Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

NEWS FLASH: “𝐀𝐬𝐢𝐦 𝐌𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐲𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐮𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞”, 𝐈𝐦𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐊𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐬 𝐏𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐦 #FascismUnderAsimLaw #ذہنی_مریض_نامنظور

23,338 views • 9 months ago •via X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐉𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐮 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐊𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐢𝐫'𝐬 𝐀𝐝𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲, 𝐈𝐀𝐒, 𝐈𝐏𝐒 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐦 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐏𝐥𝐞𝐛𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬; 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐬, lawyers, KAS officers 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐳𝐚𝐝𝐢 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭. 𝐄𝐱-𝐃𝐆𝐏 𝐃𝐫 𝐒𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐡 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥 𝐕𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐢𝐧 "𝐊𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐢𝐫 𝐏𝐨𝐝𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐀𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐀𝐥𝐢 𝐅𝐚𝐲𝐲𝐚𝐳" 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐟𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐛𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐮𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐭; 𝐚 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐭. 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐢𝐦, 𝐉&𝐊 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐦, 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢-𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐲𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐠𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝟏𝟕𝟎𝟎 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚'𝐬 𝐬𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐭𝐲, 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐊𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐢𝐫. 𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐨 '𝐓𝐀𝐋𝐊𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐍' 𝐨𝐧 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐓𝐮𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝟖𝟎-𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐝𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬. 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞'𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐤:

Ahmed Ali Fayyaz

23,250 views • 1 year ago

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭, 𝐑𝐚𝐳𝐳𝐥𝐞𝐬!🎉🥳 Our next Instax surprise is here, a 𝒋𝒂𝒎-𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒌𝒆𝒅 𝑪𝒖𝒑 𝑺𝒍𝒆𝒆𝒗𝒆 𝒄𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒃𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒊𝒏 𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒉𝒊𝒑 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 Gong cha !🧋 On this enchanted day, every sip of your favorite milk tea will let you 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐚𝐬 𝐀𝐳 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐚𝐥𝐩𝐡 𝐭𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐰, because magic tastes even sweeter when we share it together. From 𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐜𝐮𝐩 𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐬, to adorable 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐰 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐫𝐬, every detail is made to delight. But that’s just the beginning, enjoy our 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞, 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐧𝐚𝐩𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐚, 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐱 𝐦𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐳 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐚𝐥𝐩𝐡, 𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐥𝐮𝐜𝐤 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐥𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐣𝐨𝐢𝐧 𝐮𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡. Every corner is sprinkled with joy, every moment crafted to make this day one for the storybooks. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒂𝒈𝒊𝒄 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝒎𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒉𝒐𝒘 𝒊𝒕 𝒎𝒂𝒌𝒆𝒔 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒇𝒆𝒆𝒍—𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝒉𝒐𝒘 𝒊𝒕 𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒚𝒔 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓. #AzRalph #AzMartinez #RalphDeLeon

AZRALPH OFFICIAL

49,713 views • 1 year ago

𝐖𝐇𝐘 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐌𝐔𝐍𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐖𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐀𝐋𝐖𝐀𝐘𝐒 𝐅𝐀𝐈𝐋: 𝐀 𝐒𝐎𝐕𝐈𝐄𝐓-𝐁𝐎𝐑𝐍 𝐇𝐎𝐒𝐓 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐇𝐀𝐑𝐕𝐀𝐑𝐃-𝐄𝐃𝐔𝐂𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐏𝐒𝐘𝐂𝐇𝐎𝐋𝐎𝐆𝐈𝐒𝐓 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐃𝐄𝐋𝐈𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐂𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐓 𝐄𝐗𝐏𝐋𝐀𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐁𝐈𝐎𝐋𝐎𝐆𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐋 𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐒𝐎𝐍 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐌𝐔𝐍𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐂𝐀𝐍𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊, 𝐔𝐒𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐅𝐀𝐈𝐋𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐒𝐑𝐀𝐄𝐋𝐈 𝐊𝐈𝐁𝐁𝐔𝐓𝐙 𝐄𝐗𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐀𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐆𝐎𝐋𝐃-𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐍𝐃𝐀𝐑𝐃 𝐂𝐀𝐒𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐘. 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐑𝐄𝐐𝐔𝐈𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐕𝐈𝐄𝐖𝐈𝐍𝐆. 𝐎𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐝𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐭, 𝐚 𝐒𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐭-𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐠𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐨𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐬, 𝐛𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲-𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦’𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. The argument is built on the actual receipts of the Israeli kibbutz movement — the most ambitious 𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲, 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝, 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥-𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 — and why even that failed. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐤𝐢𝐛𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐳 𝐬𝐞𝐭𝐮𝐩, 𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭: “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘚𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘭𝘦𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘸, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘢 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥, 𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯. 𝘚𝘰 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦.” 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐤𝐢𝐛𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐳 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡: — 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐲 — children lived apart from parents in dormitories, raised communally — 𝐏𝐚𝐲 — everyone got the same regardless of work or output — 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐲 — explicitly designed to free women from ‘the patriarchy of the father’ — 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲 — individual possessions were minimized; everything was communal — 𝐃𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝 — the high performer and the low performer received the same 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐝: 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐜 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲 for evolutionary reasons going back hundreds of thousands of years. Children form attachment bonds with primary caregivers. Mothers form bonding circuits with infants. 𝐑𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞 ‘𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧.’ 𝐈𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐝: 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐚𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐩𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐩𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞. The high-effort, high-skill kibbutznik received the same as the low-effort. 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐥𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐓𝐞𝐥 𝐀𝐯𝐢𝐯 𝐨𝐫 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐝. The kibbutz birth rate collapsed. The economic output stagnated. Most kibbutzim are now functionally privatized cooperatives, indistinguishable from any small Israeli business. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐩𝐭: 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 ~𝟐𝟕𝟎 𝐤𝐢𝐛𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐳𝐢𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐤 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝟏𝟗𝟔𝟎𝐬, 𝐟𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝟑𝟎 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦. The rest privatized, paid market wages, and reintroduced the family as the core unit. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲, 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝, 𝐉𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐬𝐡, 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥-𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝, 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥-𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞. 𝐍𝐨𝐰 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞: every other communist project in history was 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲, 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝, 𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞, 𝐩𝐨𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐝. If the kibbutz failed under best-case conditions, every Soviet, Maoist, Cuban, Cambodian, North Korean, and Venezuelan iteration was 𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐩𝐬𝐞 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐝𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐭-𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭’𝐬 𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐫: communism 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐲, 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝 — three pillars of human social biology that 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐲𝐬𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐞. The Soviet Union killed 60 million people trying. The PRC killed 65 million. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐤𝐢𝐛𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐳, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬, 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐝𝐨 𝐢𝐭 𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐲. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐩𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝟏𝟖-𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫-𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨. 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐭. 𝐈𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 ‘𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐧.’ 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐤𝐢𝐛𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐳 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟. 𝐌𝐚𝐦𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐢’𝐬 𝐍𝐘𝐂 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐲. 𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨. 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐩𝐭𝐬. 𝘝𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 @𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘥

M.A. Rothman

90,990 views • 3 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.

M.A. Rothman

89,898 views • 4 months ago

𝐖𝐇𝐘 '𝐄𝐌𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐘' 𝐊𝐄𝐄𝐏𝐒 𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐃𝐔𝐂𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐓𝐘𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐍𝐘. A new working paper out of UCLA by political psychologist Samuel Pratt has just measured something American conservatives have been claiming for ten years and pretending was anecdotal. It is not anecdotal. It is now data. Pratt and his team built what they call the 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐂𝐚𝐧 𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐦 𝐒𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐞 — a survey instrument asking respondents how strongly they agree with statements like "𝘐 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵 𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘐 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥." Three findings. 𝐎𝐧𝐞: the belief is stable over time. People who say it this week say it next week. 𝐓𝐰𝐨: the demographic profile of high-scorers is precise. They are 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐠, 𝐟𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞, 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥. They self-rate as higher in intellectual humility, empathy, moral grandstanding, and — the key variable — 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞: they report lower emotional stability, higher anxiety, higher depression, and a stronger tendency to see themselves as 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐬 in everyday conflicts. In one sentence, the psychometric profile of the modern American "empathy advocate" is: 𝐚𝐧𝐱𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬, 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝, 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐦-𝐜𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐝, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐨-𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩. 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐮𝐩 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 Watch California Congresswoman Katie Porter at last week's gubernatorial debate, in real time, demonstrating how the empathy mechanism produces atrocious policy. "𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴 [...] 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘫𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘢 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨." Empathetic. Reassuring. Compassionate. Also flatly false. Per CBS News' 2020 Los Angeles survey, only 𝟏𝟗% of homeless individuals had done any work in the calendar quarter they became homeless. A 2017 San Francisco survey found 𝟏𝟑% working part-time or full-time. The reason is no mystery — a substantial majority of street-homeless Americans are managing untreated severe mental illness, active substance abuse, or both. The "empathetic" policy that emerges from Porter's framing is to leave them on the street. The actually humane policy involves involuntary commitment, mandated treatment, and structured housing — every one of which the empathy-coded liberal reflexively rejects as cruel. Pratt's data and the on-the-ground reality converge on the same uncomfortable conclusion: 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭, 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬, because empathy at scale stops asking 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘴 and starts asking 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐌𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦 How does a fringe view — communist Twitch streamers, candidates openly excusing full-scale m∗rder, congressmen calling themselves democratic socialists — capture an entire major American political party? Nassim Taleb has the cleanest explanation. He calls it 𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. A family of four. One daughter — 𝟐𝟓% of the household — only eats organic. Mom faces a nightly choice: cook two meals or cook one all-organic meal. The all-organic meal is easier. The household renormalizes to the daughter's preference. The family then attends a barbecue with three other families. The host has the same choice: two menus, or one all-organic. The all-organic menu is easier. 𝟐𝟓% renormalizes 𝟏𝟎𝟎% of dinner. Now imagine the daughter's "preference" is not organic food. It is the belief that bank robbery is righteous, that Israel is a colonial regime which must be dismantled, that your health insurance executive should be eliminated by force, and that anyone who objects is a fascist. The mechanism is identical. The intransigent minority creates an asymmetric cost on resistance. The majority renormalizes for convenience. French physicist 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐞 𝐆𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐦 has modeled the threshold formally. In his work on opinion dynamics, an extreme view captures a population at roughly 𝟐𝟎% activated support — provided the activists do three things consistently. They activate latent prejudices already present in the population. They impose a binary choice: "𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮." And they refuse, ever, to compromise on their core position. Pseudo-moderates then join — not because they have been persuaded by the full activist position, but because the binary has been imposed and the alternative ("siding with the oppressor") has been made socially intolerable. 𝐇𝐚𝐬𝐚𝐧 𝐏𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 This is the most important paragraph in this post. Read it twice. Hasan Piker — the Twitch streamer who endorses bank robberies, defends H-m-s, and lives in a $3 million Brentwood mansion — is 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚. He represents maybe 5-7% of the country. He does not move the needle by himself. The threat is the 𝐩𝐬𝐞𝐮𝐝𝐨-𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 — the 𝘕𝘦𝘸 𝘠𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘛𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 reporter who profiles him sympathetically, the Democratic congressman who appears on his stream, the Hollywood actor who shares his clips, the Brooklyn schoolteacher who attends his rallies, the empathetic college freshman who decides he is "𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘶𝘯𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵." That coalition — Galam's 𝟐𝟎% — is what flips the country. Hasan is just the visible 5%. This is also why Pratt's UCLA paper matters. The trait that creates the pseudo-moderate flank is the same trait the activists exploit: 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐲, 𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐦 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬. That is the recruitable population. That is the lever Hasan and his industry operate. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐞 Empathy is not a virtue. It is a 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐲. Like physical sensitivity to heat, it can produce wisdom or it can produce hysteria, depending entirely on what is paired with it. What converts empathy into wisdom is 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 — the willingness to evaluate consequences, to insist on results, to ask whether the policy that "feels compassionate" actually produces outcomes you would call humane in a year, a decade, or a lifetime. What converts empathy into tyranny is the 𝐚𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 of judgment — pure feeling, with no constraint, in service of a binary moral choice imposed by an activated 20%. That is the Democratic Party of 2026. The Pratt scale measures it. The Galam threshold predicts it. Katie Porter demonstrates it. Hasan Piker exploits it. 𝐅𝐢𝐱 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰.

M.A. Rothman

60,847 views • 3 months ago