐍 𝐂𝐀𝐍’𝐓 𝐒𝐏𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐎𝐍𝐄 — 𝐉𝐀𝐊𝐄 𝐓𝐀𝐏𝐏𝐄𝐑 𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐒 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏’𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐓 𝐓𝐎 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍 𝐋𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐎𝐍 𝐀𝐈𝐑 Jake Tapper, visibly uncomfortable, read Trump’s Truth Social post word for word on CNN — complete with a content warning for viewers: “𝘏𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘪𝘤 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘴, 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭, 𝘳𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘏𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘶𝘻, 𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘭. 𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘣𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘨𝘦.” Then Tapper read the quote: “𝘛𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘗𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘋𝘢𝘺, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘉𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘋𝘢𝘺, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘸𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘱 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘯𝘦, 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵. 𝘖𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧∗𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘵, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘻𝘺 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴, 𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘭. 𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘤𝘩.” Tapper immediately pivoted to the establishment caveat: “𝘞𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘢 𝘸𝘢𝘳 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘢𝘸, 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯’𝘴 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺.” There it is. CNN’s top anchor just read the most unfiltered presidential threat to a hostile nation in modern history — and his instinct was to 𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐚𝐰 while American pilots are being shot down and a US airman was just rescued from behind enemy lines. Iran is firing missiles at Israel, closing the Strait of Hormuz, and shooting down American jets — and CNN’s concern is whether Trump’s 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞 passes a Geneva Convention smell test. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧’𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲’𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐓𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐝𝐚𝐲.

M.A. Rothman

100,843 views • 6 months ago

𝐔𝐅𝐂'𝐒 𝟑-𝐓𝐈𝐌𝐄 𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐌𝐏 𝐁𝐎 𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐊𝐀𝐋: “𝐖𝐄 𝐃𝐈𝐃𝐍'𝐓 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐄 𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐄 𝐓𝐎 𝐖𝐈𝐍, 𝐖𝐄 𝐂𝐀𝐌𝐄 𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐄 𝐓𝐎 𝐅𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐓” 𝐁𝐨 𝐍𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐚𝐥 didn't need to prove anything else this year. Three NCAA titles at Penn State under 𝐂𝐚𝐞𝐥 𝐒𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧—the coach who himself went 159-0 in college—and a 9-1 UFC record capped by a first-round TKO of Kyle Daukaus at UFC Freedom 250, fought on the White House lawn this June with President Trump ringside. Instead, this week he traded the octagon for a podium at the GOP's first-ever midterm convention in Dallas. He closed his remarks not with a highlight reel, but with a lesson from his coach's father. “𝘐'𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘦𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘲𝘶𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘮𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘸𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘵 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘯 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘊𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘚𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯. 𝘐𝘵'𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘢𝘥 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘨𝘰 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘺, 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘯, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵.” “𝘐 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦. 𝘐 𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘮𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘐 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘐'𝘮 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘐 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯'𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘯. 𝘐𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘵𝘩, 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦.” He closed it the only way a three-time national champion raised under one of the winningest coaches in college sports history could—with gratitude, not a trophy count: “𝘓𝘦𝘵'𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘥𝘢𝘺, 𝘧𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦. 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘭𝘭. 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢.” 𝐍𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐠𝐞. 𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦. Nickal went 3 for 3 at NCAAs under Cael Sanderson, who himself finished his own college career 159-0. Nickal is now 9-1 in the UFC after finishing Kyle Daukaus at UFC Freedom 250 on the White House lawn this June.

𝐔𝐅𝐂'𝐒 𝟑-𝐓𝐈𝐌𝐄 𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐌𝐏 𝐁𝐎 𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐊𝐀𝐋: “𝐖𝐄 𝐃𝐈𝐃𝐍'𝐓 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐄 𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐄 𝐓𝐎 𝐖𝐈𝐍, 𝐖𝐄 𝐂𝐀𝐌𝐄 𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐄 𝐓𝐎 𝐅𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐓” 𝐁𝐨 𝐍𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐚𝐥 didn't need to prove anything else this year. Three NCAA titles at Penn State under 𝐂𝐚𝐞𝐥 𝐒𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧—the coach who himself went 159-0 in college—and a 9-1 UFC record capped by a first-round TKO of Kyle Daukaus at UFC Freedom 250, fought on the White House lawn this June with President Trump ringside. Instead, this week he traded the octagon for a podium at the GOP's first-ever midterm convention in Dallas. He closed his remarks not with a highlight reel, but with a lesson from his coach's father. “𝘐'𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘦𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘲𝘶𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘮𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘸𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘵 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘯 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘊𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘚𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯. 𝘐𝘵'𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘢𝘥 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘨𝘰 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘺, 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘯, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵.” “𝘐 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦. 𝘐 𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘮𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘐 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘐'𝘮 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘐 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯'𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘯. 𝘐𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘵𝘩, 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦.” He closed it the only way a three-time national champion raised under one of the winningest coaches in college sports history could—with gratitude, not a trophy count: “𝘓𝘦𝘵'𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘥𝘢𝘺, 𝘧𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦. 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘭𝘭. 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢.” 𝐍𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐠𝐞. 𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦. Nickal went 3 for 3 at NCAAs under Cael Sanderson, who himself finished his own college career 159-0. Nickal is now 9-1 in the UFC after finishing Kyle Daukaus at UFC Freedom 250 on the White House lawn this June.

M.A. Rothman

11,545 views • 24 days ago

𝐄𝐔𝐑𝐎𝐏𝐄 𝐈𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐖 𝐀 “𝐖𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐂𝐇𝐄𝐄𝐒𝐄 𝐌𝐔𝐒𝐄𝐔𝐌” — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐄𝐅𝐓 𝐖𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐒 𝐔𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐂𝐎𝐏𝐘 𝐈𝐓 John Stossel asked a simple question: do you want America to be like Sweden? The Left keeps saying yes. A Swedish-born economist says you have no idea what you’re asking for. Fifteen years ago, America and Europe grew neck and neck. Then Europe stalled. Today America is 𝟓𝟎% 𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐫 — even though the EU has 100 million more people. The gap is now so wide that the poorest American state out-earns Spain, Italy, France, and Britain per person (Eurostat, Euronews 2026). Stossel’s verdict on the continent the Left idolizes: “𝘌𝘶𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦’𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘶𝘮.” Tourist money keeps it running. The growth is gone. Economist Sven Larson — who grew up in Sweden and wrote a book titled 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘺: 𝘠𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘚𝘸𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘯, 𝘛𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘌𝘶𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦, 𝘛𝘰𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 — explains how they got there. Start with taxes. The activists chant “𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘢𝘹 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩.” Larson’s answer: “𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩? 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘢𝘹 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.” The average Swedish worker already pays more in tax than you do. Then there’s the “free” health care. “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺,” Larson says. “𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘥∗𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘸𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦.” European rules make it nearly impossible to fire anyone. “𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦?” So they stop hiring. About 𝟒𝟎% 𝐨𝐟 𝐄𝐔 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 now goes to welfare. Unions act like a mafia — shutting off power, stopping garbage collection, blocking the banks. When non-union Tesla moved in, postal workers refused to deliver the license plates for its new cars. The reward for all that “compassion”? Europe now has 𝐳𝐞𝐫𝐨 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝’𝐬 𝐛𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐬 — you have to scroll into the 20s to find one. The EU has stacked up 395,000 pages of regulation, including an entire AI Act, while America builds the future. So why won’t Europe’s leaders reverse it? Larson gives the honest answer: “𝘈 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯.” That isn’t a bug. That’s the 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥. 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐦. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠.

𝐄𝐔𝐑𝐎𝐏𝐄 𝐈𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐖 𝐀 “𝐖𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐂𝐇𝐄𝐄𝐒𝐄 𝐌𝐔𝐒𝐄𝐔𝐌” — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐄𝐅𝐓 𝐖𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐒 𝐔𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐂𝐎𝐏𝐘 𝐈𝐓 John Stossel asked a simple question: do you want America to be like Sweden? The Left keeps saying yes. A Swedish-born economist says you have no idea what you’re asking for. Fifteen years ago, America and Europe grew neck and neck. Then Europe stalled. Today America is 𝟓𝟎% 𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐫 — even though the EU has 100 million more people. The gap is now so wide that the poorest American state out-earns Spain, Italy, France, and Britain per person (Eurostat, Euronews 2026). Stossel’s verdict on the continent the Left idolizes: “𝘌𝘶𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦’𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘶𝘮.” Tourist money keeps it running. The growth is gone. Economist Sven Larson — who grew up in Sweden and wrote a book titled 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘺: 𝘠𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘚𝘸𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘯, 𝘛𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘌𝘶𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦, 𝘛𝘰𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 — explains how they got there. Start with taxes. The activists chant “𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘢𝘹 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩.” Larson’s answer: “𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩? 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘢𝘹 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.” The average Swedish worker already pays more in tax than you do. Then there’s the “free” health care. “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺,” Larson says. “𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘥∗𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘸𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦.” European rules make it nearly impossible to fire anyone. “𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦?” So they stop hiring. About 𝟒𝟎% 𝐨𝐟 𝐄𝐔 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 now goes to welfare. Unions act like a mafia — shutting off power, stopping garbage collection, blocking the banks. When non-union Tesla moved in, postal workers refused to deliver the license plates for its new cars. The reward for all that “compassion”? Europe now has 𝐳𝐞𝐫𝐨 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝’𝐬 𝐛𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐬 — you have to scroll into the 20s to find one. The EU has stacked up 395,000 pages of regulation, including an entire AI Act, while America builds the future. So why won’t Europe’s leaders reverse it? Larson gives the honest answer: “𝘈 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯.” That isn’t a bug. That’s the 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥. 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐦. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠.

M.A. Rothman

13,772 views • 3 months ago

🇮🇷 Iran may have more to lose from building a nuclear bomb than from not building one. After months of war, attacks on Iranian territory and growing calls inside Iran for a nuclear deterrent, the obvious assumption is that Tehran is now closer to building the bomb. Pravin Sawhney argues the opposite. “𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴.” Iran doesn't lack the capability. In his view, Tehran no longer needs one. Sawhney argues Iran has demonstrated enough conventional missile capability to deter further escalation while simultaneously building something potentially more valuable: a regional security architecture with Gulf states and backing from Russia and China. A nuclear weapon could blow that apart. “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘔𝘦𝘤𝘤𝘢 𝘑𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘋𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴.” Instead of being viewed as a partner against outside intervention, Iran could suddenly look like the regional hegemon its neighbors need protection from. That leads Sawhney to a very different reading of Tehran’s strategy. Iran’s ultimate deterrent may not be a bomb. It may be making the American military presence in the region increasingly unnecessary. Pravin Sawhney

🇮🇷 Iran may have more to lose from building a nuclear bomb than from not building one. After months of war, attacks on Iranian territory and growing calls inside Iran for a nuclear deterrent, the obvious assumption is that Tehran is now closer to building the bomb. Pravin Sawhney argues the opposite. “𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴.” Iran doesn't lack the capability. In his view, Tehran no longer needs one. Sawhney argues Iran has demonstrated enough conventional missile capability to deter further escalation while simultaneously building something potentially more valuable: a regional security architecture with Gulf states and backing from Russia and China. A nuclear weapon could blow that apart. “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘔𝘦𝘤𝘤𝘢 𝘑𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘋𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴.” Instead of being viewed as a partner against outside intervention, Iran could suddenly look like the regional hegemon its neighbors need protection from. That leads Sawhney to a very different reading of Tehran’s strategy. Iran’s ultimate deterrent may not be a bomb. It may be making the American military presence in the region increasingly unnecessary. Pravin Sawhney

Mario Nawfal

253,718 views • 12 days ago

𝐀 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐓𝐎𝐋𝐃 𝐇𝐈𝐌 "𝐈 𝐂𝐀𝐍'𝐓 𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐃". 𝐇𝐄 𝐇𝐀𝐃 𝐀𝐋𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐘 𝐁𝐄𝐄𝐍 𝐀𝐃𝐌𝐈𝐓𝐓𝐄𝐃. Victor Davis Hanson taught at Cal State Fresno for two decades. He says the decline wasn't gradual — it was a collapse. "𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘐 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 1984, 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘐 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 20 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘐 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘺𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘶𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘪𝘵" Then he told the story that stays with you. A student came to him and said he couldn't do the work. Hanson sat him down and opened 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘥. First line — sing, goddess, the wrath of Achilles. The student stopped at the first word. "𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘩?" Then he pointed at the next one. "𝘎𝘰𝘥𝘴 — 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘥𝘴?" He didn't know what the plural meant. Fifteen minutes on page one. There were 𝟏𝟎𝟎 𝐩𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐝𝐮𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤. "𝘠𝘰𝘶'𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘪𝘵, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘢 𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘱" Hanson told him. Then he said the quiet truth out loud: 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐤𝐢𝐝 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝. He was let in under 𝐃𝐄𝐈 standards. And he wasn't alone. "𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘰𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘌𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘚𝘜 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮. 𝘐'𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘺𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐'𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘵" Hanson said. "𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘤" He ran 13 independent studies at once just to teach grown adults to read. "𝘐 𝘧𝘦𝘭𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘳" he said — a noble job, but not what a university is for. And here is the part that should scare every parent. These kids weren't failed by the university first. They arrived already broken. "𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺'𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺'𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺'𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵'𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵" Which is exactly what you see in the man-on-the-street interviews. A student says he hates Trump, hates America, wants socialism. Ask him why. 𝐇𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧'𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧. 𝐇𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐡𝐨𝐰.

𝐀 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐓𝐎𝐋𝐃 𝐇𝐈𝐌 "𝐈 𝐂𝐀𝐍'𝐓 𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐃". 𝐇𝐄 𝐇𝐀𝐃 𝐀𝐋𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐘 𝐁𝐄𝐄𝐍 𝐀𝐃𝐌𝐈𝐓𝐓𝐄𝐃. Victor Davis Hanson taught at Cal State Fresno for two decades. He says the decline wasn't gradual — it was a collapse. "𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘐 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 1984, 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘐 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 20 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘐 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘺𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘶𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘪𝘵" Then he told the story that stays with you. A student came to him and said he couldn't do the work. Hanson sat him down and opened 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘥. First line — sing, goddess, the wrath of Achilles. The student stopped at the first word. "𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘩?" Then he pointed at the next one. "𝘎𝘰𝘥𝘴 — 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘥𝘴?" He didn't know what the plural meant. Fifteen minutes on page one. There were 𝟏𝟎𝟎 𝐩𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐝𝐮𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤. "𝘠𝘰𝘶'𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘪𝘵, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘢 𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘱" Hanson told him. Then he said the quiet truth out loud: 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐤𝐢𝐝 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝. He was let in under 𝐃𝐄𝐈 standards. And he wasn't alone. "𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘰𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘌𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘚𝘜 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮. 𝘐'𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘺𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐'𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘵" Hanson said. "𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘤" He ran 13 independent studies at once just to teach grown adults to read. "𝘐 𝘧𝘦𝘭𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘳" he said — a noble job, but not what a university is for. And here is the part that should scare every parent. These kids weren't failed by the university first. They arrived already broken. "𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺'𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺'𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺'𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵'𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵" Which is exactly what you see in the man-on-the-street interviews. A student says he hates Trump, hates America, wants socialism. Ask him why. 𝐇𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧'𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧. 𝐇𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐡𝐨𝐰.

M.A. Rothman

69,198 views • 3 months ago

Bill Ackman on Psychology of Investing 🧠 “You have to get excited when things get cheaper and get concerned when things get more expensive… Stocks can trade at any price in the short term. If you know what a business is worth and understand it extremely well, volatility bothers you much less… It’s a combination of being personally secure and knowing what you own. Over time, you build calluses… I’m a pretty emotional person — but not in investing.” 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐧: 𝘛𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘦. ___ 1️⃣ 𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐢𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐬𝐲𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 Large drawdowns don’t just test portfolios — they test 𝘣𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺. Sharp declines can trigger the same fight-or-flight response governed by the 𝘢𝘮𝘺𝘨𝘥𝘢𝘭𝘢. When that switch flips, decision-making shifts from logic → survival. 𝐀𝐜𝐤𝐦𝐚𝐧’𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭: 𝘐𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘴𝘺𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦. 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺. ___ 2️⃣ 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 Volatility feels very different when you deeply understand: What the business is worth The fundamental drivers of value The durability of its moat 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘴 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘵, 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺. 𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘰𝘸𝘯, 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴. 𝘖𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 — 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴. ___ 3️⃣ 𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 Ackman openly acknowledges being emotional. That honesty is critical. “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 — 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘭.” — Richard Feynman We’re all human. 𝐅𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝙣𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙡. 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝙤𝙥𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡. Great investors build systems: Preset rules Allocation frameworks Behavioral guardrails Over time, experience itself becomes conditioning. Just as David Goggins speaks about 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙤𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨, 𝙞𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙨 𝙗𝙪𝙞𝙡𝙙 𝙥𝙨𝙮𝙘𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙫𝙤𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮. You develop “mental calluses.” 𝙑𝙤𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙥𝙨 𝙛𝙚𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙙𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙧 — 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙨 𝙛𝙚𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨. ___ Video: Lex Fridman Poscast (02/20/2024) Bill Ackman

Bill Ackman on Psychology of Investing 🧠 “You have to get excited when things get cheaper and get concerned when things get more expensive… Stocks can trade at any price in the short term. If you know what a business is worth and understand it extremely well, volatility bothers you much less… It’s a combination of being personally secure and knowing what you own. Over time, you build calluses… I’m a pretty emotional person — but not in investing.” 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐧: 𝘛𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘦. _ 1️⃣ 𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐢𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐬𝐲𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 Large drawdowns don’t just test portfolios — they test 𝘣𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺. Sharp declines can trigger the same fight-or-flight response governed by the 𝘢𝘮𝘺𝘨𝘥𝘢𝘭𝘢. When that switch flips, decision-making shifts from logic → survival. 𝐀𝐜𝐤𝐦𝐚𝐧’𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭: 𝘐𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘴𝘺𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦. 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺. _ 2️⃣ 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 Volatility feels very different when you deeply understand: What the business is worth The fundamental drivers of value The durability of its moat 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘴 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘵, 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺. 𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘰𝘸𝘯, 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴. 𝘖𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 — 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴. _ 3️⃣ 𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 Ackman openly acknowledges being emotional. That honesty is critical. “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 — 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘭.” — Richard Feynman We’re all human. 𝐅𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝙣𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙡. 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝙤𝙥𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡. Great investors build systems: Preset rules Allocation frameworks Behavioral guardrails Over time, experience itself becomes conditioning. Just as David Goggins speaks about 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙤𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨, 𝙞𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙨 𝙗𝙪𝙞𝙡𝙙 𝙥𝙨𝙮𝙘𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙫𝙤𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮. You develop “mental calluses.” 𝙑𝙤𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙥𝙨 𝙛𝙚𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙙𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙧 — 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙨 𝙛𝙚𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨. _ Video: Lex Fridman Poscast (02/20/2024) Bill Ackman

Dimitry Nakhla | Babylon Capital®

30,829 views • 7 months ago

𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐌𝐀𝐇𝐄𝐑: “𝐖𝐄 𝐀𝐒𝐊 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐒𝐄 𝐏𝐄𝐎𝐏𝐋𝐄 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐖𝐄𝐄𝐊. 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐘 𝐒𝐀𝐘 𝐍𝐎.” This montage from Real Time is something every Democrat should have to watch. Maher lays it out plainly: the biggest names in the Democratic Party — Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Kamala Harris — 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐞 to come on his show. “𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘏𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘉𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘯? 𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘒𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯? 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘢𝘴𝘬? 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘯𝘰.” Then the kicker: “𝘐𝘵 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘖𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢 𝘰𝘯. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘐 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.” And who does show up? “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴? 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘶𝘱.” That’s the tell. Republicans walk into adversarial interviews. Democrats won’t even walk into 𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐥𝐲 ones — because Maher asks follow-up questions, and follow-up questions are what the Democratic messaging apparatus cannot survive. Then the clip shifts to Maher defending Trump on foreign policy — to his own liberal audience. “𝘏𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘥 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘗𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺. 𝘏𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖. 𝘏𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘯 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢.” When someone accused him of “coming around,” Maher shot back: “𝘐’𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦.” Then there’s the White House ballroom segment, where Maher defended the renovation: “𝘠𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭, 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘞𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵.” The liberal outrage machine is so reflexive that it attacks a private donation to improve the People’s House — and Maher called it out. This is a man who voted Democrat his entire life, told his audience he doesn’t hate the Iran bombing, showed clips of Iranians doing the Trump dance on his show (Yahoo Entertainment), and has called the Iranian government a 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲. He’s not switching parties. He’s just refusing to lie — and that alone is enough to make him radioactive to the Democratic establishment. His own show gets 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 now — not because Maher moved right, but because the left moved away from anyone who asks inconvenient questions. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲.

𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐌𝐀𝐇𝐄𝐑: “𝐖𝐄 𝐀𝐒𝐊 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐒𝐄 𝐏𝐄𝐎𝐏𝐋𝐄 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐖𝐄𝐄𝐊. 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐘 𝐒𝐀𝐘 𝐍𝐎.” This montage from Real Time is something every Democrat should have to watch. Maher lays it out plainly: the biggest names in the Democratic Party — Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Kamala Harris — 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐞 to come on his show. “𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘏𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘉𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘯? 𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘒𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯? 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘢𝘴𝘬? 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘯𝘰.” Then the kicker: “𝘐𝘵 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘖𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢 𝘰𝘯. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘐 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.” And who does show up? “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴? 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘶𝘱.” That’s the tell. Republicans walk into adversarial interviews. Democrats won’t even walk into 𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐥𝐲 ones — because Maher asks follow-up questions, and follow-up questions are what the Democratic messaging apparatus cannot survive. Then the clip shifts to Maher defending Trump on foreign policy — to his own liberal audience. “𝘏𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘥 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘗𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺. 𝘏𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖. 𝘏𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘯 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢.” When someone accused him of “coming around,” Maher shot back: “𝘐’𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦.” Then there’s the White House ballroom segment, where Maher defended the renovation: “𝘠𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭, 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘞𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵.” The liberal outrage machine is so reflexive that it attacks a private donation to improve the People’s House — and Maher called it out. This is a man who voted Democrat his entire life, told his audience he doesn’t hate the Iran bombing, showed clips of Iranians doing the Trump dance on his show (Yahoo Entertainment), and has called the Iranian government a 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲. He’s not switching parties. He’s just refusing to lie — and that alone is enough to make him radioactive to the Democratic establishment. His own show gets 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 now — not because Maher moved right, but because the left moved away from anyone who asks inconvenient questions. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲.

M.A. Rothman

20,683 views • 6 months ago

𝐖𝐎𝐌𝐀𝐍 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 “𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐁 ’𝐄𝐌” 𝐎𝐔𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐈𝐍 𝟔𝟎 𝐒𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐃𝐒 𝐅𝐋𝐀𝐓 A woman on the Whatever Podcast just did what ten years of conservative pundits couldn’t — she buried the Trump “grab ’em” talking point with one question: “𝘏𝘰𝘸’𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨?” The liberal girl across from her brought up the 2016 tape as proof Trump is unfit. Rachel Wilson didn’t flinch. She corrected the record first: “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘴, 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩, 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘴, 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩-𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘯, 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘣 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.” Then she asked the only question that matters — “𝘏𝘰𝘸’𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨?” The other woman’s response? “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨.” Not “it’s false.” Not “here’s why he’s incorrect.” Just — it’s a bad 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐞𝐭. Wilson pressed: “𝘛𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦.” Then she went deeper than any talking head ever has on this subject. “𝘏𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵. 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺, 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩, 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩-𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘴.” The liberal’s last stand: “𝘐 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯, 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘬𝘢𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘧𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵.” Translation — she couldn’t argue the facts, so she went to 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬. Wilson’s answer shut it down completely: “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩.” This is why the “grab ’em” tape lost its power. Not because people stopped caring about how things sound. Because a generation of women grew up, looked at the actual statement, and realized — it’s observationally accurate. The Women’s March was built on pretending Trump described assault. He described 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲. And when a woman says that out loud on camera, the entire moral framework collapses. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡.

𝐖𝐎𝐌𝐀𝐍 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 “𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐁 ’𝐄𝐌” 𝐎𝐔𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐈𝐍 𝟔𝟎 𝐒𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐃𝐒 𝐅𝐋𝐀𝐓 A woman on the Whatever Podcast just did what ten years of conservative pundits couldn’t — she buried the Trump “grab ’em” talking point with one question: “𝘏𝘰𝘸’𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨?” The liberal girl across from her brought up the 2016 tape as proof Trump is unfit. Rachel Wilson didn’t flinch. She corrected the record first: “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘴, 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩, 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘴, 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩-𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘯, 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘣 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.” Then she asked the only question that matters — “𝘏𝘰𝘸’𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨?” The other woman’s response? “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨.” Not “it’s false.” Not “here’s why he’s incorrect.” Just — it’s a bad 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐞𝐭. Wilson pressed: “𝘛𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦.” Then she went deeper than any talking head ever has on this subject. “𝘏𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵. 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺, 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩, 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩-𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘴.” The liberal’s last stand: “𝘐 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯, 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘬𝘢𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘧𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵.” Translation — she couldn’t argue the facts, so she went to 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬. Wilson’s answer shut it down completely: “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩.” This is why the “grab ’em” tape lost its power. Not because people stopped caring about how things sound. Because a generation of women grew up, looked at the actual statement, and realized — it’s observationally accurate. The Women’s March was built on pretending Trump described assault. He described 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲. And when a woman says that out loud on camera, the entire moral framework collapses. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡.

M.A. Rothman

426,108 views • 6 months ago

𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐎𝐑 𝐃𝐀𝐕𝐈𝐒 𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐎𝐍 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐁𝐔𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 “𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐖𝐀𝐑” 𝐋𝐈𝐄 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐑𝐓𝐄𝐄𝐍 𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐔𝐓𝐄𝐒. 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍 𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐑𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐒𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐍 𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐒. 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐎𝐘𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐓𝐒 𝐀𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐘 𝐓𝐎 𝐌𝐀𝐊𝐄 𝐖𝐀𝐑 𝐈𝐍 𝐅𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐖𝐄𝐄𝐊𝐒. 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐇𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐈𝐀𝐍’𝐒 𝐒𝐂𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐀𝐑𝐃. Victor Davis Hanson — the most decorated classical military historian in America, author of 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘢𝘳𝘴 and 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱, Hoover Institution senior fellow, lifelong scholar of how wars actually end — spent thirteen minutes on the Daily Signal this week doing what no cable news anchor has bothered to do since February. He compared this war to every other war in American history and then showed his work. His conclusion, in his own words: “𝘞𝘦’𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 93 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦, 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨-𝘰𝘧-𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘺𝘳𝘪𝘢, 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘲, 𝘠𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘎𝘢𝘻𝘢, 𝘓𝘦𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘯 — 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘦𝘵, 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳.” Read that sentence and then read it again. 𝐒𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬. 𝐓𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝. 𝐅𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬. 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐝. That is not a Trump rally soundbite. That is Victor Davis Hanson, the man who wrote the textbooks on Thermopylae, Cannae, and the Pacific War, rendering verdict in real time on the fastest decisive American military victory since the First Gulf War, and arguably since 1945. Here is what Hanson walked through, and every single beat of it is lethal to the legacy narrative. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐍𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐃𝐢𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 Hanson opens by naming names. The Democratic grandees in the House and Senate. The New York Times. The Washington Post. NPR. PBS. The Wall Street Journal news section. And — this is the key part — the disaffected ex-MAGA right that spent six weeks screaming 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘐𝘐𝘐 from podcasts and Substacks. He points out that these two camps share 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧. First, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭, because a Trump military success would destroy their entire post-2024 political project. Second, and more devastating: 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐧. Not one of them, Hanson notes, bothered to measure the Iran campaign against 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘢 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘪𝘣𝘺𝘢 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘎𝘶𝘭𝘧 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘎𝘶𝘭𝘧 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘧𝘨𝘩𝘢𝘯. Not one of them asked how many missiles the U.S. had destroyed, whether American aircraft had been shot down (45 were lost in the First Gulf War alone), whether the enemy command structure had been taken out. Instead, they just asserted the conclusion they needed: 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘳. That is not analysis. That is a feelings-forward prayer dressed up as journalism, and Hanson calls it for exactly what it is. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝: 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬, 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 Hanson’s single most important factual paragraph of the 13 minutes: “𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭𝘪 𝘈𝘪𝘳 𝘍𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘱𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.” He lists them individually. Memorize this list, because it is the actual accounting of what 𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥𝐢 𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 did to a regime that spent 46 years promising 𝘋𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘰 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢: 𝐎𝐧𝐞. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — IRGC command network shattered. Qassem-era terror infrastructure leadership dead or in hiding. 𝐓𝐰𝐨. The regular Iranian Army — senior general officer corps hollowed out by precision strike. 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞. The theocratic apparat — including the Supreme Leader himself. The Assembly of Experts is reportedly unable to convene. 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫. The elected politicians — the facade government, the President, the Foreign Minister, the Majlis leadership. 𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐩𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐭. 𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐲. 𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐲-𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬. That is not a 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘨𝘮𝘪𝘳𝘦. That is not a 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦. That is the most surgical decapitation of a hostile nation-state since the Japanese surrender ceremony on the USS Missouri. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞-𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝 Hanson then does something cable news cannot do in 45-second segments: he reconstructs the entire strategic arc. Three phases. Execute them in order. Win. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐎𝐧𝐞: 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. Find the tunnels. Find the hidden airfields. Find the silos. Find the people in bunkers. Kill the command structure. Leave the regime with 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴, 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴 and nothing with which to rebuild. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐰𝐨: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐧𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞. Hanson: “𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴.” Self-interested? Yes — Trump wanted oil prices down before midterms. But it was also, Hanson argues, to 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘢𝘯. Iran refused, betting that Western street protests and MAGA apostates would pressure Trump to fold. 𝐇𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝. 𝐇𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐝. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞: 𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. When Iran announced it would close the Strait of Hormuz to everyone who was not 𝘱𝘳𝘰-𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯, Hanson says Trump just took the pen out of their hand. “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢. 𝘚𝘩𝘶𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴.” Translation: 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝. 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧. 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩. 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐏𝐓 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬. That is not a close fight. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐏𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐍𝐨 𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐎𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐀𝐜𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 Here is the paragraph that should be read aloud on every network tonight and will be read aloud on none of them. Hanson, coolly: “𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘉𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘖𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘪𝘣𝘺𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘴. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘉𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘢𝘯𝘶𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘺 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘺𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘒𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘢. 𝘞𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘺.” Get the implications of that. Every American president from Truman to Obama — Democrat and Republican alike — hit 𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥-𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 in every major air campaign of the last 75 years. Truman flattened North Korean hydroelectric plants and killed civilians by the thousands. Clinton blacked out a million and a half Serbs and bombed Belgrade bridges on the Danube for weeks. Obama leveled Libyan television and ports. 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩, 𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐘𝐨𝐦 𝐊𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐮𝐫, 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭, 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐠𝐞, 𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐲. He has kept the war confined to the regime’s war-making capability and left the civilian grid intact. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲. Every talking head who called this a 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘳 owes Hanson an apology for not knowing the historical baseline he is using. $𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐀 𝐃𝐚𝐲 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 Hanson cites the economists now 𝘧𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘮𝘦 at major research universities in Europe and the United States who have started to measure what the American counter-blockade is actually doing to Tehran. The number: $𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐠. Lost oil sales. Lost petrochemical exports. Lost critical imports of mechanical goods, electrical components, and food. A regime that was already bankrupt before the war, that had hyperinflation eating its own middle class before the first bomb dropped, is now losing half a billion dollars every 24 hours. Hanson is blunt: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺. 𝘔𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵, 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥, 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘥.” 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞. 𝐖𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞: 𝐀 𝐁𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐧 𝐖𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐌𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐈𝐧 𝐒𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐌𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 Hanson’s most historically evocative passage is about the Iranian street. He notes that the regime’s ruling cliques are right now motivated by 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘴: they do not know who is in charge, they have watched 30-40-50 of their colleagues get killed, and they are fighting each other for the remains of power. But the fear underneath all of that is the one that matters: 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞. “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘥. 𝘉𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘺𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘨𝘢𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘨𝘰 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘸.” Hanson’s historical parallel is devastating and correct. The Berlin Wall did not come down the day Reagan said 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘭. It came down 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐭 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟. The collapse of the IRGC’s street-level power over 90 million Iranians may take exactly that long. But it is coming, and the mullahs know it, and that is why they are freelancing contradictory statements on Twitter every 12 hours while their own Supreme Leader is dead and nobody has been elevated. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐈𝐧 𝐖𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐨𝐧 𝐍𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐓𝐨 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐝 The closing minute of Hanson’s commentary is the hinge of everything. He warns that the coming negotiation is a trap unless it is structured correctly. His words: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦’𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘯𝘰 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳 20 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥. 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘬𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥.” And then the hammer: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘒𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘴, 𝘎𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘦𝘸𝘴𝘰𝘮, 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦 𝘉𝘶𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘦𝘨, 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘉𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘦𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴.” Translation: any JCPOA-style agreement that depends on the next Democratic president to enforce it is worthless on the day it is signed. The Iranian regime has never kept a deal. The Democratic Party has never enforced one. Therefore, Hanson concludes, 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐮𝐢𝐧, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐮𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞. That is not a preference. That is a strategic necessity. Anything short of unconditional surrender or regime collapse just sets the clock ticking on the next war — this time with a nuclear-armed ayatollah. 𝐕𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐬 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭. 𝐇𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬. 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝟗𝟑 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝟒𝟔-𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝟑𝟓 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭, 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝, 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝟏𝟗𝟒𝟓. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐚𝐝 𝐥𝐮𝐜𝐤. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤. 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦.

𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐎𝐑 𝐃𝐀𝐕𝐈𝐒 𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐎𝐍 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐁𝐔𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 “𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐖𝐀𝐑” 𝐋𝐈𝐄 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐑𝐓𝐄𝐄𝐍 𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐔𝐓𝐄𝐒. 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍 𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐑𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐒𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐍 𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐒. 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐎𝐘𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐓𝐒 𝐀𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐘 𝐓𝐎 𝐌𝐀𝐊𝐄 𝐖𝐀𝐑 𝐈𝐍 𝐅𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐖𝐄𝐄𝐊𝐒. 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐇𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐈𝐀𝐍’𝐒 𝐒𝐂𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐀𝐑𝐃. Victor Davis Hanson — the most decorated classical military historian in America, author of 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘢𝘳𝘴 and 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱, Hoover Institution senior fellow, lifelong scholar of how wars actually end — spent thirteen minutes on the Daily Signal this week doing what no cable news anchor has bothered to do since February. He compared this war to every other war in American history and then showed his work. His conclusion, in his own words: “𝘞𝘦’𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 93 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦, 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨-𝘰𝘧-𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘺𝘳𝘪𝘢, 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘲, 𝘠𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘎𝘢𝘻𝘢, 𝘓𝘦𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘯 — 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘦𝘵, 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳.” Read that sentence and then read it again. 𝐒𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬. 𝐓𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝. 𝐅𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬. 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐝. That is not a Trump rally soundbite. That is Victor Davis Hanson, the man who wrote the textbooks on Thermopylae, Cannae, and the Pacific War, rendering verdict in real time on the fastest decisive American military victory since the First Gulf War, and arguably since 1945. Here is what Hanson walked through, and every single beat of it is lethal to the legacy narrative. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐍𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐃𝐢𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 Hanson opens by naming names. The Democratic grandees in the House and Senate. The New York Times. The Washington Post. NPR. PBS. The Wall Street Journal news section. And — this is the key part — the disaffected ex-MAGA right that spent six weeks screaming 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘐𝘐𝘐 from podcasts and Substacks. He points out that these two camps share 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧. First, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭, because a Trump military success would destroy their entire post-2024 political project. Second, and more devastating: 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐧. Not one of them, Hanson notes, bothered to measure the Iran campaign against 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘢 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘪𝘣𝘺𝘢 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘎𝘶𝘭𝘧 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘎𝘶𝘭𝘧 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘧𝘨𝘩𝘢𝘯. Not one of them asked how many missiles the U.S. had destroyed, whether American aircraft had been shot down (45 were lost in the First Gulf War alone), whether the enemy command structure had been taken out. Instead, they just asserted the conclusion they needed: 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘳. That is not analysis. That is a feelings-forward prayer dressed up as journalism, and Hanson calls it for exactly what it is. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝: 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬, 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 Hanson’s single most important factual paragraph of the 13 minutes: “𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭𝘪 𝘈𝘪𝘳 𝘍𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘱𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.” He lists them individually. Memorize this list, because it is the actual accounting of what 𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥𝐢 𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 did to a regime that spent 46 years promising 𝘋𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘰 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢: 𝐎𝐧𝐞. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — IRGC command network shattered. Qassem-era terror infrastructure leadership dead or in hiding. 𝐓𝐰𝐨. The regular Iranian Army — senior general officer corps hollowed out by precision strike. 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞. The theocratic apparat — including the Supreme Leader himself. The Assembly of Experts is reportedly unable to convene. 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫. The elected politicians — the facade government, the President, the Foreign Minister, the Majlis leadership. 𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐩𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐭. 𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐲. 𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐲-𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬. That is not a 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘨𝘮𝘪𝘳𝘦. That is not a 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦. That is the most surgical decapitation of a hostile nation-state since the Japanese surrender ceremony on the USS Missouri. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞-𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝 Hanson then does something cable news cannot do in 45-second segments: he reconstructs the entire strategic arc. Three phases. Execute them in order. Win. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐎𝐧𝐞: 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. Find the tunnels. Find the hidden airfields. Find the silos. Find the people in bunkers. Kill the command structure. Leave the regime with 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴, 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴 and nothing with which to rebuild. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐰𝐨: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐧𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞. Hanson: “𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴.” Self-interested? Yes — Trump wanted oil prices down before midterms. But it was also, Hanson argues, to 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘢𝘯. Iran refused, betting that Western street protests and MAGA apostates would pressure Trump to fold. 𝐇𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝. 𝐇𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐝. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞: 𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. When Iran announced it would close the Strait of Hormuz to everyone who was not 𝘱𝘳𝘰-𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯, Hanson says Trump just took the pen out of their hand. “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢. 𝘚𝘩𝘶𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴.” Translation: 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝. 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧. 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩. 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐏𝐓 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬. That is not a close fight. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐏𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐍𝐨 𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐎𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐀𝐜𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 Here is the paragraph that should be read aloud on every network tonight and will be read aloud on none of them. Hanson, coolly: “𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘉𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘖𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘪𝘣𝘺𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘴. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘉𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘢𝘯𝘶𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘺 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘺𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘒𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘢. 𝘞𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘺.” Get the implications of that. Every American president from Truman to Obama — Democrat and Republican alike — hit 𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥-𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 in every major air campaign of the last 75 years. Truman flattened North Korean hydroelectric plants and killed civilians by the thousands. Clinton blacked out a million and a half Serbs and bombed Belgrade bridges on the Danube for weeks. Obama leveled Libyan television and ports. 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩, 𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐘𝐨𝐦 𝐊𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐮𝐫, 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭, 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐠𝐞, 𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐲. He has kept the war confined to the regime’s war-making capability and left the civilian grid intact. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲. Every talking head who called this a 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘳 owes Hanson an apology for not knowing the historical baseline he is using. $𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐀 𝐃𝐚𝐲 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 Hanson cites the economists now 𝘧𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘮𝘦 at major research universities in Europe and the United States who have started to measure what the American counter-blockade is actually doing to Tehran. The number: $𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐠. Lost oil sales. Lost petrochemical exports. Lost critical imports of mechanical goods, electrical components, and food. A regime that was already bankrupt before the war, that had hyperinflation eating its own middle class before the first bomb dropped, is now losing half a billion dollars every 24 hours. Hanson is blunt: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺. 𝘔𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵, 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥, 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘥.” 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞. 𝐖𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞: 𝐀 𝐁𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐧 𝐖𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐌𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐈𝐧 𝐒𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐌𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 Hanson’s most historically evocative passage is about the Iranian street. He notes that the regime’s ruling cliques are right now motivated by 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘴: they do not know who is in charge, they have watched 30-40-50 of their colleagues get killed, and they are fighting each other for the remains of power. But the fear underneath all of that is the one that matters: 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞. “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘥. 𝘉𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘺𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘨𝘢𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘨𝘰 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘸.” Hanson’s historical parallel is devastating and correct. The Berlin Wall did not come down the day Reagan said 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘭. It came down 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐭 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟. The collapse of the IRGC’s street-level power over 90 million Iranians may take exactly that long. But it is coming, and the mullahs know it, and that is why they are freelancing contradictory statements on Twitter every 12 hours while their own Supreme Leader is dead and nobody has been elevated. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐈𝐧 𝐖𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐨𝐧 𝐍𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐓𝐨 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐝 The closing minute of Hanson’s commentary is the hinge of everything. He warns that the coming negotiation is a trap unless it is structured correctly. His words: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦’𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘯𝘰 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳 20 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥. 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘬𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥.” And then the hammer: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘒𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘴, 𝘎𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘦𝘸𝘴𝘰𝘮, 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦 𝘉𝘶𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘦𝘨, 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘉𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘦𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴.” Translation: any JCPOA-style agreement that depends on the next Democratic president to enforce it is worthless on the day it is signed. The Iranian regime has never kept a deal. The Democratic Party has never enforced one. Therefore, Hanson concludes, 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐮𝐢𝐧, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐮𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞. That is not a preference. That is a strategic necessity. Anything short of unconditional surrender or regime collapse just sets the clock ticking on the next war — this time with a nuclear-armed ayatollah. 𝐕𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐬 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭. 𝐇𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬. 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝟗𝟑 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝟒𝟔-𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝟑𝟓 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭, 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝, 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝟏𝟗𝟒𝟓. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐚𝐝 𝐥𝐮𝐜𝐤. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤. 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦.

M.A. Rothman

89,898 views • 5 months ago

𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐒𝐏𝐄𝐄𝐂𝐇 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐒𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐌𝐔𝐒𝐋𝐈𝐌 𝐀𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐒 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐎 𝐏𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐂 𝐌𝐎𝐃𝐄 ⁠⁠ When Mosab Hassan Yousef — the son of the H-m-s founder, a man who converted to Christianity and risked his life as an Israeli intelligence spy — took the floor in the European Parliament, they expected a polite speech. What they got was an earthquake. ⁠⁠ This is the speech the EU NEVER thought would be spoken aloud — especially by someone born into the terror movement now running Gaza. ⁠⁠ 𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘢𝘣: 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘺. 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥 — 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. ⁠⁠ EU lawmakers froze as he dismantled every myth they’ve been repeating for decades. ⁠⁠ He didn’t stop there. He went after the ideology mainstream Western leaders refuse to discuss: ⁠⁠ 𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘢𝘣: 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘘𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘩 — 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 — 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦. ⁠⁠ He accused the West of cowardice for refusing to acknowledge what radical Islam openly states: ⁠⁠ 𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘢𝘣: 𝘞𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘪𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘴 — 𝘴𝘰 𝘸𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘭. ⁠⁠ He called the Palestinian identity what no European diplomat would dare say: ⁠⁠ 𝘈 𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. ⁠⁠ You could almost hear the translators choking on air. Because when truth comes from someone who lived inside the terror movement, the usual Western deflections collapse instantly. ⁠⁠ 𝐍𝐨 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐰𝐚𝐯𝐞 — 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜. ⁠⁠ It had to come from the son of the H-m-s founder… …who rejected the ideology …saved countless Jewish lives …and now exposes the lie the West still tiptoes around. Arguably, he's trying to save the West from radical Islam. Now the EU has to confront what it’s been pretending not to hear.

𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐒𝐏𝐄𝐄𝐂𝐇 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐒𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐌𝐔𝐒𝐋𝐈𝐌 𝐀𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐒 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐎 𝐏𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐂 𝐌𝐎𝐃𝐄 ⁠⁠ When Mosab Hassan Yousef — the son of the H-m-s founder, a man who converted to Christianity and risked his life as an Israeli intelligence spy — took the floor in the European Parliament, they expected a polite speech. What they got was an earthquake. ⁠⁠ This is the speech the EU NEVER thought would be spoken aloud — especially by someone born into the terror movement now running Gaza. ⁠⁠ 𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘢𝘣: 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘺. 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥 — 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. ⁠⁠ EU lawmakers froze as he dismantled every myth they’ve been repeating for decades. ⁠⁠ He didn’t stop there. He went after the ideology mainstream Western leaders refuse to discuss: ⁠⁠ 𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘢𝘣: 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘘𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘩 — 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 — 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦. ⁠⁠ He accused the West of cowardice for refusing to acknowledge what radical Islam openly states: ⁠⁠ 𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘢𝘣: 𝘞𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘪𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘴 — 𝘴𝘰 𝘸𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘭. ⁠⁠ He called the Palestinian identity what no European diplomat would dare say: ⁠⁠ 𝘈 𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. ⁠⁠ You could almost hear the translators choking on air. Because when truth comes from someone who lived inside the terror movement, the usual Western deflections collapse instantly. ⁠⁠ 𝐍𝐨 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐰𝐚𝐯𝐞 — 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜. ⁠⁠ It had to come from the son of the H-m-s founder… …who rejected the ideology …saved countless Jewish lives …and now exposes the lie the West still tiptoes around. Arguably, he's trying to save the West from radical Islam. Now the EU has to confront what it’s been pretending not to hear.

M.A. Rothman

22,721 views • 10 months ago

𝐕𝐃𝐇 — 𝐓𝐔𝐂𝐊𝐄𝐑 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐂𝐀𝐍𝐃𝐀𝐂𝐄 𝐀𝐑𝐄 𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐌𝐏𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐈𝐒𝐋𝐀𝐌 𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐈𝐒𝐑𝐀𝐄𝐋, 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝟏𝟒 𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐔𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐒𝐀𝐘 𝐖𝐇𝐘 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓’𝐒 𝐃𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐄𝐑𝐎𝐔𝐒 Victor Davis Hanson sat down with historian Raymond Ibrahim — author of 𝘚𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘚𝘤𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳, three seminal books on the 14-century rivalry between Islam and the West — to address something that would have been unthinkable five years ago: a segment of the American right, including Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and a recalibrated Megyn Kelly, is now more sympathetic to Islam than to Israel. VDH’s frame: “𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭.” Ibrahim gives this dynamic a name. It’s a seesaw. “𝘖𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘴𝘢𝘸 𝘪𝘴 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯, 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥. 𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭, 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘨𝘰 𝘶𝘱. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘹𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵.” 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐩𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. You can critique Israeli policy on any grounds you choose. But Islam was an existential enemy of the West long before the State of Israel was founded — across 14 centuries and counting. The timeline is not debatable. From the death of Muhammad in 632 AD, within two years the Arabs consolidated under Islam. By 635 they were waging war on Byzantium and the Sassanid Persians. 𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝟔𝟑𝟐 𝐭𝐨 𝟕𝟑𝟐 — 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐲 — 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐌𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭, 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐀𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐄𝐠𝐲𝐩𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐨, 𝐒𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐭 𝐓𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬. Fast forward to Black Tuesday, May 29, 1453, when the Ottoman Sultan’s army scaled the Theodosian walls of Constantinople. The thinned Byzantine defenders — some 7,000 to 8,000 — had to take penance before God for k!lling in battle. The attackers needed no such penance. They were promised paradise for breaking through. That asymmetry in moral accounting partly explains why they won. The Tucker critique doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Tucker visits Saudi Arabia and says he feels great as a Christian. Ibrahim’s response: “𝘞𝘦𝘭𝘭, 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘩, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘢𝘶𝘥𝘪 𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘢, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺 𝘪𝘵. 𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘵 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘢𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶.” 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐓𝐮𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠. The data from Open Doors backs Ibrahim up. Every year, the World Watch List ranks the 50 nations where Christians face the most severe persecution. 𝐎𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝟓𝟎, 𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐥𝐲 𝟑𝟕 𝐭𝐨 𝟑𝟖 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦-𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲.” Of the top 13 “extreme persecutors” — nations where being identified as a Christian can get you k!lled on the spot — about 11 are Muslim. If you are a Christian who takes Christian persecution seriously, you have to reckon with that list. Britain is the test case unfolding in real time. VDH and Ibrahim discuss the stabbing of Henry Nowak, a student with no criminal record, just walking by. He was stabbed repeatedly and bled on the ground for 61 minutes. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐝, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐥𝐮𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐮𝐭. The attacker carried an eight-inch knife — illegal under British law — but held it legally under a Sikh ceremony exemption. The family hid the knife. The brother called police claiming his sibling had been racially attacked. The mechanisms of Western self-loathing activated exactly when they were most dangerous. What’s driving the right’s realignment? VDH points to two forces. First, the post-October-7 demonization of Israel — even though October 7th itself should have made the pro-Israel case more obvious, not less. Second: Gulf money pouring into American universities. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have directed hundreds of millions into elite academic institutions. The narrative shift in elite discourse didn’t happen by accident. Eastern Europe hasn’t made this mistake. 𝐕𝐢𝐤𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐎𝐫𝐛𝐚𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐎𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐲 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞. Hungarians and Poles have a living memory of what it meant to be ruled under Ottoman Islam through the 18th and 19th centuries. That memory hasn’t been overwritten by progressive revisionism. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐬𝐚𝐰 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐳𝐞𝐫𝐨-𝐬𝐮𝐦 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜 — 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐬𝐚𝐰. 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭.

𝐕𝐃𝐇 — 𝐓𝐔𝐂𝐊𝐄𝐑 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐂𝐀𝐍𝐃𝐀𝐂𝐄 𝐀𝐑𝐄 𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐌𝐏𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐈𝐒𝐋𝐀𝐌 𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐈𝐒𝐑𝐀𝐄𝐋, 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝟏𝟒 𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐔𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐒𝐀𝐘 𝐖𝐇𝐘 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓’𝐒 𝐃𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐄𝐑𝐎𝐔𝐒 Victor Davis Hanson sat down with historian Raymond Ibrahim — author of 𝘚𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘚𝘤𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳, three seminal books on the 14-century rivalry between Islam and the West — to address something that would have been unthinkable five years ago: a segment of the American right, including Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and a recalibrated Megyn Kelly, is now more sympathetic to Islam than to Israel. VDH’s frame: “𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭.” Ibrahim gives this dynamic a name. It’s a seesaw. “𝘖𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘴𝘢𝘸 𝘪𝘴 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯, 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥. 𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭, 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘨𝘰 𝘶𝘱. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘹𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵.” 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐩𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. You can critique Israeli policy on any grounds you choose. But Islam was an existential enemy of the West long before the State of Israel was founded — across 14 centuries and counting. The timeline is not debatable. From the death of Muhammad in 632 AD, within two years the Arabs consolidated under Islam. By 635 they were waging war on Byzantium and the Sassanid Persians. 𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝟔𝟑𝟐 𝐭𝐨 𝟕𝟑𝟐 — 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐲 — 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐌𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭, 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐀𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐄𝐠𝐲𝐩𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐨, 𝐒𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐭 𝐓𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬. Fast forward to Black Tuesday, May 29, 1453, when the Ottoman Sultan’s army scaled the Theodosian walls of Constantinople. The thinned Byzantine defenders — some 7,000 to 8,000 — had to take penance before God for k!lling in battle. The attackers needed no such penance. They were promised paradise for breaking through. That asymmetry in moral accounting partly explains why they won. The Tucker critique doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Tucker visits Saudi Arabia and says he feels great as a Christian. Ibrahim’s response: “𝘞𝘦𝘭𝘭, 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘩, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘢𝘶𝘥𝘪 𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘢, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺 𝘪𝘵. 𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘵 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘢𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶.” 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐓𝐮𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠. The data from Open Doors backs Ibrahim up. Every year, the World Watch List ranks the 50 nations where Christians face the most severe persecution. 𝐎𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝟓𝟎, 𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐥𝐲 𝟑𝟕 𝐭𝐨 𝟑𝟖 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦-𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲.” Of the top 13 “extreme persecutors” — nations where being identified as a Christian can get you k!lled on the spot — about 11 are Muslim. If you are a Christian who takes Christian persecution seriously, you have to reckon with that list. Britain is the test case unfolding in real time. VDH and Ibrahim discuss the stabbing of Henry Nowak, a student with no criminal record, just walking by. He was stabbed repeatedly and bled on the ground for 61 minutes. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐝, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐥𝐮𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐮𝐭. The attacker carried an eight-inch knife — illegal under British law — but held it legally under a Sikh ceremony exemption. The family hid the knife. The brother called police claiming his sibling had been racially attacked. The mechanisms of Western self-loathing activated exactly when they were most dangerous. What’s driving the right’s realignment? VDH points to two forces. First, the post-October-7 demonization of Israel — even though October 7th itself should have made the pro-Israel case more obvious, not less. Second: Gulf money pouring into American universities. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have directed hundreds of millions into elite academic institutions. The narrative shift in elite discourse didn’t happen by accident. Eastern Europe hasn’t made this mistake. 𝐕𝐢𝐤𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐎𝐫𝐛𝐚𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐎𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐲 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞. Hungarians and Poles have a living memory of what it meant to be ruled under Ottoman Islam through the 18th and 19th centuries. That memory hasn’t been overwritten by progressive revisionism. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐬𝐚𝐰 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐳𝐞𝐫𝐨-𝐬𝐮𝐦 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜 — 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐬𝐚𝐰. 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭.

M.A. Rothman

30,301 views • 3 months ago

𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐌𝐀𝐇𝐄𝐑 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐃𝐈𝐀𝐆𝐍𝐎𝐒𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐃𝐄𝐌𝐎𝐂𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐂 𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐓𝐘 𝐈𝐍 𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄. 𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄 𝐖𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐇𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐇𝐈𝐌 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐈𝐓. 𝐇𝐄 𝐈𝐒 𝐀𝐋𝐒𝐎 𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐇𝐔𝐍𝐃𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐑𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐓. Bill Maher spent eight minutes on Real Time last Friday doing something no Democrat with a national microphone has done honestly in a decade. He told his own party why they lost. The core of the monologue: “𝘝𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘷𝘷𝘺 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. 𝘈𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘢.” Read that again. Slowly. The second-most-famous liberal talk-show host in America — a man who has spent 30 years telling audiences how dumb Republicans are — just told Democrats that the issues do not matter, that voters pick based on 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘢, and that Donald Trump has all three while the Democratic Party has none of them. This is not a small admission. This is the entire 2024 post-mortem in a single sentence, delivered by a Democrat. Let me walk through what else he said, because it gets better — and worse, depending on which side of the aisle you sit on. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐋𝐞𝐝 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 The Democratic Party’s current approval rating is 𝟐𝟏 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 (Gallup, March 2026). Maher’s joke: “𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘒𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘦’𝘴 𝘴𝘸𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘬𝘢 𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘵𝘴”. Funny because it is accurate. And the Gallup internal is the part that should terrify every DNC strategist: 𝟒𝟓 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫, up 11 points in four years. Nearly half the Democratic base is telling pollsters, on the record, that its own leadership is too far left to win. When almost half your own voters want you to move toward your opponent’s position, you do not have a messaging problem. You have a 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭 problem. 𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐞𝐫’𝐬 𝐏𝐢𝐜𝐤: 𝐉𝐨𝐡𝐧 𝐅𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧 Maher nominated Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania as the Democratic Party’s Trump. Not the populist-movement Trump. The 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘴-𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦-𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳-𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴-𝘯𝘰𝘵-𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥-𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮-𝘵𝘩𝘦-𝘕𝘎𝘖-𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘱𝘵 Trump. Here is Maher’s inventory of Fetterman’s heresies, each of which would have been a career-ender in the Democratic Party of 2020: 𝐎𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫: Fetterman says wanting a secure border is not 𝘹𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘣𝘪𝘤 or 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘵. It is common sense. 𝐎𝐧 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥: When pro-Hamas protesters showed up at his home, Fetterman went to his roof 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥𝐢 𝐟𝐥𝐚𝐠 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦. Read that again. A sitting Democratic United States Senator publicly flew the Star of David in the faces of his own party’s base. 𝐎𝐧 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲: Fetterman says four words 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳, per Maher: “𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐤𝐞.” Translate that honestly. Maher just told his audience that the reason Republicans are nervous about 2028 is not a policy agenda. It is the possibility that 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐞. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐈𝐬 𝐏𝐞𝐭𝐞 Maher’s proposed running mate was former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, and the reasons he gave are almost more revealing than the Fetterman case. Buttigieg 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐬 a month ago. Stopped. Quietly scrubbed them. Maher flagged it on national television. Buttigieg’s own recent words, quoted by Maher: Democrats would do better “𝘪𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘶𝘱 𝘪𝘯 𝘷𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘣𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴”. That is a former Democratic presidential candidate publicly renouncing intersectional identity politics. In 2020 he would have been canceled for that sentence. In 2026 he is using it as a positioning play for 2028. Buttigieg also told Democrats to stop “𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘢”. Maher’s rejoinder: “𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐚 𝐏𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐬𝐤𝐞𝐭𝐜𝐡.” That one is going on the highlight reel. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐀𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐈𝐬 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐀 𝐉𝐨𝐤𝐞 Strip away the Mar-a-Lago bits, the CVS clothing line, the 6-foot-8 gag, and look at what Maher actually said about Trump’s victory: “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘰𝘯. 𝘕𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘹. 𝘎𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘨𝘰𝘴𝘩, 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘴𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘻𝘺, 𝘪𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬.” Translation: Trump won because he met voters where they actually were on crime and immigration. Americans were not yearning for the agenda; they were yearning for a politician who would 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 about borders, crime, men in women’s sports, and elementary-school pronoun drills. Every Democratic post-mortem since November 2024 has blamed Latinos, blamed young men, blamed podcasts, blamed Elon Musk, blamed disinformation, blamed Russia again for some reason, blamed misogyny, blamed low-information voters, and blamed Joe Biden for staying in too long. Bill Maher — alone, on a Friday night, on a premium cable show — finally said the real answer. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐳𝐲. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐝. 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐅𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧/𝐁𝐮𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐞𝐠 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐍𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐇𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧 Here is the problem with Maher’s prescription, and it is the same problem that has been cooking the Democratic Party for 15 years. The Democratic primary electorate — the activists, the donor class, the DSA wing, the 𝘚𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘥 caucus, the identity-studies faculty, the Planned Parenthood board, the teachers unions, the Working Families Party — will never nominate John Fetterman. They will not nominate anyone who waves an Israeli flag at his own base. They will not nominate anyone who says 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘬𝘦. They will not nominate anyone who agrees with Trump on the border. Maher knows this. Every Democrat in Washington knows this. The primary will eat any Fetterman-type candidate alive before the first snow falls in New Hampshire. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐑𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐞 𝐓𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐤𝐧𝐞𝐞-𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐁𝐨𝐛𝐛𝐲 𝐊𝐞𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐝𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐥𝐤𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐓𝐮𝐥𝐬𝐢 𝐆𝐚𝐛𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐮𝐧 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲. The Democratic Party does not actually want to win. It wants to be right about race, gender, and climate. Those are not the same goal, and for twenty years the party has been choosing the second one. 𝐂𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭 𝐈𝐬 𝐃𝐮𝐞 I have disagreed with Bill Maher on plenty. I still do. But on this one, he is telling the truth at volume about his own side, on his own network, to his own audience, and he knows the next three weeks of his DMs will be brutal. That is 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐚 he said voters reward. He is modeling the trait he is asking his party to rediscover. The fact that the Democratic Party cannot find more than a handful of its elected officials willing to do the same is the entire diagnosis, all by itself. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐨. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐬𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐚𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬 '𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐤𝐞' 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲. 𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐠𝐮𝐲. 𝐈 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥.

𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐌𝐀𝐇𝐄𝐑 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐃𝐈𝐀𝐆𝐍𝐎𝐒𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐃𝐄𝐌𝐎𝐂𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐂 𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐓𝐘 𝐈𝐍 𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄. 𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄 𝐖𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐇𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐇𝐈𝐌 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐈𝐓. 𝐇𝐄 𝐈𝐒 𝐀𝐋𝐒𝐎 𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐇𝐔𝐍𝐃𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐑𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐓. Bill Maher spent eight minutes on Real Time last Friday doing something no Democrat with a national microphone has done honestly in a decade. He told his own party why they lost. The core of the monologue: “𝘝𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘷𝘷𝘺 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. 𝘈𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘢.” Read that again. Slowly. The second-most-famous liberal talk-show host in America — a man who has spent 30 years telling audiences how dumb Republicans are — just told Democrats that the issues do not matter, that voters pick based on 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘢, and that Donald Trump has all three while the Democratic Party has none of them. This is not a small admission. This is the entire 2024 post-mortem in a single sentence, delivered by a Democrat. Let me walk through what else he said, because it gets better — and worse, depending on which side of the aisle you sit on. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐋𝐞𝐝 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 The Democratic Party’s current approval rating is 𝟐𝟏 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 (Gallup, March 2026). Maher’s joke: “𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘒𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘦’𝘴 𝘴𝘸𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘬𝘢 𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘵𝘴”. Funny because it is accurate. And the Gallup internal is the part that should terrify every DNC strategist: 𝟒𝟓 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫, up 11 points in four years. Nearly half the Democratic base is telling pollsters, on the record, that its own leadership is too far left to win. When almost half your own voters want you to move toward your opponent’s position, you do not have a messaging problem. You have a 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭 problem. 𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐞𝐫’𝐬 𝐏𝐢𝐜𝐤: 𝐉𝐨𝐡𝐧 𝐅𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧 Maher nominated Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania as the Democratic Party’s Trump. Not the populist-movement Trump. The 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘴-𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦-𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳-𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴-𝘯𝘰𝘵-𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥-𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮-𝘵𝘩𝘦-𝘕𝘎𝘖-𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘱𝘵 Trump. Here is Maher’s inventory of Fetterman’s heresies, each of which would have been a career-ender in the Democratic Party of 2020: 𝐎𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫: Fetterman says wanting a secure border is not 𝘹𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘣𝘪𝘤 or 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘵. It is common sense. 𝐎𝐧 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥: When pro-Hamas protesters showed up at his home, Fetterman went to his roof 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥𝐢 𝐟𝐥𝐚𝐠 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦. Read that again. A sitting Democratic United States Senator publicly flew the Star of David in the faces of his own party’s base. 𝐎𝐧 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲: Fetterman says four words 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳, per Maher: “𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐤𝐞.” Translate that honestly. Maher just told his audience that the reason Republicans are nervous about 2028 is not a policy agenda. It is the possibility that 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐞. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐈𝐬 𝐏𝐞𝐭𝐞 Maher’s proposed running mate was former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, and the reasons he gave are almost more revealing than the Fetterman case. Buttigieg 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐬 a month ago. Stopped. Quietly scrubbed them. Maher flagged it on national television. Buttigieg’s own recent words, quoted by Maher: Democrats would do better “𝘪𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘶𝘱 𝘪𝘯 𝘷𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘣𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴”. That is a former Democratic presidential candidate publicly renouncing intersectional identity politics. In 2020 he would have been canceled for that sentence. In 2026 he is using it as a positioning play for 2028. Buttigieg also told Democrats to stop “𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘢”. Maher’s rejoinder: “𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐚 𝐏𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐬𝐤𝐞𝐭𝐜𝐡.” That one is going on the highlight reel. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐀𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐈𝐬 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐀 𝐉𝐨𝐤𝐞 Strip away the Mar-a-Lago bits, the CVS clothing line, the 6-foot-8 gag, and look at what Maher actually said about Trump’s victory: “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘰𝘯. 𝘕𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘹. 𝘎𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘨𝘰𝘴𝘩, 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘴𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘻𝘺, 𝘪𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬.” Translation: Trump won because he met voters where they actually were on crime and immigration. Americans were not yearning for the agenda; they were yearning for a politician who would 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 about borders, crime, men in women’s sports, and elementary-school pronoun drills. Every Democratic post-mortem since November 2024 has blamed Latinos, blamed young men, blamed podcasts, blamed Elon Musk, blamed disinformation, blamed Russia again for some reason, blamed misogyny, blamed low-information voters, and blamed Joe Biden for staying in too long. Bill Maher — alone, on a Friday night, on a premium cable show — finally said the real answer. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐳𝐲. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐝. 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐅𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧/𝐁𝐮𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐞𝐠 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐍𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐇𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧 Here is the problem with Maher’s prescription, and it is the same problem that has been cooking the Democratic Party for 15 years. The Democratic primary electorate — the activists, the donor class, the DSA wing, the 𝘚𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘥 caucus, the identity-studies faculty, the Planned Parenthood board, the teachers unions, the Working Families Party — will never nominate John Fetterman. They will not nominate anyone who waves an Israeli flag at his own base. They will not nominate anyone who says 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘬𝘦. They will not nominate anyone who agrees with Trump on the border. Maher knows this. Every Democrat in Washington knows this. The primary will eat any Fetterman-type candidate alive before the first snow falls in New Hampshire. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐑𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐞 𝐓𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐤𝐧𝐞𝐞-𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐁𝐨𝐛𝐛𝐲 𝐊𝐞𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐝𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐥𝐤𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐓𝐮𝐥𝐬𝐢 𝐆𝐚𝐛𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐮𝐧 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲. The Democratic Party does not actually want to win. It wants to be right about race, gender, and climate. Those are not the same goal, and for twenty years the party has been choosing the second one. 𝐂𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭 𝐈𝐬 𝐃𝐮𝐞 I have disagreed with Bill Maher on plenty. I still do. But on this one, he is telling the truth at volume about his own side, on his own network, to his own audience, and he knows the next three weeks of his DMs will be brutal. That is 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐚 he said voters reward. He is modeling the trait he is asking his party to rediscover. The fact that the Democratic Party cannot find more than a handful of its elected officials willing to do the same is the entire diagnosis, all by itself. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐨. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐬𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐚𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬 '𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐤𝐞' 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲. 𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐠𝐮𝐲. 𝐈 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥.

M.A. Rothman

85,434 views • 5 months ago