Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐀𝐍 𝐉𝐎𝐔𝐑𝐍𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐓 𝐃𝐑𝐎𝐏𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐎𝐒𝐓 𝐃𝐄𝐕𝐀𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐈𝐍𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐑 𝐀𝐂𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐓 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐈𝐒𝐋𝐀𝐌𝐈𝐂 𝐑𝐄𝐏𝐔𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐂’𝐒 𝐂𝐎𝐋𝐋𝐀𝐏𝐒𝐄 — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐀𝐋𝐒 𝐊𝐇𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐄𝐈’𝐒 𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐃𝐒 𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐊𝐄𝐄𝐏𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐀𝐍𝐒 𝐈𝐍 𝐏𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐓𝐘 An Iranian dissident journalist went on GB News and delivered what may be the most illuminating six minutes of analysis on Iran’s war from anyone... who actually understands the regime from the inside. First, the leadership vacuum. He said the new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is essentially invisible: “𝘞𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘔𝘰𝘫𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘢 𝘒𝘩𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘪, 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘈𝘐, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦”. He called it “𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥’𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘈𝘐 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳” — meaning nobody actually knows who is running the country right now. The people left to negotiate? “𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘒𝘩𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘪”. The moderate voices have been k∗lled or removed. Only the hardliners remain — and they don’t want a deal. Then he revealed a conversation that explains 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 about the Islamic Republic’s philosophy. Khamenei’s own economic advisor once asked him: if we become friends with the United States, we’ll have higher economic growth. Khamenei’s response: “𝘐𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘵𝘩, 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦. 𝘚𝘰 𝘐 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘺”. Read that again. The Supreme Leader of Iran 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝 that the regime deliberately keeps its own people impoverished to maintain religious control. That’s not an accusation from the outside — that’s the regime’s own operating philosophy, from the top. He called it “𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮” — the Islamic Republic’s core ideology. 𝟒𝟓 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 of k∗lling American soldiers with roadside bombs, k∗lling Syrian citizens, attacking the U.S. embassy, attacking the U.K. embassy. He noted that the street the British embassy sits on in Tehran was renamed from 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐁𝐨𝐛𝐛𝐲 𝐒𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐭 — after an IRA hunger striker — specifically to humiliate the British. The most important part: what do Iranians actually inside the country think? “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘢 𝘸𝘢𝘳”. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦.show more

M.A. Rothman

93,315 subscribers

47,604 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐀𝐍 𝐀𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐈𝐒𝐓: “𝟒𝟔,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐀𝐍𝐒 𝐌𝐀𝐒𝐒𝐀𝐂𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐍 𝟒𝟖 𝐇𝐎𝐔𝐑𝐒” — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐔𝐊 𝐏𝐌 𝐖𝐎𝐍’𝐓 𝐋𝐈𝐅𝐓 𝐀 𝐅𝐈𝐍𝐆𝐄𝐑 Iranian activist Lily Moo went on GB News and delivered one of the most powerful testimonies you’ll hear about what’s actually happening inside Iran right now — and she did not hold back on the West’s failure to act. The numbers alone are staggering. According to regime figures themselves, more than 𝟒𝟔,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 were massacred “𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 48 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘯 400 𝘤𝘰𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯.” The IRGC and imported foreign militia from Iraq and Afghanistan carried out the k∗llings. Moo described Iranians calling out to Donald Trump and the international community during the January protests — chanting from the streets while “𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘙𝘎𝘊.” They were invoking the 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭 — actual international law — begging for intervention. Then she turned to the UK. The attacks in 𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐋𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐬 𝐆𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐧 — ambulances hit, the British Jewish community targeted — are, she says, “𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘩𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤.” Iranian businesses in London attacked by regime supporters. British security compromised. And yet the UK Prime Minister stands there claiming he won’t “compromise British security” while actively refusing to support a rescue mission for 𝟗𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐮𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬. Moo’s response was devastating: “𝘠𝘰𝘶, 𝘚𝘪𝘳, 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘜𝘒 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘣𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘶𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 90 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘥𝘢𝘺.” She addressed the question of civilian casualties head-on. The primary school in 𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐛 𝐢𝐧 𝐇𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐮𝐳𝐠𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 that was hit? It was built inside an IRGC base. Interviews with children from that school revealed the teachers 𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 when the bombing began — using children as human shields. Iranian people are convinced it was an IRGC missile. The regime places schools inside military installations and then parades the wreckage for propaganda. Iran is in its 𝟑𝟏𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐨𝐮𝐭. Phone calls to families are nearly impossible. Hospitals and schools are being packed with civilians so the regime can use them as targets. The IRGC is depleting. And Iranians want one thing: “𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦.” Churchill sent troops to Normandy. That is why Britain is free today. Moo is asking who will be this generation’s Churchill for Iran. 𝟗𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐢𝐭.

𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐀𝐍 𝐀𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐈𝐒𝐓: “𝟒𝟔,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐀𝐍𝐒 𝐌𝐀𝐒𝐒𝐀𝐂𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐍 𝟒𝟖 𝐇𝐎𝐔𝐑𝐒” — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐔𝐊 𝐏𝐌 𝐖𝐎𝐍’𝐓 𝐋𝐈𝐅𝐓 𝐀 𝐅𝐈𝐍𝐆𝐄𝐑 Iranian activist Lily Moo went on GB News and delivered one of the most powerful testimonies you’ll hear about what’s actually happening inside Iran right now — and she did not hold back on the West’s failure to act. The numbers alone are staggering. According to regime figures themselves, more than 𝟒𝟔,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 were massacred “𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 48 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘯 400 𝘤𝘰𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯.” The IRGC and imported foreign militia from Iraq and Afghanistan carried out the k∗llings. Moo described Iranians calling out to Donald Trump and the international community during the January protests — chanting from the streets while “𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘙𝘎𝘊.” They were invoking the 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭 — actual international law — begging for intervention. Then she turned to the UK. The attacks in 𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐋𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐬 𝐆𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐧 — ambulances hit, the British Jewish community targeted — are, she says, “𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘩𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤.” Iranian businesses in London attacked by regime supporters. British security compromised. And yet the UK Prime Minister stands there claiming he won’t “compromise British security” while actively refusing to support a rescue mission for 𝟗𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐮𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬. Moo’s response was devastating: “𝘠𝘰𝘶, 𝘚𝘪𝘳, 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘜𝘒 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘣𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘶𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 90 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘥𝘢𝘺.” She addressed the question of civilian casualties head-on. The primary school in 𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐛 𝐢𝐧 𝐇𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐮𝐳𝐠𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 that was hit? It was built inside an IRGC base. Interviews with children from that school revealed the teachers 𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 when the bombing began — using children as human shields. Iranian people are convinced it was an IRGC missile. The regime places schools inside military installations and then parades the wreckage for propaganda. Iran is in its 𝟑𝟏𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐨𝐮𝐭. Phone calls to families are nearly impossible. Hospitals and schools are being packed with civilians so the regime can use them as targets. The IRGC is depleting. And Iranians want one thing: “𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦.” Churchill sent troops to Normandy. That is why Britain is free today. Moo is asking who will be this generation’s Churchill for Iran. 𝟗𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐢𝐭.

M.A. Rothman

12,730 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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

89,400 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

𝐀 𝐁𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐇 𝐍𝐄𝐖𝐒 𝐇𝐎𝐒𝐓 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐄𝐗𝐏𝐋𝐀𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏’𝐒 𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐆𝐘 𝐁𝐄𝐓𝐓𝐄𝐑 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐍 𝐀𝐍𝐘𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐈𝐍 𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐍 𝐌𝐄𝐃𝐈𝐀 — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐇𝐄’𝐒 𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐑𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐎𝐅 𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐈𝐓 𝐌𝐄𝐀𝐍𝐒 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐄𝐔𝐑𝐎𝐏𝐄 GB News’ Alex Armstrong laid out the geopolitical map that American media refuses to draw: this war isn’t about toppling Iran. It’s about 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 — and America is winning on every front. Start with oil. The Strait of Hormuz carries 𝟒𝟓% 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚’𝐬 𝐨𝐢𝐥 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐲. Trump effectively captured Venezuela’s oil supply in January. As Armstrong put it: “𝘓𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘸𝘩𝘰’𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘴𝘶𝘥𝘥𝘦𝘯. 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘴.” China is in the middle of a tariff negotiation with Trump — and suddenly its entire energy supply depends on American goodwill. Then Europe. With Russian energy off the table and domestic energy hollowed out by the “𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘯𝘦𝘵 𝘻𝘦𝘳𝘰,” Europe is becoming 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐢𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐠𝐚𝐬. Armstrong: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘢𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘰𝘰.” Armstrong connected the dots to what the Pentagon calls 𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 — Greenland through the Panama Canal, the entire Western Hemisphere secured as a self-sufficient American economic and security zone. “𝘕𝘰 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘯𝘰 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴, 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥, 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦-𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢.” The most striking part was his warning for Britain: “𝘞𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺. 𝘞𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 60% 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘥. 𝘞𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘫𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥.” He described Britain heading toward 𝐚 𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐤 𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝟏,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 as America withdraws from its traditional role. When a foreign ally’s own news anchors are publicly acknowledging that Trump’s strategy is working — even as it leaves them behind — that tells you everything about who has the leverage. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐰𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐭: 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐨𝐬. 𝐇𝐞’𝐬 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬.

𝐀 𝐁𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐇 𝐍𝐄𝐖𝐒 𝐇𝐎𝐒𝐓 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐄𝐗𝐏𝐋𝐀𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏’𝐒 𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐆𝐘 𝐁𝐄𝐓𝐓𝐄𝐑 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐍 𝐀𝐍𝐘𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐈𝐍 𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐍 𝐌𝐄𝐃𝐈𝐀 — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐇𝐄’𝐒 𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐑𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐎𝐅 𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐈𝐓 𝐌𝐄𝐀𝐍𝐒 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐄𝐔𝐑𝐎𝐏𝐄 GB News’ Alex Armstrong laid out the geopolitical map that American media refuses to draw: this war isn’t about toppling Iran. It’s about 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 — and America is winning on every front. Start with oil. The Strait of Hormuz carries 𝟒𝟓% 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚’𝐬 𝐨𝐢𝐥 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐲. Trump effectively captured Venezuela’s oil supply in January. As Armstrong put it: “𝘓𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘸𝘩𝘰’𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘴𝘶𝘥𝘥𝘦𝘯. 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘴.” China is in the middle of a tariff negotiation with Trump — and suddenly its entire energy supply depends on American goodwill. Then Europe. With Russian energy off the table and domestic energy hollowed out by the “𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘯𝘦𝘵 𝘻𝘦𝘳𝘰,” Europe is becoming 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐢𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐠𝐚𝐬. Armstrong: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘢𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘰𝘰.” Armstrong connected the dots to what the Pentagon calls 𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 — Greenland through the Panama Canal, the entire Western Hemisphere secured as a self-sufficient American economic and security zone. “𝘕𝘰 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘯𝘰 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴, 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥, 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦-𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢.” The most striking part was his warning for Britain: “𝘞𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺. 𝘞𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 60% 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘥. 𝘞𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘫𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥.” He described Britain heading toward 𝐚 𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐤 𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝟏,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 as America withdraws from its traditional role. When a foreign ally’s own news anchors are publicly acknowledging that Trump’s strategy is working — even as it leaves them behind — that tells you everything about who has the leverage. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐰𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐭: 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐨𝐬. 𝐇𝐞’𝐬 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬.

M.A. Rothman

2,214,952 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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

13,628 Aufrufe • vor 13 Tagen

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

20,644 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

𝐌𝐄𝐋𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐄 𝐏𝐇𝐈𝐋𝐋𝐈𝐏𝐒 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐒𝐀𝐈𝐃 𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐍𝐎 𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐖𝐄𝐒𝐓 𝐖𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐒𝐀𝐘 Melanie Phillips (Melanie Phillips) — former 𝘎𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘯 journalist turned one of Britain's sharpest conservative voices — just delivered the most precise diagnosis of the West's moral collapse on the Israel question that anyone has put on camera. Her argument is surgical: the entire Western framework for understanding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is built on a lie. The lie is that indigenous Palestinian Muslims were displaced by European Jews after the Holocaust. The truth is that the Jews are the only people for whom the land of Israel was ever their national kingdom — the Kingdom of Israel under David, the Temple built by Solomon in the tenth century BCE, the Hasmonean dynasty in 165 BCE — all of it 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 (American Jewish Committee). The earliest documented mention of "Israel" as a people appears on the Merneptah Stele from 𝟏𝟐𝟎𝟖 𝐁𝐂𝐄 — over 1,800 years before Muhammad was born. Phillips doesn't mince words. She calls Palestinianism an invention, and she's not the only one. Zuheir Mohsen, a PLO executive committee member, said it explicitly in 1977: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵. 𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘡𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮. That was published in the Dutch newspaper 𝘛𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘸. Not a Zionist outlet. A mainstream European paper. And the West buried it. Phillips hammers the point that this isn't a land dispute. If it were, it would have been solved in the 1930s when Palestinian Arabs were offered their own state and chose war instead. It would have been solved at Camp David. At Taba. At Annapolis. Every single time, the answer was the same — no. She goes further than most are willing to: Israel itself bears responsibility for the misapprehension. The Jewish diaspora bears responsibility. 𝘕𝘰𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘦. Nobody tells the West that the two-state solution is the answer to a problem they've misidentified. And the silence has been catastrophic. Meanwhile, the EU handed 𝐄𝐔𝐑 𝟐𝟎𝟐 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 to UNRWA and the Palestinian Authority (European Commission) — the same PA that funds "pay-for-slay" payments to families of terrorists. Germany's CDU just voted to 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐳𝐞 all PA payments until they stop bankrolling terrorism and purge antisemitism from their textbooks (Jerusalem Post). One country in Europe finally noticed what they've been subsidizing. Phillips' closing line is the one that will stay with you: 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘶𝘱𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵'𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘴. She's not wrong. The West didn't lose its moral compass by accident. It handed it to people who promised to destroy it — and then wrote them a check. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐥𝐢𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐤𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐭.

𝐌𝐄𝐋𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐄 𝐏𝐇𝐈𝐋𝐋𝐈𝐏𝐒 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐒𝐀𝐈𝐃 𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐍𝐎 𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐖𝐄𝐒𝐓 𝐖𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐒𝐀𝐘 Melanie Phillips (Melanie Phillips) — former 𝘎𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘯 journalist turned one of Britain's sharpest conservative voices — just delivered the most precise diagnosis of the West's moral collapse on the Israel question that anyone has put on camera. Her argument is surgical: the entire Western framework for understanding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is built on a lie. The lie is that indigenous Palestinian Muslims were displaced by European Jews after the Holocaust. The truth is that the Jews are the only people for whom the land of Israel was ever their national kingdom — the Kingdom of Israel under David, the Temple built by Solomon in the tenth century BCE, the Hasmonean dynasty in 165 BCE — all of it 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 (American Jewish Committee). The earliest documented mention of "Israel" as a people appears on the Merneptah Stele from 𝟏𝟐𝟎𝟖 𝐁𝐂𝐄 — over 1,800 years before Muhammad was born. Phillips doesn't mince words. She calls Palestinianism an invention, and she's not the only one. Zuheir Mohsen, a PLO executive committee member, said it explicitly in 1977: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵. 𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘡𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮. That was published in the Dutch newspaper 𝘛𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘸. Not a Zionist outlet. A mainstream European paper. And the West buried it. Phillips hammers the point that this isn't a land dispute. If it were, it would have been solved in the 1930s when Palestinian Arabs were offered their own state and chose war instead. It would have been solved at Camp David. At Taba. At Annapolis. Every single time, the answer was the same — no. She goes further than most are willing to: Israel itself bears responsibility for the misapprehension. The Jewish diaspora bears responsibility. 𝘕𝘰𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘦. Nobody tells the West that the two-state solution is the answer to a problem they've misidentified. And the silence has been catastrophic. Meanwhile, the EU handed 𝐄𝐔𝐑 𝟐𝟎𝟐 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 to UNRWA and the Palestinian Authority (European Commission) — the same PA that funds "pay-for-slay" payments to families of terrorists. Germany's CDU just voted to 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐳𝐞 all PA payments until they stop bankrolling terrorism and purge antisemitism from their textbooks (Jerusalem Post). One country in Europe finally noticed what they've been subsidizing. Phillips' closing line is the one that will stay with you: 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘶𝘱𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵'𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘴. She's not wrong. The West didn't lose its moral compass by accident. It handed it to people who promised to destroy it — and then wrote them a check. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐥𝐢𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐤𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐭.

M.A. Rothman

167,702 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

𝐕𝐃𝐇: 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐋𝐎𝐒𝐓 𝐀 𝐇𝐀𝐋𝐅 𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐋𝐋𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐃𝐎𝐋𝐋𝐀𝐑𝐒 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐈𝐓𝐒 𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐑𝐄 𝐌𝐈𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐀𝐑𝐘. 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐄𝐃𝐈𝐀 𝐖𝐎𝐍'𝐓 𝐓𝐄𝐋𝐋 𝐘𝐎𝐔. Victor Davis Hanson just did what no one in legacy media will do. He looked at the Iran war empirically. The verdict isn't close. Iran — 𝟗𝟑 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞, the largest military power in the Middle East by every measure, feared by the Gulf monarchies and Europeans alike — has just suffered one of the most lopsided asymmetric defeats in modern history. Hanson: "𝘐𝘵'𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘶𝘯𝘶𝘴𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘰 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘴𝘺𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤 𝘸𝘢𝘳, 𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵." The scorecard: Iran has lost 𝐡𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 — possibly 𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐚 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐬 — in a half-century of investment in missiles, drones, submarines, and capital ships. Gone. Their command and control is "𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘥 𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘳." Nobody — not the theocracy, not the IRGC, not the political class, not the army — knows who's actually in charge. They're afraid of each other. They're afraid to look soft. And they're afraid that cutting a deal means "𝘸𝘦'𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦'𝘷𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯𝘦." Meanwhile, the American left spent one day calling Trump a warmonger and a "𝘏𝘪𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘦." The next day, after he announced negotiations, they called him a "𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘰" — a Neville Chamberlain, a Jimmy Carter. Hanson nailed the pathology. They don't analyze the war empirically. They analyze it politically. In his words, Tom Friedman and Bill Kristol "𝘢𝘭𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘋𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘥 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱." 𝟏𝟎𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐫𝐬 are in that theater right now. Risking their lives to make sure Iran never puts a nuclear-tipped missile on Tel Aviv, London, or eventually Chicago. And half the political class is 𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 because of who's in the Oval Office. Read that again. And the losers don't stop at Tehran. 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚: no more Venezuela. No more Latin America. No more Middle East. Assad is gone. The drone pipeline with Iran is severed. Bogged down in Ukraine, bleeding over a million and a half casualties. 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚: took 80 percent of all Iranian oil. That pipeline is now contingent on the United States. And Beijing just watched America broadcast to the world that it's about to mass-produce a half-million to a million drones. Any fantasy of crossing 110 nautical miles to take Taiwan just got a lot more expensive. 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞, in Hanson's words, is "𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘳." We asked them for bases and airspace. That was it. Spain closed its embassy in Israel — "𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘴, 𝘚𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵." France wouldn't let us use its airpower or clean up H-z-b in Lebanon, its own post-colonial responsibility. Italy wouldn't let our bombers land in Sicily. The United Kingdom — the nation that built the Royal Navy — "𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘳" to protect its own base in Cyprus. Turkey, a NATO member, is openly siding with Iran and threatening a NATO partner, Israel. Hanson's verdict: "𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖, 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺." Going forward, the United States will pick and choose which NATO members are actually worth the alliance. The rest are "𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘶𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘦." And the Strait of Hormuz? The left spent two weeks shrieking that closure would end the world. Reality: it carries 𝟐𝟎 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 of world oil, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝟖𝟎. The Saudis are expanding their Red Sea pipeline. The Emirates are expanding theirs. A pipeline across the desert through Jordan to Haifa is on the table. Within a few years, the Gulf "𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯." Their leverage becomes their liability. If the war ends in two or three weeks, Hanson estimates seven months to economic recovery. Then comes the realization. Iran is not threatening the Middle East. Iran has no ballistic missile threat. Iran has no immediate path to a nuclear weapon. Iran has no military. Its command and control is wiped out. Its population is stewing. "𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘯 𝘞𝘢𝘭𝘭." Not the next day. Not the next month. But within months — or within two years, like the Soviet Union — regime change. This war was fought on Western American terms. No Fallujah. No house-to-house in Taji. No villages in Afghanistan where you can't tell friend from enemy. The asymmetry — by design — was total. The 24-hour news cycle will keep shrieking. The Democrat-media borg will keep cycling through whichever narrative hurts Trump most that morning. But the map has already been redrawn. 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝. 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚 𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐝. 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝. 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐬 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐤 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬.

𝐕𝐃𝐇: 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐋𝐎𝐒𝐓 𝐀 𝐇𝐀𝐋𝐅 𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐋𝐋𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐃𝐎𝐋𝐋𝐀𝐑𝐒 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐈𝐓𝐒 𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐑𝐄 𝐌𝐈𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐀𝐑𝐘. 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐄𝐃𝐈𝐀 𝐖𝐎𝐍'𝐓 𝐓𝐄𝐋𝐋 𝐘𝐎𝐔. Victor Davis Hanson just did what no one in legacy media will do. He looked at the Iran war empirically. The verdict isn't close. Iran — 𝟗𝟑 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞, the largest military power in the Middle East by every measure, feared by the Gulf monarchies and Europeans alike — has just suffered one of the most lopsided asymmetric defeats in modern history. Hanson: "𝘐𝘵'𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘶𝘯𝘶𝘴𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘰 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘴𝘺𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤 𝘸𝘢𝘳, 𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵." The scorecard: Iran has lost 𝐡𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 — possibly 𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐚 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐬 — in a half-century of investment in missiles, drones, submarines, and capital ships. Gone. Their command and control is "𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘥 𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘳." Nobody — not the theocracy, not the IRGC, not the political class, not the army — knows who's actually in charge. They're afraid of each other. They're afraid to look soft. And they're afraid that cutting a deal means "𝘸𝘦'𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦'𝘷𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯𝘦." Meanwhile, the American left spent one day calling Trump a warmonger and a "𝘏𝘪𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘦." The next day, after he announced negotiations, they called him a "𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘰" — a Neville Chamberlain, a Jimmy Carter. Hanson nailed the pathology. They don't analyze the war empirically. They analyze it politically. In his words, Tom Friedman and Bill Kristol "𝘢𝘭𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘋𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘥 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱." 𝟏𝟎𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐫𝐬 are in that theater right now. Risking their lives to make sure Iran never puts a nuclear-tipped missile on Tel Aviv, London, or eventually Chicago. And half the political class is 𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 because of who's in the Oval Office. Read that again. And the losers don't stop at Tehran. 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚: no more Venezuela. No more Latin America. No more Middle East. Assad is gone. The drone pipeline with Iran is severed. Bogged down in Ukraine, bleeding over a million and a half casualties. 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚: took 80 percent of all Iranian oil. That pipeline is now contingent on the United States. And Beijing just watched America broadcast to the world that it's about to mass-produce a half-million to a million drones. Any fantasy of crossing 110 nautical miles to take Taiwan just got a lot more expensive. 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞, in Hanson's words, is "𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘳." We asked them for bases and airspace. That was it. Spain closed its embassy in Israel — "𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘴, 𝘚𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵." France wouldn't let us use its airpower or clean up H-z-b in Lebanon, its own post-colonial responsibility. Italy wouldn't let our bombers land in Sicily. The United Kingdom — the nation that built the Royal Navy — "𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘳" to protect its own base in Cyprus. Turkey, a NATO member, is openly siding with Iran and threatening a NATO partner, Israel. Hanson's verdict: "𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖, 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺." Going forward, the United States will pick and choose which NATO members are actually worth the alliance. The rest are "𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘶𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘦." And the Strait of Hormuz? The left spent two weeks shrieking that closure would end the world. Reality: it carries 𝟐𝟎 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 of world oil, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝟖𝟎. The Saudis are expanding their Red Sea pipeline. The Emirates are expanding theirs. A pipeline across the desert through Jordan to Haifa is on the table. Within a few years, the Gulf "𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯." Their leverage becomes their liability. If the war ends in two or three weeks, Hanson estimates seven months to economic recovery. Then comes the realization. Iran is not threatening the Middle East. Iran has no ballistic missile threat. Iran has no immediate path to a nuclear weapon. Iran has no military. Its command and control is wiped out. Its population is stewing. "𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘯 𝘞𝘢𝘭𝘭." Not the next day. Not the next month. But within months — or within two years, like the Soviet Union — regime change. This war was fought on Western American terms. No Fallujah. No house-to-house in Taji. No villages in Afghanistan where you can't tell friend from enemy. The asymmetry — by design — was total. The 24-hour news cycle will keep shrieking. The Democrat-media borg will keep cycling through whichever narrative hurts Trump most that morning. But the map has already been redrawn. 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝. 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚 𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐝. 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝. 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐬 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐤 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬.

M.A. Rothman

189,738 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐎𝐑 𝐃𝐀𝐕𝐈𝐒 𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐎𝐍: "𝐈 𝐒𝐔𝐏𝐏𝐎𝐑𝐓 𝐈𝐒𝐑𝐀𝐄𝐋 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐒𝐎𝐍" Victor Davis Hanson just laid out the most airtight strategic case for American support of Israel you'll hear — and it has nothing to do with theology, lobbying, or "Christian Zionism." He opens with a disarming admission: "𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘡𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵. 𝘐 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺." Hanson grew up on a farm in rural California and didn't meet a Jewish person until he was 18 years old at UC Santa Cruz. No hidden agenda. No tribal loyalty. Just cold strategy. His first exhibit: the 2012 joint missile defense program with Poland and the Czech Republic. It wasn't built to stop Russia's 7,000 nuclear warheads — it was designed to shield 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧. NATO understood that Tehran was hell-bent on a nuclear weapon and Europe was within range of its advancing missile program. That's how seriously the West took the Iranian threat — before Israel ever entered the conversation. Then Barack Obama traded it away. Caught on a hot mic telling Dmitry Medvedev he'd be "𝘧𝘭𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦" if Putin gave him "𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦" before the election. Both kept the bargain — Putin held off, Obama got re-elected, and Europe's shield against Iran got scrapped. Continental security, surrendered for domestic political convenience. Hanson's broader point is devastating. Iran didn't become America's enemy because of Israel. Iran became America's enemy because 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 k!𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐬. The 1979 embassy seizure. The 1983 Beirut Marine barracks bombing that took 𝟐𝟒𝟏 American lives. The shaped charges — explosively formed penetrators — that Iran funneled to Shia militias in Iraq. The Pentagon's own revised assessment puts the toll at 𝟔𝟎𝟑 𝐔.𝐒. 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 k!lled by Iran-backed forces in Iraq alone — one in every six American combat d∗aths in that war (Pentagon, 2019 revised estimate). None of that had anything to do with Israel. That was Iran waging war on America directly. Then comes the democracy argument. The United States consistently aligns with consensual governments — NATO, Japan, South Korea, Australia. Israel is the only fully democratic government in a region of 𝟓𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞, Shia and Sunni, Iranian and Arab, that share no such tradition. It has natural strategic affinities with the United States that, as Hanson puts it, "𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 7 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴." And here's where VDH drops the hammer on the hypocrisy. The U.S. sends $𝟏.𝟑 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 a year to Egypt (State Department). Over $𝟏.𝟕 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 a year to Jordan (Congressional Research Service). We provide military assistance to Erdogan's Turkey — a NATO member that still 𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐩𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐂𝐲𝐩𝐫𝐮𝐬 and is far from consensual. Nobody marches in the streets over any of that. But military aid to the one democracy in the Middle East that shares our exact enemies? Suddenly it's controversial. "𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭," Hanson concludes, "𝘪𝘵'𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘥, 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧-𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵." 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭'𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫.

𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐎𝐑 𝐃𝐀𝐕𝐈𝐒 𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐎𝐍: "𝐈 𝐒𝐔𝐏𝐏𝐎𝐑𝐓 𝐈𝐒𝐑𝐀𝐄𝐋 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐒𝐎𝐍" Victor Davis Hanson just laid out the most airtight strategic case for American support of Israel you'll hear — and it has nothing to do with theology, lobbying, or "Christian Zionism." He opens with a disarming admission: "𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘡𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵. 𝘐 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺." Hanson grew up on a farm in rural California and didn't meet a Jewish person until he was 18 years old at UC Santa Cruz. No hidden agenda. No tribal loyalty. Just cold strategy. His first exhibit: the 2012 joint missile defense program with Poland and the Czech Republic. It wasn't built to stop Russia's 7,000 nuclear warheads — it was designed to shield 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧. NATO understood that Tehran was hell-bent on a nuclear weapon and Europe was within range of its advancing missile program. That's how seriously the West took the Iranian threat — before Israel ever entered the conversation. Then Barack Obama traded it away. Caught on a hot mic telling Dmitry Medvedev he'd be "𝘧𝘭𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦" if Putin gave him "𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦" before the election. Both kept the bargain — Putin held off, Obama got re-elected, and Europe's shield against Iran got scrapped. Continental security, surrendered for domestic political convenience. Hanson's broader point is devastating. Iran didn't become America's enemy because of Israel. Iran became America's enemy because 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 k!𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐬. The 1979 embassy seizure. The 1983 Beirut Marine barracks bombing that took 𝟐𝟒𝟏 American lives. The shaped charges — explosively formed penetrators — that Iran funneled to Shia militias in Iraq. The Pentagon's own revised assessment puts the toll at 𝟔𝟎𝟑 𝐔.𝐒. 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 k!lled by Iran-backed forces in Iraq alone — one in every six American combat d∗aths in that war (Pentagon, 2019 revised estimate). None of that had anything to do with Israel. That was Iran waging war on America directly. Then comes the democracy argument. The United States consistently aligns with consensual governments — NATO, Japan, South Korea, Australia. Israel is the only fully democratic government in a region of 𝟓𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞, Shia and Sunni, Iranian and Arab, that share no such tradition. It has natural strategic affinities with the United States that, as Hanson puts it, "𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 7 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴." And here's where VDH drops the hammer on the hypocrisy. The U.S. sends $𝟏.𝟑 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 a year to Egypt (State Department). Over $𝟏.𝟕 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 a year to Jordan (Congressional Research Service). We provide military assistance to Erdogan's Turkey — a NATO member that still 𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐩𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐂𝐲𝐩𝐫𝐮𝐬 and is far from consensual. Nobody marches in the streets over any of that. But military aid to the one democracy in the Middle East that shares our exact enemies? Suddenly it's controversial. "𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭," Hanson concludes, "𝘪𝘵'𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘥, 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧-𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵." 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭'𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫.

M.A. Rothman

136,475 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

𝐕𝐃𝐇: 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐈𝐒 𝐒𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐕𝐀𝐍𝐂𝐄 𝐀 𝐌𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐀𝐆𝐄 Victor Davis Hanson is reading Trump's body language — and what he sees is a president recalibrating his inner circle in real time. VDH starts by giving Vance his due. In 2024, Vance "𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘮 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢," destroyed everyone he debated, and made Walz look like "𝘢 𝘣𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴" — all with surgical calm. His attitude toward opponents was almost generous: "𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦. 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯'𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶." Formidable. But that was the campaign. Then came governing. Iran. Venezuela. Cuba. None of it was MAGA orthodoxy. The strikes took out Iran's nuclear facilities and its supreme leader. The Venezuela operation grabbed Maduro right out from under his Cuban bodyguards with zero American d∗aths. Bold, decisive — and exactly the kind of engagement that puts Vance in 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. As VDH explains it, Vance knows Trump values "𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘺, 𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘺, 𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘺, 𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘺, 𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘺" above everything. But his power base — Tucker, Don Jr., Tucker's son on his own staff, the people who got him the VP nomination — are the ones most opposed to the foreign engagements. Trump acknowledged the rift publicly, telling reporters he and Vance are 𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 on Iran (ABC News). To his credit, Vance handled it well — "𝘐𝘵'𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘪𝘵'𝘴 𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦." But the tension is real. Meanwhile, enter 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧. VDH's nickname is perfect. Panama problem? Send Rubio. Vance blew things up with Zelensky and the Europeans? Send Rubio to play good cop. Personable, speaks Spanish, popular — and Trump is heaping praise on him. When reporters asked about a disagreement with Vance, Trump was notably lukewarm. Then he pivoted to Rubio: "𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺." That contrast isn't accidental. That's Trump's antennas telling the room where the loyalty ledger stands. Then VDH turns to Tucker — and this part stings. Hanson was on Tucker's show for years and never heard any of what Tucker is saying now. There's an internet compilation of Tucker's own past statements where he was "𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘷𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵" against radical Islam and Iran. Now he's calling Trump's Iran decision 𝐚𝐛𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐠𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐥 and claiming that when you demand unconditional surrender, it historically leads to mass r∗pe of the defeated population (Mediaite). Trump's response was blunt: Tucker is 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐌𝐀𝐆𝐀. VDH dismantles Tucker's premise with a single example. America demanded unconditional surrender from Japan. Douglas MacArthur served as pro-consul for eight years. There was no mass r∗pe by Americans. Tucker's claim doesn't survive contact with the most obvious parallel in modern history. The message VDH is decoding is clear: Vance needs to divorce himself from the extremist voices, recommit to Trump's agenda as executed — not as debated on podcasts — and prove that loyalty runs both ways. If he doesn't, the man Trump keeps calling the greatest Secretary of State in history is right there. 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 𝐫𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜. 𝐀𝐥𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞.

𝐕𝐃𝐇: 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐈𝐒 𝐒𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐕𝐀𝐍𝐂𝐄 𝐀 𝐌𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐀𝐆𝐄 Victor Davis Hanson is reading Trump's body language — and what he sees is a president recalibrating his inner circle in real time. VDH starts by giving Vance his due. In 2024, Vance "𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘮 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢," destroyed everyone he debated, and made Walz look like "𝘢 𝘣𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴" — all with surgical calm. His attitude toward opponents was almost generous: "𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦. 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯'𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶." Formidable. But that was the campaign. Then came governing. Iran. Venezuela. Cuba. None of it was MAGA orthodoxy. The strikes took out Iran's nuclear facilities and its supreme leader. The Venezuela operation grabbed Maduro right out from under his Cuban bodyguards with zero American d∗aths. Bold, decisive — and exactly the kind of engagement that puts Vance in 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. As VDH explains it, Vance knows Trump values "𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘺, 𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘺, 𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘺, 𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘺, 𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘺" above everything. But his power base — Tucker, Don Jr., Tucker's son on his own staff, the people who got him the VP nomination — are the ones most opposed to the foreign engagements. Trump acknowledged the rift publicly, telling reporters he and Vance are 𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 on Iran (ABC News). To his credit, Vance handled it well — "𝘐𝘵'𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘪𝘵'𝘴 𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦." But the tension is real. Meanwhile, enter 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧. VDH's nickname is perfect. Panama problem? Send Rubio. Vance blew things up with Zelensky and the Europeans? Send Rubio to play good cop. Personable, speaks Spanish, popular — and Trump is heaping praise on him. When reporters asked about a disagreement with Vance, Trump was notably lukewarm. Then he pivoted to Rubio: "𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺." That contrast isn't accidental. That's Trump's antennas telling the room where the loyalty ledger stands. Then VDH turns to Tucker — and this part stings. Hanson was on Tucker's show for years and never heard any of what Tucker is saying now. There's an internet compilation of Tucker's own past statements where he was "𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘷𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵" against radical Islam and Iran. Now he's calling Trump's Iran decision 𝐚𝐛𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐠𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐥 and claiming that when you demand unconditional surrender, it historically leads to mass r∗pe of the defeated population (Mediaite). Trump's response was blunt: Tucker is 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐌𝐀𝐆𝐀. VDH dismantles Tucker's premise with a single example. America demanded unconditional surrender from Japan. Douglas MacArthur served as pro-consul for eight years. There was no mass r∗pe by Americans. Tucker's claim doesn't survive contact with the most obvious parallel in modern history. The message VDH is decoding is clear: Vance needs to divorce himself from the extremist voices, recommit to Trump's agenda as executed — not as debated on podcasts — and prove that loyalty runs both ways. If he doesn't, the man Trump keeps calling the greatest Secretary of State in history is right there. 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 𝐫𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜. 𝐀𝐥𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞.

M.A. Rothman

700,664 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

🚨🇮🇷 RARE INTERVIEW WITH LEADING IRANIAN PROFESSOR It’s rare I get to interview someone from INSIDE of Iran It’s even rarer to speak to someone who’s openly critical of the regime And not just anyone, but one of the country’s most respected voices Prof. Sadegh Zibakalam was arrested by both the pre-revolution Shah of Iran in the 1970s, and by the current regime 2 years ago He is critical of both the current regime, but also of the past Monarchy, as well as any U.S. or Israeli intervention or alternative to the current regime I enjoyed this conversation as Zibakalam did not mince his words, and he gave me honest direct answers to tough questions: How significant are the protests? What triggered them? Could they topple the regime? Do you think the Supreme Leader could flee the country? Is there a split between the army and the IRGC? Is there a risk of civil war? He says the Islamic regime has never been weaker. Iran's proxies are destroyed, its allies absent during the 12-day war with Israel, its currency in freefall, and its people chanting "Death to the dictator" in the streets. But Zibakalam warns against celebrating regime collapse, asking the question few want to answer: what comes next? He also believes the regime won't risk full military confrontation with the U.S. and Israel, no matter how much nationalist fervor it might generate. The gamble is too dangerous. What if Iranians don't rally behind the flag? Lastly, I asked the Professor: isn’t he worried about being imprisonment again for speaking out? He admits he's terrified. Every time his phone rings, he checks nervously to see if it's the Revolutionary Guard calling. But when asked why he keeps speaking, he gives a striking answer: "If I were in another country with my family safely abroad, I would say exactly the same things." Watch my full discussion with sadeghZibakalam on Iran's economic crisis, why the protests are different this time, and why he refuses to stop speaking despite knowing the risks. 02:48 - “I have actually been sentenced to 18 months in prison because I criticized, Iranian nuclear program.” 07:15 - “The current protests actually started nearly ten days ago. It was initiated by shopkeepers in Main Bazaar of Tehran and they closed their shops." 09:42 - “It's been nearly ten days, and they are still there and they have a protest.” 14:43 - ”But at that time it was a turning point, in my opinion, for the first time there was a significant division between the government on one hand and the people on the other hand.” 15:14 - “The government really did not do anything about this division." 16:11 - “But the younger generation, the more educated Iranians, they sort of distanced themselves from the Islamic government, in my opinion.” 18:21 - ”2 decades ago, people voted for someone not nominated by the government in significant numbers, and that was the beginning of a rift that we saw.” 19:54 - "Now, what we are hearing today is that they are openly and widely saying that we do not want this Islamic government anymore.” 22:06 - “The second important point is that for the first time they are shouting long live Reza Pahlavi, who has been in exile for years” 24:24 - “So why are people shouting his name? It's out of hatred of them and dissension of the Islamic regime." 34:55 - “Trump's warning to the Islamic leaders: if you shoot at Iranian people, I'm going to deal with you." 36:40 - “I think it would be very difficult for Trump to take any action because, what kind of action is he going to take?” 43:57 - “On the other hand, what are we to do when the Islamic regime is attacked by foreign power?” 46:04 - “We might even see fighting among the Revolutionary Guard itself, those who tend to support the government and those who tend to support the people.” 50:03 - “Who is going to rule Iran? In my opinion, no one, because we have no organized opposition.” 51:10 - “But if the Islamic regime is overthrown, there would be complete chaos.” 57:06 - “I obviously have heard, like many other Iranians, that the Supreme leader is planning to go to Russia, and I think it's a setup.” 01:03:04 - “The Islamic regime has become so weak as far as her allies are concerned.”

🚨🇮🇷 RARE INTERVIEW WITH LEADING IRANIAN PROFESSOR It’s rare I get to interview someone from INSIDE of Iran It’s even rarer to speak to someone who’s openly critical of the regime And not just anyone, but one of the country’s most respected voices Prof. Sadegh Zibakalam was arrested by both the pre-revolution Shah of Iran in the 1970s, and by the current regime 2 years ago He is critical of both the current regime, but also of the past Monarchy, as well as any U.S. or Israeli intervention or alternative to the current regime I enjoyed this conversation as Zibakalam did not mince his words, and he gave me honest direct answers to tough questions: How significant are the protests? What triggered them? Could they topple the regime? Do you think the Supreme Leader could flee the country? Is there a split between the army and the IRGC? Is there a risk of civil war? He says the Islamic regime has never been weaker. Iran's proxies are destroyed, its allies absent during the 12-day war with Israel, its currency in freefall, and its people chanting "Death to the dictator" in the streets. But Zibakalam warns against celebrating regime collapse, asking the question few want to answer: what comes next? He also believes the regime won't risk full military confrontation with the U.S. and Israel, no matter how much nationalist fervor it might generate. The gamble is too dangerous. What if Iranians don't rally behind the flag? Lastly, I asked the Professor: isn’t he worried about being imprisonment again for speaking out? He admits he's terrified. Every time his phone rings, he checks nervously to see if it's the Revolutionary Guard calling. But when asked why he keeps speaking, he gives a striking answer: "If I were in another country with my family safely abroad, I would say exactly the same things." Watch my full discussion with sadeghZibakalam on Iran's economic crisis, why the protests are different this time, and why he refuses to stop speaking despite knowing the risks. 02:48 - “I have actually been sentenced to 18 months in prison because I criticized, Iranian nuclear program.” 07:15 - “The current protests actually started nearly ten days ago. It was initiated by shopkeepers in Main Bazaar of Tehran and they closed their shops." 09:42 - “It's been nearly ten days, and they are still there and they have a protest.” 14:43 - ”But at that time it was a turning point, in my opinion, for the first time there was a significant division between the government on one hand and the people on the other hand.” 15:14 - “The government really did not do anything about this division." 16:11 - “But the younger generation, the more educated Iranians, they sort of distanced themselves from the Islamic government, in my opinion.” 18:21 - ”2 decades ago, people voted for someone not nominated by the government in significant numbers, and that was the beginning of a rift that we saw.” 19:54 - "Now, what we are hearing today is that they are openly and widely saying that we do not want this Islamic government anymore.” 22:06 - “The second important point is that for the first time they are shouting long live Reza Pahlavi, who has been in exile for years” 24:24 - “So why are people shouting his name? It's out of hatred of them and dissension of the Islamic regime." 34:55 - “Trump's warning to the Islamic leaders: if you shoot at Iranian people, I'm going to deal with you." 36:40 - “I think it would be very difficult for Trump to take any action because, what kind of action is he going to take?” 43:57 - “On the other hand, what are we to do when the Islamic regime is attacked by foreign power?” 46:04 - “We might even see fighting among the Revolutionary Guard itself, those who tend to support the government and those who tend to support the people.” 50:03 - “Who is going to rule Iran? In my opinion, no one, because we have no organized opposition.” 51:10 - “But if the Islamic regime is overthrown, there would be complete chaos.” 57:06 - “I obviously have heard, like many other Iranians, that the Supreme leader is planning to go to Russia, and I think it's a setup.” 01:03:04 - “The Islamic regime has become so weak as far as her allies are concerned.”

Mario Nawfal

2,057,882 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Trump has done a complete 180 on everything he claimed to stand for. It doesn’t matter whether he’s scared, manipulated, acting on his own, or all of the above the outcome is the same. He has betrayed every principle and every single person who helped put him in power. The very people who carried him to where he is. He turned on them. Not just domestically, but internationally, look at the way he treated Orban. He forgets that Viktor Orban was a lone voice in Europe supporting him when everyone else was laughing at him and calling him a crazy orange man. Europeans hated him. Orban was his main supporter in Europe and the way he has treated Orban is just ugly, nothing more. Now he’s cozy with people like Lindsey Graham to the point where Graham is arranging meetings between him and people like the President of Finland. Let that sink in. He can scream ''I’m MAGA they are not,'' like a five-year old, but the truth is MAGA was never built by him, it was built around him. And now he’s completely betrayed what it was supposed to stand for. He’s insulted allies, betrayed partners and escalated tensions with adversaries burning bridges in every direction. And now, here we are again, he’s starting to echo the same tired neocon narrative we've heard for years ''Russia, Russia, Russia.'' It may not be as blatant yet, but give it a few weeks and we’ll be right back to blaming Russia for everything. What makes it even more crazy is that he himself was once the target of the entire Russiagate saga. I’ve seen stupidity before but this is on another level. This isn’t just more of the same, it’s something entirely new. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again the government is a reflection of the people. And right now, we have a narcissism problem in this country. We rank at the top when it comes to that disorder. What’s the core trait of a narcissist? Look at Donald Trump a textbook case. No empathy. Someone dies, and there’s no weight to it. His comment after Charles' death was disgusting. He talks about bombing people with this disturbing sense of excitement ‘we bomb the hell out of them’ like it’s a performance. The worst part is how easily this situation could have been handled. Ayatollah was old and sick he only had a few years left. There was a real opportunity for a deal. Trump blew it when he started bombing Iran in the middle of the negotiations. Twice! We keep ignoring reality. Israel is one of the most cunning and deceptive countries in the world. This is a state that secretly developed nuclear weapons and hid them from its own so-called ‘closest ally,’ the United States. This is a country that has spied on U.S. offices, blamed others for its actions and has has killed American soldiers and journalists. If we were honest and actually calculated which country has caused more harm to U.S. interests Iran or Israel, Israel would likely be far ahead. That’s not opinion, that’s a fact. Iran didn’t just become an enemy out of nowhere. We played a major role in creating that hostility from overthrowing Mossadegh to installing the Shah, whose regime imprisoned and brutalized its own people and we supported and backed him knowing he was a dictator. Now we have the audacity to tell Iranian people that they should get rid of their dictator and we can help by bombing them. You can't make this shit up! Are you kidding me? And there are still idiots who actually buy this. Iran has largely operated from a defensive position ever since. We label them terrorists, but from their perspective, they’ve been preparing for survival building regional influence and proxy networks because they fear exactly what history suggests, that they could be targeted next with bombs or even a nuke! In 2007, Wesley Clark said that the Pentagon had a plan to attack Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. We ended up doing much of that, one by one. Well, guess what, if I’m Iran, watching this and hearing a high-ranking Pentagon official say my country is on that list, and then I see each country on that list get taken down one by one, who here wouldn’t at least think about building a nuclear weapon for defensive purposes? When you know one of the biggest and strongest militaries in the world is planning to invade you someday, and they’re openly talking about it, what would you do? All of you geniuses who think Iran is the problem, honestly, which one of you wouldn’t consider building a bomb in that situation? And that’s without even getting into the role of countries like Israel and the influence they may have on pushing the United States toward these actions. If your argument is that Iran has a dictatorial regime, then you are a hypocritl. The United States installed a dictator in Iran themselves and overthrew a democratic leader and even after that the CIA said they had no problem with Ayatollah, in fact they said it would be 'good for us'.Then they got caught selling weapons to Iran. If the argument is - 'they’re building a nuclear weapon,' then the obvious question is: why? Why would they feel the need to? Maybe it has something to do with Wesley Clark, Iraq and many more?!.. So let’s be real, anyone who says Iran has no right to want a nuclear weapon is either being dishonest or just flat out stupid. Do I want them to have a nuke? No. But do they feel justified in wanting one? Absolutely! Put yourself in their position. You know the history you know what the CIA did to your country. Then you hear a high-level figure like Wesley Clark talk about a plan to take out seven countries in five years, including yours. You watch those countries get hit one after another and you are no position to stand against the US and actually win that war without taking great amount of casualties. What conclusion are you supposed to draw from that? At that point, it’s not crazy it's strategic! Any country in that situation would start thinking exactly about that, I know I would have if I was in that situation. Wouldn’t you? It’s not hard to understand why a country might see nuclear capability as a deterrent when it feels threatened by stronger military powers and some absolutely psychotic states like Israel. And let’s be realistic, Iran would never use a nuke against the United States, any use of nuclear weapons against us would mean their complete annihilation. Iran is many things but it’s not that suicidal, they don’t want to end their existence, they want their country to endure. The question is which country then would they use the nukes if they are ever put in that position? There’s only one country and that’s Israel not the US and Honestly I do not see how is that my problem at all? Do you? I mean it maybe Miriam Adelson's problem but it's not my problem. Most of Iran’s hostile actions came after the U.S. helped overthrow its government and backed a dictator for decades! So this narrative that Iran has been hostile to the us needs seriously clarification to why? Any regime would be hostile to you when you overthrow their democratic leader and instal a dictator that makes people miserable. After the revolution, Iran became openly hostile to the U.S for A REASON! The reason is the CIA and the corporate America nothing else.

Trump has done a complete 180 on everything he claimed to stand for. It doesn’t matter whether he’s scared, manipulated, acting on his own, or all of the above the outcome is the same. He has betrayed every principle and every single person who helped put him in power. The very people who carried him to where he is. He turned on them. Not just domestically, but internationally, look at the way he treated Orban. He forgets that Viktor Orban was a lone voice in Europe supporting him when everyone else was laughing at him and calling him a crazy orange man. Europeans hated him. Orban was his main supporter in Europe and the way he has treated Orban is just ugly, nothing more. Now he’s cozy with people like Lindsey Graham to the point where Graham is arranging meetings between him and people like the President of Finland. Let that sink in. He can scream ''I’m MAGA they are not,'' like a five-year old, but the truth is MAGA was never built by him, it was built around him. And now he’s completely betrayed what it was supposed to stand for. He’s insulted allies, betrayed partners and escalated tensions with adversaries burning bridges in every direction. And now, here we are again, he’s starting to echo the same tired neocon narrative we've heard for years ''Russia, Russia, Russia.'' It may not be as blatant yet, but give it a few weeks and we’ll be right back to blaming Russia for everything. What makes it even more crazy is that he himself was once the target of the entire Russiagate saga. I’ve seen stupidity before but this is on another level. This isn’t just more of the same, it’s something entirely new. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again the government is a reflection of the people. And right now, we have a narcissism problem in this country. We rank at the top when it comes to that disorder. What’s the core trait of a narcissist? Look at Donald Trump a textbook case. No empathy. Someone dies, and there’s no weight to it. His comment after Charles' death was disgusting. He talks about bombing people with this disturbing sense of excitement ‘we bomb the hell out of them’ like it’s a performance. The worst part is how easily this situation could have been handled. Ayatollah was old and sick he only had a few years left. There was a real opportunity for a deal. Trump blew it when he started bombing Iran in the middle of the negotiations. Twice! We keep ignoring reality. Israel is one of the most cunning and deceptive countries in the world. This is a state that secretly developed nuclear weapons and hid them from its own so-called ‘closest ally,’ the United States. This is a country that has spied on U.S. offices, blamed others for its actions and has has killed American soldiers and journalists. If we were honest and actually calculated which country has caused more harm to U.S. interests Iran or Israel, Israel would likely be far ahead. That’s not opinion, that’s a fact. Iran didn’t just become an enemy out of nowhere. We played a major role in creating that hostility from overthrowing Mossadegh to installing the Shah, whose regime imprisoned and brutalized its own people and we supported and backed him knowing he was a dictator. Now we have the audacity to tell Iranian people that they should get rid of their dictator and we can help by bombing them. You can't make this shit up! Are you kidding me? And there are still idiots who actually buy this. Iran has largely operated from a defensive position ever since. We label them terrorists, but from their perspective, they’ve been preparing for survival building regional influence and proxy networks because they fear exactly what history suggests, that they could be targeted next with bombs or even a nuke! In 2007, Wesley Clark said that the Pentagon had a plan to attack Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. We ended up doing much of that, one by one. Well, guess what, if I’m Iran, watching this and hearing a high-ranking Pentagon official say my country is on that list, and then I see each country on that list get taken down one by one, who here wouldn’t at least think about building a nuclear weapon for defensive purposes? When you know one of the biggest and strongest militaries in the world is planning to invade you someday, and they’re openly talking about it, what would you do? All of you geniuses who think Iran is the problem, honestly, which one of you wouldn’t consider building a bomb in that situation? And that’s without even getting into the role of countries like Israel and the influence they may have on pushing the United States toward these actions. If your argument is that Iran has a dictatorial regime, then you are a hypocritl. The United States installed a dictator in Iran themselves and overthrew a democratic leader and even after that the CIA said they had no problem with Ayatollah, in fact they said it would be 'good for us'.Then they got caught selling weapons to Iran. If the argument is - 'they’re building a nuclear weapon,' then the obvious question is: why? Why would they feel the need to? Maybe it has something to do with Wesley Clark, Iraq and many more?!.. So let’s be real, anyone who says Iran has no right to want a nuclear weapon is either being dishonest or just flat out stupid. Do I want them to have a nuke? No. But do they feel justified in wanting one? Absolutely! Put yourself in their position. You know the history you know what the CIA did to your country. Then you hear a high-level figure like Wesley Clark talk about a plan to take out seven countries in five years, including yours. You watch those countries get hit one after another and you are no position to stand against the US and actually win that war without taking great amount of casualties. What conclusion are you supposed to draw from that? At that point, it’s not crazy it's strategic! Any country in that situation would start thinking exactly about that, I know I would have if I was in that situation. Wouldn’t you? It’s not hard to understand why a country might see nuclear capability as a deterrent when it feels threatened by stronger military powers and some absolutely psychotic states like Israel. And let’s be realistic, Iran would never use a nuke against the United States, any use of nuclear weapons against us would mean their complete annihilation. Iran is many things but it’s not that suicidal, they don’t want to end their existence, they want their country to endure. The question is which country then would they use the nukes if they are ever put in that position? There’s only one country and that’s Israel not the US and Honestly I do not see how is that my problem at all? Do you? I mean it maybe Miriam Adelson's problem but it's not my problem. Most of Iran’s hostile actions came after the U.S. helped overthrow its government and backed a dictator for decades! So this narrative that Iran has been hostile to the us needs seriously clarification to why? Any regime would be hostile to you when you overthrow their democratic leader and instal a dictator that makes people miserable. After the revolution, Iran became openly hostile to the U.S for A REASON! The reason is the CIA and the corporate America nothing else.

ELIZABETH LANE

34,350 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

A Carnegie Mellon professor walked onto a stage in 2007 and gave an hour-long lecture to 400 people about achieving your childhood dreams. He did not tell the room that the entire talk was actually written for his three kids, who would grow up without him. His name was Randy Pausch. The date was September 18, 2007. The video has since passed 20 million views, and the book that followed spent more than a hundred weeks on the New York Times bestseller list. Pausch was 46 years old, had been diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer a month earlier, and had been told he had three to six months of good health left. He did not walk onto that stage to talk about dying. He walked onto it to teach a single lesson hidden inside another one. Here is what I missed the first time I watched it. Pausch opened by doing push-ups on stage. He told the audience he was in phenomenally good shape, in better shape than most of them, and anyone who wanted to cry or pity him was welcome to get down and match him. The room laughed. Then he said the line that sets up the entire hour to come. We cannot change the cards we are dealt. Just how we play the hand. That was the frame. Everything after it was a demonstration. The lecture was officially titled Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams, and Pausch did spend the first 40 minutes working through his actual childhood list. Zero gravity. Playing in the NFL. Writing an entry in the World Book Encyclopedia. Being Captain Kirk. Becoming a Disney Imagineer. He walked the audience through which ones he got, which ones he didn't, and what the gap between wanting and getting had actually taught him. The framework inside those 40 minutes is the part most people remember, and it is the one Pausch delivered with the most force. He called it the brick wall. He said the brick walls in your life are there for a reason. They are not there to keep you out. They are there to give you a chance to show how badly you want something. They are there to stop the people who do not want it badly enough. They are there to stop the other people. Read that again slowly. He is not saying brick walls are a test you have to pass. He is saying brick walls are a filter nature uses to separate the people who actually want a thing from the people who only like the idea of wanting it. That is a completely different claim. Most people treat obstacles as unfair. Pausch argued obstacles are the mechanism by which desire gets proven, and without that mechanism the whole concept of wanting something would be meaningless. Every dream he achieved, he achieved by treating the wall as a signal that he was close, not a signal that he should stop. The second framework he taught the audience is the one almost nobody teaches in any classroom. He called it the head fake. He pulled it from football. Coaches teach young kids to tackle by having them run drills that look like they are about tackling, but the real lesson being embedded is teamwork, grit, how to take a hit and get back up. The kid thinks they are learning football. They are actually learning something much larger, and they will not realize it until years later. Pausch said the best teaching in the world is head fake teaching. You get people to learn the thing they need by dressing it up as the thing they already want. This is the technique behind Alice, the programming software he built at Carnegie Mellon. Kids thought they were making animated movies and games. They were actually learning to code. Pausch said one of his proudest claims to fame was that he had taught programming to a generation of students who had no idea they were being taught programming at all. And then, with about three minutes left in the lecture, he ran a head fake on the room. He asked the audience if they had figured out the first head fake of the talk itself. The room went quiet. He said the lecture was never actually about how to achieve your childhood dreams. It was about how to lead your life. If you lead your life the right way, the karma takes care of itself and the dreams come to you anyway. Then he asked if they had figured out the second head fake. Even quieter. He said the talk was not for the four hundred people in the room. It was for his three kids. Dylan was six. Logan was three. Chloe was eighteen months. They would grow up without their father, and he knew it. Pausch had spent an hour on stage pretending to give career advice to strangers because he needed to record something his children could watch when they were old enough to understand who their dad had been. The entire architecture of the lecture was a message in a bottle disguised as a keynote. The filtered brick-wall philosophy, the football stories, the dreams he chased and the ones he missed, the line about playing the hand you are dealt, all of it was something a father wanted three small children to internalize after he was no longer there to say it in person. That is the moment the video stops being a lecture and starts being something else entirely. Pausch died on July 25, 2008, ten months after giving it. His final sentence on stage was that he had given the talk tonight, and then he walked off. The applause lasted nearly a minute before the camera cut. Most professors spend their entire careers trying to say one true thing their students will remember for a week. He said one true thing his children will remember for the rest of their lives, and the rest of the world is still watching the footage.

A Carnegie Mellon professor walked onto a stage in 2007 and gave an hour-long lecture to 400 people about achieving your childhood dreams. He did not tell the room that the entire talk was actually written for his three kids, who would grow up without him. His name was Randy Pausch. The date was September 18, 2007. The video has since passed 20 million views, and the book that followed spent more than a hundred weeks on the New York Times bestseller list. Pausch was 46 years old, had been diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer a month earlier, and had been told he had three to six months of good health left. He did not walk onto that stage to talk about dying. He walked onto it to teach a single lesson hidden inside another one. Here is what I missed the first time I watched it. Pausch opened by doing push-ups on stage. He told the audience he was in phenomenally good shape, in better shape than most of them, and anyone who wanted to cry or pity him was welcome to get down and match him. The room laughed. Then he said the line that sets up the entire hour to come. We cannot change the cards we are dealt. Just how we play the hand. That was the frame. Everything after it was a demonstration. The lecture was officially titled Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams, and Pausch did spend the first 40 minutes working through his actual childhood list. Zero gravity. Playing in the NFL. Writing an entry in the World Book Encyclopedia. Being Captain Kirk. Becoming a Disney Imagineer. He walked the audience through which ones he got, which ones he didn't, and what the gap between wanting and getting had actually taught him. The framework inside those 40 minutes is the part most people remember, and it is the one Pausch delivered with the most force. He called it the brick wall. He said the brick walls in your life are there for a reason. They are not there to keep you out. They are there to give you a chance to show how badly you want something. They are there to stop the people who do not want it badly enough. They are there to stop the other people. Read that again slowly. He is not saying brick walls are a test you have to pass. He is saying brick walls are a filter nature uses to separate the people who actually want a thing from the people who only like the idea of wanting it. That is a completely different claim. Most people treat obstacles as unfair. Pausch argued obstacles are the mechanism by which desire gets proven, and without that mechanism the whole concept of wanting something would be meaningless. Every dream he achieved, he achieved by treating the wall as a signal that he was close, not a signal that he should stop. The second framework he taught the audience is the one almost nobody teaches in any classroom. He called it the head fake. He pulled it from football. Coaches teach young kids to tackle by having them run drills that look like they are about tackling, but the real lesson being embedded is teamwork, grit, how to take a hit and get back up. The kid thinks they are learning football. They are actually learning something much larger, and they will not realize it until years later. Pausch said the best teaching in the world is head fake teaching. You get people to learn the thing they need by dressing it up as the thing they already want. This is the technique behind Alice, the programming software he built at Carnegie Mellon. Kids thought they were making animated movies and games. They were actually learning to code. Pausch said one of his proudest claims to fame was that he had taught programming to a generation of students who had no idea they were being taught programming at all. And then, with about three minutes left in the lecture, he ran a head fake on the room. He asked the audience if they had figured out the first head fake of the talk itself. The room went quiet. He said the lecture was never actually about how to achieve your childhood dreams. It was about how to lead your life. If you lead your life the right way, the karma takes care of itself and the dreams come to you anyway. Then he asked if they had figured out the second head fake. Even quieter. He said the talk was not for the four hundred people in the room. It was for his three kids. Dylan was six. Logan was three. Chloe was eighteen months. They would grow up without their father, and he knew it. Pausch had spent an hour on stage pretending to give career advice to strangers because he needed to record something his children could watch when they were old enough to understand who their dad had been. The entire architecture of the lecture was a message in a bottle disguised as a keynote. The filtered brick-wall philosophy, the football stories, the dreams he chased and the ones he missed, the line about playing the hand you are dealt, all of it was something a father wanted three small children to internalize after he was no longer there to say it in person. That is the moment the video stops being a lecture and starts being something else entirely. Pausch died on July 25, 2008, ten months after giving it. His final sentence on stage was that he had given the talk tonight, and then he walked off. The applause lasted nearly a minute before the camera cut. Most professors spend their entire careers trying to say one true thing their students will remember for a week. He said one true thing his children will remember for the rest of their lives, and the rest of the world is still watching the footage.

Ihtesham Ali

56,547 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Zionist-Mafia Rubio Set to Oust Vance, Impeach Trump as BlackRock’s Merz Steals German Pensions—Soros Operative Bessent Loots U.S. Treasury While Global South Rises Against Dying Petrodollar Empire Harley Schlanger (Harley Schlanger): They’re going to set up Vance. And you know, Vance is not squeaky clean. Peter Thiel from Palantir has his hands all over Vance. But Vance was set up to follow through on the Memorandum of Understanding, which Rubio is now sabotaging. So the idea—and I got this from several people, different people in intelligence—is that Vance will be knocked out because of the failure of the attempt to have a ceasefire with Iran. Rubio will be put in as vice president, and then, after the midterm elections, Trump will be impeached. Now, that is a conspiracy theory, but it’s plausible, because the reason they want Rubio: Rubio goes back as a child to Cuban drug-pushing networks. He lived with his uncle, who was a drug pusher. When he got into Congress, who did he get in with right away? The veterans from the Bay of Pigs. Now, the Bay of Pigs, remember, was the CIA attempt to overthrow Castro. Now, furthermore, Rubio became a very close ally of Jeb Bush in Florida. And then on top of that, he has the Zionist connections. And these include billionaires like Paul Singer of Elliott Management, who calls himself a vulture capitalist, and Larry Ellison of Oracle, who was very close to Epstein. These are the Epstein billionaires. They’re the ones who pulled together the British, the Americans, the Israelis. Remember, Ehud Barak was part of the Epstein network—the former prime minister of Israel. But here’s the point, Sean: They’re trying to protect a collapsing empire. The empire is collapsing because of debt. Now, if people are quiet and accept cuts in their standard of living, they’ll be able to bail themselves out. That’s what they’ve always done. They use the Plunge Protection Team, which is another way of saying printing money or creating new credit that goes into the pockets of the swindlers, the international bankers, and is paid for out of the taxes of the average working person. And they use the wars to loot other countries. Now, what’s happened is they’re in a squeeze right now, because the nations of the Global South—the so-called developing sector nations—are now starting to say, “We want to have sovereignty.” You know, we were talking about this before, the Declaration of Independence. I was at an event with an ambassador from Ethiopia. He loves the United States. And he said, “We in Ethiopia want to be like the United States used to be, where we control our own sovereignty, our own future.” That’s the thinking of a lot of young people in Africa, in Asia, that are trying to break with the International Monetary Fund and the petrodollar empire. And who are they getting support from? Russia and China. Now, what happens in the West? We have Trump, who understands this is going on but doesn’t know what to do because he’s conflicted. He’s got these people in his cabinet: Scott Bessent, the Treasury Secretary. Sean, you know Bessent’s background—George Soros. So, why is Trump having a Soros operative running the Treasury? And they’re going to try and bail out the 20 or the 30—whatever it is now, $39 trillion—debt. They’re going to try and bail it out with your tax dollars. Let me just tell you what they’re doing in Germany, because this will give you a sense that the uprising that’s going to occur will be international. Merz, the chancellor of Germany, who wants more money for war against Russia, is going to try and cut the pension—the state pension fund in Germany—which will cause an explosion. But here’s what he wants to do: He wants to privatize it, turn it over to private funds to manage. What was Merz doing before he became chancellor of Germany? Head of BlackRock in Germany. So, this is the BlackRock hedge fund operation to steal the pensions, the same way they’re going to try and steal Social Security in this country. Now, will people put up with it? That’s the question. We’re seeing a blowback. You know, Merz is at 20% popularity. Starmer got driven out because of his connection to the Epstein class. Macron is basically a corpse—no support, under 10%. Now Trump is heading in that direction. If he doesn’t break with this network, he’s going to be next, and that will mean we’ll end up with Marco Rubio as president. So the rebellion is taking place internationally. Now, one of the things that happened with this Iran war is that because the Iranian people did not capitulate, they showed that the United States has hollowed out our military and that we depend on Israel’s intelligence. The Israelis told us—Barnea, the head of the Mossad, told Trump—“The Iranian government will collapse as soon as you kill the Grand Ayatollah.” Well, we just saw a funeral with 12 million people in the street. Doesn’t look like it’s collapsed. Trump was lied to. Will he learn the lesson? Has he learned from Russiagate? Has he learned from the opposition to him that you have to throw these people not only out of the cabinet but put them in jail—the Epstein crowd? And that’s where the American people come in. It’s really going to be up to us to raise a stink. And one of the things we can do is use Section 219 of the merger of the U.S. military with the Israeli military as a way to force Congress to recognize that the American people aren’t buying this anymore. So, you know, Sean, here’s the answer to your question: Is there a reason to see the glass as half full? Well, it depends on the American people. We’ve let the nation down quite a bit in recent years. We bought into the idea of entertainment and the rock-sex-drug counterculture and so on. But it’s rotten. The Epstein class shows us how rotten and corrupt this is, including the people at the top of the establishment. If we get our act together—and there are people running in the elections who are independent and not part of the Democratic and Republican parties—you know, it’s funny: some of them are leftists who oppose the Epstein class, and some are conservatives who oppose the Epstein class. I don’t really care what they call themselves. We’ve got to take this corrupt core down.

Zionist-Mafia Rubio Set to Oust Vance, Impeach Trump as BlackRock’s Merz Steals German Pensions—Soros Operative Bessent Loots U.S. Treasury While Global South Rises Against Dying Petrodollar Empire Harley Schlanger (Harley Schlanger): They’re going to set up Vance. And you know, Vance is not squeaky clean. Peter Thiel from Palantir has his hands all over Vance. But Vance was set up to follow through on the Memorandum of Understanding, which Rubio is now sabotaging. So the idea—and I got this from several people, different people in intelligence—is that Vance will be knocked out because of the failure of the attempt to have a ceasefire with Iran. Rubio will be put in as vice president, and then, after the midterm elections, Trump will be impeached. Now, that is a conspiracy theory, but it’s plausible, because the reason they want Rubio: Rubio goes back as a child to Cuban drug-pushing networks. He lived with his uncle, who was a drug pusher. When he got into Congress, who did he get in with right away? The veterans from the Bay of Pigs. Now, the Bay of Pigs, remember, was the CIA attempt to overthrow Castro. Now, furthermore, Rubio became a very close ally of Jeb Bush in Florida. And then on top of that, he has the Zionist connections. And these include billionaires like Paul Singer of Elliott Management, who calls himself a vulture capitalist, and Larry Ellison of Oracle, who was very close to Epstein. These are the Epstein billionaires. They’re the ones who pulled together the British, the Americans, the Israelis. Remember, Ehud Barak was part of the Epstein network—the former prime minister of Israel. But here’s the point, Sean: They’re trying to protect a collapsing empire. The empire is collapsing because of debt. Now, if people are quiet and accept cuts in their standard of living, they’ll be able to bail themselves out. That’s what they’ve always done. They use the Plunge Protection Team, which is another way of saying printing money or creating new credit that goes into the pockets of the swindlers, the international bankers, and is paid for out of the taxes of the average working person. And they use the wars to loot other countries. Now, what’s happened is they’re in a squeeze right now, because the nations of the Global South—the so-called developing sector nations—are now starting to say, “We want to have sovereignty.” You know, we were talking about this before, the Declaration of Independence. I was at an event with an ambassador from Ethiopia. He loves the United States. And he said, “We in Ethiopia want to be like the United States used to be, where we control our own sovereignty, our own future.” That’s the thinking of a lot of young people in Africa, in Asia, that are trying to break with the International Monetary Fund and the petrodollar empire. And who are they getting support from? Russia and China. Now, what happens in the West? We have Trump, who understands this is going on but doesn’t know what to do because he’s conflicted. He’s got these people in his cabinet: Scott Bessent, the Treasury Secretary. Sean, you know Bessent’s background—George Soros. So, why is Trump having a Soros operative running the Treasury? And they’re going to try and bail out the 20 or the 30—whatever it is now, $39 trillion—debt. They’re going to try and bail it out with your tax dollars. Let me just tell you what they’re doing in Germany, because this will give you a sense that the uprising that’s going to occur will be international. Merz, the chancellor of Germany, who wants more money for war against Russia, is going to try and cut the pension—the state pension fund in Germany—which will cause an explosion. But here’s what he wants to do: He wants to privatize it, turn it over to private funds to manage. What was Merz doing before he became chancellor of Germany? Head of BlackRock in Germany. So, this is the BlackRock hedge fund operation to steal the pensions, the same way they’re going to try and steal Social Security in this country. Now, will people put up with it? That’s the question. We’re seeing a blowback. You know, Merz is at 20% popularity. Starmer got driven out because of his connection to the Epstein class. Macron is basically a corpse—no support, under 10%. Now Trump is heading in that direction. If he doesn’t break with this network, he’s going to be next, and that will mean we’ll end up with Marco Rubio as president. So the rebellion is taking place internationally. Now, one of the things that happened with this Iran war is that because the Iranian people did not capitulate, they showed that the United States has hollowed out our military and that we depend on Israel’s intelligence. The Israelis told us—Barnea, the head of the Mossad, told Trump—“The Iranian government will collapse as soon as you kill the Grand Ayatollah.” Well, we just saw a funeral with 12 million people in the street. Doesn’t look like it’s collapsed. Trump was lied to. Will he learn the lesson? Has he learned from Russiagate? Has he learned from the opposition to him that you have to throw these people not only out of the cabinet but put them in jail—the Epstein crowd? And that’s where the American people come in. It’s really going to be up to us to raise a stink. And one of the things we can do is use Section 219 of the merger of the U.S. military with the Israeli military as a way to force Congress to recognize that the American people aren’t buying this anymore. So, you know, Sean, here’s the answer to your question: Is there a reason to see the glass as half full? Well, it depends on the American people. We’ve let the nation down quite a bit in recent years. We bought into the idea of entertainment and the rock-sex-drug counterculture and so on. But it’s rotten. The Epstein class shows us how rotten and corrupt this is, including the people at the top of the establishment. If we get our act together—and there are people running in the elections who are independent and not part of the Democratic and Republican parties—you know, it’s funny: some of them are leftists who oppose the Epstein class, and some are conservatives who oppose the Epstein class. I don’t really care what they call themselves. We’ve got to take this corrupt core down.

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

19,354 Aufrufe • vor 2 Tagen

Graham Fuller on the Fall of the British Empire: From “The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire” to “Brown and Swarthy People” Challenging British Brains and American Brawn, the Rise of BRICS, and Germany’s Exceptionally Dangerous Direction Graham E. Fuller: It’s important to look at history, Nima, particularly the incredible history of the British Empire. I mean, it was one of the longest-running and largest empires in the world. I think its only real rival was perhaps the Ottoman Empire. I don’t know exactly, but Britain has never fully recovered from losing its empire. They were always number one across the world. The slogan was that the sun never sets on the British Empire—it was everywhere, all the time. They didn’t use these exact words, perhaps, but the idea was that they were number one in the world. So, the collapse of the UK after the pressures of World War II was a terrible blow. I don’t think the UK has ever fully recovered. In that context, they seized on the close alliance and friendship with the United States as a kind of leverage for maintaining their own power. Some even used the phrase that between British brains and intelligence and American brawn and strength, it was an unbeatable combination. Britain would tell America where to go, what to do, what wars to fight, and how to use its military strength to perpetuate even British goals. That’s a very important background to this whole situation. I think the British still feel very much left out of it. They have deep imperial instincts—perhaps more than any other country in Europe. And frankly, at this point—and we’ve talked about this before—I think Europe as a whole is absolutely without leadership, vision, direction, or even a clear sense of identity: who they are, where they are, and what they want to be in the future. They may have thought, “Okay, we’re part of the great American empire,” and perhaps saw themselves as honorary members of that empire. But that hasn’t worked out as well as expected. And now that Trump seems like he might even abandon NATO and the war in Ukraine, Europeans are absolutely horrified. Who are the Europeans at this point? What are their interests? What are EU interests? What are their own national interests? Surely, they are not necessarily aligned with America’s interests—whether it’s going to war in Syria, Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan. America has always wanted Europe to contribute to and be part of these wars. But now, perhaps the Europeans are finally beginning to think, “Wait a minute—do we really want to do this? Do we want to join every American war? Is that really in our interest?” And now you see the rise of China. In particular, the United States is telling Europe, “Don’t deal with China—it’s a dangerous country, and we have to stick together.” But I think the EU is beginning to wonder: Do we really want to ignore China? Should we keep China at arm’s length? Do we want to be hostile toward China? This whole emergence of the BRICS is a truly shocking event. Here are all these brown and swarthy people from countries around the world who are now suddenly emerging with powerful economies and a new voice on the global stage. If you look at the map—where is Europe? It’s just this tiny little tail end of Eurasia. Is that what Europe is now? Is that where they’re going? Will they want to sign up as part of greater Eurasia? That might actually make some sense. But you can see now the struggle within Europe—the internal question: “Oh my God, who are we? Where are we going? What’s happening to us? What do we do now?” The leadership is terrible and not even fully democratic, in the sense that nobody elected Ursula von der Leyen. Nobody elected half of these leaders. And Germany, right now, I think, is moving in an exceptionally dangerous direction.

Graham Fuller on the Fall of the British Empire: From “The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire” to “Brown and Swarthy People” Challenging British Brains and American Brawn, the Rise of BRICS, and Germany’s Exceptionally Dangerous Direction Graham E. Fuller: It’s important to look at history, Nima, particularly the incredible history of the British Empire. I mean, it was one of the longest-running and largest empires in the world. I think its only real rival was perhaps the Ottoman Empire. I don’t know exactly, but Britain has never fully recovered from losing its empire. They were always number one across the world. The slogan was that the sun never sets on the British Empire—it was everywhere, all the time. They didn’t use these exact words, perhaps, but the idea was that they were number one in the world. So, the collapse of the UK after the pressures of World War II was a terrible blow. I don’t think the UK has ever fully recovered. In that context, they seized on the close alliance and friendship with the United States as a kind of leverage for maintaining their own power. Some even used the phrase that between British brains and intelligence and American brawn and strength, it was an unbeatable combination. Britain would tell America where to go, what to do, what wars to fight, and how to use its military strength to perpetuate even British goals. That’s a very important background to this whole situation. I think the British still feel very much left out of it. They have deep imperial instincts—perhaps more than any other country in Europe. And frankly, at this point—and we’ve talked about this before—I think Europe as a whole is absolutely without leadership, vision, direction, or even a clear sense of identity: who they are, where they are, and what they want to be in the future. They may have thought, “Okay, we’re part of the great American empire,” and perhaps saw themselves as honorary members of that empire. But that hasn’t worked out as well as expected. And now that Trump seems like he might even abandon NATO and the war in Ukraine, Europeans are absolutely horrified. Who are the Europeans at this point? What are their interests? What are EU interests? What are their own national interests? Surely, they are not necessarily aligned with America’s interests—whether it’s going to war in Syria, Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan. America has always wanted Europe to contribute to and be part of these wars. But now, perhaps the Europeans are finally beginning to think, “Wait a minute—do we really want to do this? Do we want to join every American war? Is that really in our interest?” And now you see the rise of China. In particular, the United States is telling Europe, “Don’t deal with China—it’s a dangerous country, and we have to stick together.” But I think the EU is beginning to wonder: Do we really want to ignore China? Should we keep China at arm’s length? Do we want to be hostile toward China? This whole emergence of the BRICS is a truly shocking event. Here are all these brown and swarthy people from countries around the world who are now suddenly emerging with powerful economies and a new voice on the global stage. If you look at the map—where is Europe? It’s just this tiny little tail end of Eurasia. Is that what Europe is now? Is that where they’re going? Will they want to sign up as part of greater Eurasia? That might actually make some sense. But you can see now the struggle within Europe—the internal question: “Oh my God, who are we? Where are we going? What’s happening to us? What do we do now?” The leadership is terrible and not even fully democratic, in the sense that nobody elected Ursula von der Leyen. Nobody elected half of these leaders. And Germany, right now, I think, is moving in an exceptionally dangerous direction.

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

15,859 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

A new father became so terrified of never learning anything again that he accidentally dismantled the biggest lie in education. His name is Josh Kaufman, and he wasn't a neuroscientist or a professor. He was an author working from home, running a business with his wife, with a newborn daughter who had just obliterated any concept of free time he thought he had. Around week 8 of sleep deprivation, he had the thought every parent has. I am never going to learn anything new ever again. And because he was the kind of person who responds to panic with research, he went to the library and started reading everything he could find about how humans acquire skills. He read book after book, study after study. Every single one said the same thing. 10,000 hours. He had a full-body reaction to that number. 10,000 hours is a full-time job for five years. He didn't have five years. He didn't have five hours. He had a newborn and a business and a wife who was also building a business in the same house. So he kept digging. And here is where it gets interesting. The 10,000 hour rule came from a researcher named K. Anders Ericsson at Florida State University. What Ericsson actually studied was professional athletes, world-class musicians, chess grandmasters people at the absolute tip of ultra-competitive, ultra-high-performing fields. His finding was that the people at the very top of those narrow fields had put in around 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. That is all the finding said. Then Malcolm Gladwell wrote Outliers in 2007, and the message went through a game of telephone that destroyed its meaning entirely. It takes 10,000 hours to reach the top of an ultra-competitive field became it takes 10,000 hours to become an expert, which became it takes 10,000 hours to become good at something, which became it takes 10,000 hours to learn something. That last statement is completely false. And the actual research had been showing something different the entire time. When cognitive psychologists study skill acquisition, they measure a graph that looks identical across every domain they have ever tested. At the start, performance is terrible. With a small amount of practice, it improves rapidly. Then it plateaus, and subsequent gains become much harder and slower to achieve. The steep part of that curve the jump from knowing nothing to being reasonably good happens much faster than anyone tells you. Not 10,000 hours. Not 1,000 hours. 20 hours. Kaufman tested this himself. He had always wanted to learn ukulele. He picked one up, put 20 hours of focused deliberate practice into it, and stood on a TEDx stage playing a medley of recognizable pop songs in front of a live audience. The crowd went wild. He then told them that performance was his 20th hour. But 20 hours is not just a number. There is a method inside it. The first step is to deconstruct the skill. Most things we think of as single skills are actually bundles of dozens of smaller skills. You do not need all of them. You need the ones that get you to your specific goal the fastest. In music, this means most songs use four or five chords. Learn those first. Ignore the rest until they matter. The second step is to learn just enough to self-correct. Get three to five resources books, courses, videos but do not use them as a reason to delay practice. The point of learning is not to master theory first. It is to get good enough at noticing your own mistakes that you can adjust as you go. The third step is to remove barriers to practice. Not through willpower. Through structure. If the instrument is in the case in the closet, you will not play it. If your phone is in the room, you will not focus. Kaufman was brutal about this. The environment does the work that discipline cannot sustain. The fourth step is the one that actually makes the system work. Pre-commit to 20 hours before you start. Here is why this matters. Every skill has what he called a frustration barrier. The early part of learning anything is genuinely terrible. You are incompetent and you know it. That feeling is so uncomfortable that most people quit before they ever cross to the other side of the curve. By pre-committing to 20 hours, you are making a contract with yourself to push through the frustration long enough to arrive at the part where things start clicking. The barrier to learning something new is never intellectual. It is emotional. We are afraid of feeling stupid. That fear costs most people everything they could have learned. Kaufman figured this out while holding a baby and running out of time, which is the most human possible condition for having a breakthrough. Most people are waiting for the perfect season to start. He just started. 20 hours is 45 minutes a day for a month. That is it. That is the price of going from knowing nothing to being genuinely capable at almost anything you can name. The 10,000 hour rule was never about learning. It was about becoming the best in the world. You probably do not need to be the best in the world. You just need to start.

A new father became so terrified of never learning anything again that he accidentally dismantled the biggest lie in education. His name is Josh Kaufman, and he wasn't a neuroscientist or a professor. He was an author working from home, running a business with his wife, with a newborn daughter who had just obliterated any concept of free time he thought he had. Around week 8 of sleep deprivation, he had the thought every parent has. I am never going to learn anything new ever again. And because he was the kind of person who responds to panic with research, he went to the library and started reading everything he could find about how humans acquire skills. He read book after book, study after study. Every single one said the same thing. 10,000 hours. He had a full-body reaction to that number. 10,000 hours is a full-time job for five years. He didn't have five years. He didn't have five hours. He had a newborn and a business and a wife who was also building a business in the same house. So he kept digging. And here is where it gets interesting. The 10,000 hour rule came from a researcher named K. Anders Ericsson at Florida State University. What Ericsson actually studied was professional athletes, world-class musicians, chess grandmasters people at the absolute tip of ultra-competitive, ultra-high-performing fields. His finding was that the people at the very top of those narrow fields had put in around 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. That is all the finding said. Then Malcolm Gladwell wrote Outliers in 2007, and the message went through a game of telephone that destroyed its meaning entirely. It takes 10,000 hours to reach the top of an ultra-competitive field became it takes 10,000 hours to become an expert, which became it takes 10,000 hours to become good at something, which became it takes 10,000 hours to learn something. That last statement is completely false. And the actual research had been showing something different the entire time. When cognitive psychologists study skill acquisition, they measure a graph that looks identical across every domain they have ever tested. At the start, performance is terrible. With a small amount of practice, it improves rapidly. Then it plateaus, and subsequent gains become much harder and slower to achieve. The steep part of that curve the jump from knowing nothing to being reasonably good happens much faster than anyone tells you. Not 10,000 hours. Not 1,000 hours. 20 hours. Kaufman tested this himself. He had always wanted to learn ukulele. He picked one up, put 20 hours of focused deliberate practice into it, and stood on a TEDx stage playing a medley of recognizable pop songs in front of a live audience. The crowd went wild. He then told them that performance was his 20th hour. But 20 hours is not just a number. There is a method inside it. The first step is to deconstruct the skill. Most things we think of as single skills are actually bundles of dozens of smaller skills. You do not need all of them. You need the ones that get you to your specific goal the fastest. In music, this means most songs use four or five chords. Learn those first. Ignore the rest until they matter. The second step is to learn just enough to self-correct. Get three to five resources books, courses, videos but do not use them as a reason to delay practice. The point of learning is not to master theory first. It is to get good enough at noticing your own mistakes that you can adjust as you go. The third step is to remove barriers to practice. Not through willpower. Through structure. If the instrument is in the case in the closet, you will not play it. If your phone is in the room, you will not focus. Kaufman was brutal about this. The environment does the work that discipline cannot sustain. The fourth step is the one that actually makes the system work. Pre-commit to 20 hours before you start. Here is why this matters. Every skill has what he called a frustration barrier. The early part of learning anything is genuinely terrible. You are incompetent and you know it. That feeling is so uncomfortable that most people quit before they ever cross to the other side of the curve. By pre-committing to 20 hours, you are making a contract with yourself to push through the frustration long enough to arrive at the part where things start clicking. The barrier to learning something new is never intellectual. It is emotional. We are afraid of feeling stupid. That fear costs most people everything they could have learned. Kaufman figured this out while holding a baby and running out of time, which is the most human possible condition for having a breakthrough. Most people are waiting for the perfect season to start. He just started. 20 hours is 45 minutes a day for a month. That is it. That is the price of going from knowing nothing to being genuinely capable at almost anything you can name. The 10,000 hour rule was never about learning. It was about becoming the best in the world. You probably do not need to be the best in the world. You just need to start.

Ihtesham Ali

44,705 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

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 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

The thing about war is, it’s not a one way street as Pete Hegseth would have you believe. Take a look at this report from the New York Times. As you can see, a series of satellite images were released showing damage at U.S. bases across the region, some of which killed American military personnel. The question is, do you believe the account of the Iranians or the ‘nothing to see here’ US account? It turns out the Iranian account is correct and the American response was to instruct satellite companies to remove the incriminating images. Just as Hegseth can’t bring himself to admit that they killed over a hundred elementary school girls on day one in an erroneous triple tap, he wants to hide the extensive damage caused by precision attacks by Iran on U.S. assets. We know time and again Trump has lied about Iran begging him to do a deal, and that as a result, billions have been made from market manipulation. Even now, he’s is claiming Iran wants a deal as fire is being exchanged in the Strait of Hormuz, exchanges that he yesterday described as ‘love taps’. In critical times of war it’s not a good look when enemy accounts of events are proved to be accurate while your own president and Secretary of Defense is found to be repeatedly lying. The cost of this conflict has been laughably estimated to be $25 billion when credible inside U.S. sources claim that over 50% of critical missile stocks have been depleted. The obvious question being, imagine what damage Iran could have done given the extensive ACTUAL damage the U.S. have tried to hide? The narrative is that Iran are days away from economic catastrophe, yet the CIA have reported that Iran could survive the U.S. blockade for up to three months. The whole U.S. narrative, just like the administration’s economic and foreign policy agenda is built on a lie, in a fantasy world that Trump expects us to join him, while it falls apart at the seams. It has been said time and again by military and foreign policy experts that this war of choice was a mistake. There has been no regime change or popular uprising. If anything the new Iranian leadership is more hardline than it was before. There was no imminent nuclear threat, that was just another in a litany of lies to justify what was an attempt to extort Iran and seize their oil as had happened in Venezuela. In his blinkered quest for glory and self enrichment, Trump assumed Iran was just another ‘shit hole country’ incapable of resisting the might of the U.S. military. He understood nothing of the Iranian decentralized command and control ‘mosaic strategy’. In his own words he did not think they would close the Strait of Hormuz or attack Gulf states. He simply expected Iran to capitulate, so Kushner and Witkoff could hand them his Qatari bank details for them to send him his cut of their oil sales. As things stand, he is out of options, the global South is creaking as their economies experience unnecessary distress, gas prices are at $4.50 and if he told the truth as opposed to lying, oil prices would likely be at $200 a barrel. The Strait of Hormuz is closed, the enriched uranium has not been removed. Iranian drone and missile stocks remain at over 50% with some estimates putting them at 70% and Trump is claiming victory, suggesting Iran has no cards. He’s living in a fantasy world having wasted billions and sacrificed American lives having inflicted irreparable damage to Gulf state alliances. The UAE has now left OPEC while China now describes the US as ‘A superpower with a limp’ In one stupid act, Trump has raised questions about U.S. military power when faced with an asymmetric kinetic response. Questions have arisen about US readiness when it comes to minesweepers and logistics capabilities as US sailors were shown to be rationing food. Nobody is doubting the ability of the U.S. military who performed exactly as expected. The problem is, they’re lions being led by donkeys. 🎥 TikTok -

The thing about war is, it’s not a one way street as Pete Hegseth would have you believe. Take a look at this report from the New York Times. As you can see, a series of satellite images were released showing damage at U.S. bases across the region, some of which killed American military personnel. The question is, do you believe the account of the Iranians or the ‘nothing to see here’ US account? It turns out the Iranian account is correct and the American response was to instruct satellite companies to remove the incriminating images. Just as Hegseth can’t bring himself to admit that they killed over a hundred elementary school girls on day one in an erroneous triple tap, he wants to hide the extensive damage caused by precision attacks by Iran on U.S. assets. We know time and again Trump has lied about Iran begging him to do a deal, and that as a result, billions have been made from market manipulation. Even now, he’s is claiming Iran wants a deal as fire is being exchanged in the Strait of Hormuz, exchanges that he yesterday described as ‘love taps’. In critical times of war it’s not a good look when enemy accounts of events are proved to be accurate while your own president and Secretary of Defense is found to be repeatedly lying. The cost of this conflict has been laughably estimated to be $25 billion when credible inside U.S. sources claim that over 50% of critical missile stocks have been depleted. The obvious question being, imagine what damage Iran could have done given the extensive ACTUAL damage the U.S. have tried to hide? The narrative is that Iran are days away from economic catastrophe, yet the CIA have reported that Iran could survive the U.S. blockade for up to three months. The whole U.S. narrative, just like the administration’s economic and foreign policy agenda is built on a lie, in a fantasy world that Trump expects us to join him, while it falls apart at the seams. It has been said time and again by military and foreign policy experts that this war of choice was a mistake. There has been no regime change or popular uprising. If anything the new Iranian leadership is more hardline than it was before. There was no imminent nuclear threat, that was just another in a litany of lies to justify what was an attempt to extort Iran and seize their oil as had happened in Venezuela. In his blinkered quest for glory and self enrichment, Trump assumed Iran was just another ‘shit hole country’ incapable of resisting the might of the U.S. military. He understood nothing of the Iranian decentralized command and control ‘mosaic strategy’. In his own words he did not think they would close the Strait of Hormuz or attack Gulf states. He simply expected Iran to capitulate, so Kushner and Witkoff could hand them his Qatari bank details for them to send him his cut of their oil sales. As things stand, he is out of options, the global South is creaking as their economies experience unnecessary distress, gas prices are at $4.50 and if he told the truth as opposed to lying, oil prices would likely be at $200 a barrel. The Strait of Hormuz is closed, the enriched uranium has not been removed. Iranian drone and missile stocks remain at over 50% with some estimates putting them at 70% and Trump is claiming victory, suggesting Iran has no cards. He’s living in a fantasy world having wasted billions and sacrificed American lives having inflicted irreparable damage to Gulf state alliances. The UAE has now left OPEC while China now describes the US as ‘A superpower with a limp’ In one stupid act, Trump has raised questions about U.S. military power when faced with an asymmetric kinetic response. Questions have arisen about US readiness when it comes to minesweepers and logistics capabilities as US sailors were shown to be rationing food. Nobody is doubting the ability of the U.S. military who performed exactly as expected. The problem is, they’re lions being led by donkeys. 🎥 TikTok -

𝔗𝔯𝔲𝔱𝔥 𝔐𝔞𝔱𝔱𝔢𝔯𝔰

24,547 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten