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.

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

M.A. Rothman

92,620 subscribers

22,656 Aufrufe • vor 7 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

𝐄𝐗-𝐌𝐔𝐒𝐋𝐈𝐌 𝐖𝐎𝐌𝐀𝐍 𝐅𝐑𝐎𝐌 𝐂𝐀𝐍𝐀𝐃𝐀 𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐎𝐘𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐑𝐄 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐂𝐄𝐏𝐓 𝐎𝐅 “𝐈𝐒𝐋𝐀𝐌𝐎𝐏𝐇𝐎𝐁𝐈𝐀” 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐖𝐎 𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐔𝐓𝐄𝐒 Yasmine Mohammed — a Canadian author, ex-Muslim, and survivor of a forced marriage to an al-Qaeda member — delivered one of the most precise takedowns of left-wing speech policing you’ll ever hear. She started with the origin of the word itself: “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘣𝘦, 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘣𝘪𝘤, 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘣𝘪𝘢 — 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴”. Not by Muslims generally. By “𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘴. 𝘎𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘧𝘨𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯, 𝘐-𝘚-𝘐-𝘚, 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮 𝘉𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘥, 𝘢𝘭-𝘘𝘢𝘦𝘥𝘢, 𝘛𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘢𝘯, 𝘏-𝘻-𝘣, 𝘏-𝘮-𝘴, 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴”. She listed them one by one. “𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮”. Their purpose was never to protect Muslims from bigotry — “𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸 𝘪𝘯 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴” — but to 𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟. She called it what it is: “𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘰𝘮-𝘶𝘱 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘺 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘴. 𝘞𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯’𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘗𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘧𝘨𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘚𝘢𝘶𝘥𝘪 𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘢... 𝘴𝘰 𝘭𝘦𝘵’𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳”. And the West fell for it. “𝘓𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘢 𝘣𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘰𝘵𝘴, 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘣𝘪𝘢, 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘣𝘪𝘢, 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘶𝘱 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘨𝘢𝘺 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦”. This is a woman who 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐥𝐚𝐰, was forced into marriage with a jihadist, and escaped to the West to speak freely. When she criticizes the legal and political frameworks of Islam, she’s not being “phobic” — she’s being 𝐚 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐯𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡. And the progressive left wants to silence her using a word invented by the very regimes she fled. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 “𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐛𝐢𝐚” 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐠𝐚𝐲 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐯𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐲.

𝐄𝐗-𝐌𝐔𝐒𝐋𝐈𝐌 𝐖𝐎𝐌𝐀𝐍 𝐅𝐑𝐎𝐌 𝐂𝐀𝐍𝐀𝐃𝐀 𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐎𝐘𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐑𝐄 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐂𝐄𝐏𝐓 𝐎𝐅 “𝐈𝐒𝐋𝐀𝐌𝐎𝐏𝐇𝐎𝐁𝐈𝐀” 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐖𝐎 𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐔𝐓𝐄𝐒 Yasmine Mohammed — a Canadian author, ex-Muslim, and survivor of a forced marriage to an al-Qaeda member — delivered one of the most precise takedowns of left-wing speech policing you’ll ever hear. She started with the origin of the word itself: “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘣𝘦, 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘣𝘪𝘤, 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘣𝘪𝘢 — 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴”. Not by Muslims generally. By “𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘴. 𝘎𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘧𝘨𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯, 𝘐-𝘚-𝘐-𝘚, 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮 𝘉𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘥, 𝘢𝘭-𝘘𝘢𝘦𝘥𝘢, 𝘛𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘢𝘯, 𝘏-𝘻-𝘣, 𝘏-𝘮-𝘴, 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴”. She listed them one by one. “𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮”. Their purpose was never to protect Muslims from bigotry — “𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸 𝘪𝘯 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴” — but to 𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟. She called it what it is: “𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘰𝘮-𝘶𝘱 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘺 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘴. 𝘞𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯’𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘗𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘧𝘨𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘚𝘢𝘶𝘥𝘪 𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘢... 𝘴𝘰 𝘭𝘦𝘵’𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳”. And the West fell for it. “𝘓𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘢 𝘣𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘰𝘵𝘴, 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘣𝘪𝘢, 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘣𝘪𝘢, 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘶𝘱 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘨𝘢𝘺 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦”. This is a woman who 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐥𝐚𝐰, was forced into marriage with a jihadist, and escaped to the West to speak freely. When she criticizes the legal and political frameworks of Islam, she’s not being “phobic” — she’s being 𝐚 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐯𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡. And the progressive left wants to silence her using a word invented by the very regimes she fled. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 “𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐛𝐢𝐚” 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐠𝐚𝐲 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐯𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐲.

M.A. Rothman

28,463 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

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.

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.

M.A. Rothman

47,675 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

89,764 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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

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

167,849 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

13,756 Aufrufe • vor 29 Tagen

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

2,218,025 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Beethoven could not hear the music he wrote. At the age of 28, he realized he was no longer able to listen to a flute being played in the distance, and he spent the rest of his life composing the most enduring music in Western history in almost complete silence... He had been a working musician since childhood. His ears were everything. In 1798, in the middle of a heated argument with a singer, he noticed for the first time that something was wrong. The sound was thinning at the edges. He could hear voices, but high frequencies were beginning to disappear. He told no one for years. By 1802, the truth was no longer deniable. On his doctor's advice he moved to Heiligenstadt, a quiet village outside Vienna, hoping the country air would help. It did not. There, alone and surrounded by farmland, he wrote a letter to his two brothers that he never sent. It was found among his papers after his death. We now call it the Heiligenstadt Testament, and it is one of the most devastating documents ever written by an artist about himself: "You men who think or say that I am malevolent, stubborn or misanthropic, how greatly do you wrong me. You do not know the cause of my seeming so... what a humiliation, when one stood beside me and heard a flute in the distance and I heard nothing, or someone heard the shepherd singing, and again I heard nothing." He wrote, in the same letter, that he had thought of ending his life. And then he wrote the line that explains everything that followed: "Only my art held me back. It seemed impossible to me to leave the world before I had produced everything I felt called upon to produce." He went back to Vienna. He went on composing. Over the next two decades his hearing continued to fade. Friends began writing their words down in small notebooks instead of speaking them aloud, and waiting while he read. Modern scholars call these the conversation books. Around four hundred of them survive. To compose, he developed his own methods. He bit one end of a wooden rod and pressed the other against the soundboard of his piano, letting the vibrations travel through his jaw to his inner ear. He had stumbled, through trial and error, onto the principle that modern science calls bone conduction. The cause of his deafness has never been settled. What we do know is this: he realized he was losing his hearing at twenty-eight, and he could have stopped. He wrote the letter, he held the thought of dying in his hand, and then he put down the pen and went back to work. Most of what he is remembered for was composed after that moment: The Fifth Symphony. The Seventh. The Ninth. The Missa Solemnis. The late quartets. All of it was made by a man who could no longer hear most of what he was writing. There are people who give the world what they receive, and there are people who give the world what they were never able to receive. The most enduring beauty in human history has almost always come from the second kind... -- -- -- If you enjoyed this, I write a weekly newsletter read by over 50,000 people who love rediscovering the beauty of the past. You can join us here: I write about beauty in all its forms. If you'd like to support my work, a paid subscription is what makes it possible.

Beethoven could not hear the music he wrote. At the age of 28, he realized he was no longer able to listen to a flute being played in the distance, and he spent the rest of his life composing the most enduring music in Western history in almost complete silence... He had been a working musician since childhood. His ears were everything. In 1798, in the middle of a heated argument with a singer, he noticed for the first time that something was wrong. The sound was thinning at the edges. He could hear voices, but high frequencies were beginning to disappear. He told no one for years. By 1802, the truth was no longer deniable. On his doctor's advice he moved to Heiligenstadt, a quiet village outside Vienna, hoping the country air would help. It did not. There, alone and surrounded by farmland, he wrote a letter to his two brothers that he never sent. It was found among his papers after his death. We now call it the Heiligenstadt Testament, and it is one of the most devastating documents ever written by an artist about himself: "You men who think or say that I am malevolent, stubborn or misanthropic, how greatly do you wrong me. You do not know the cause of my seeming so... what a humiliation, when one stood beside me and heard a flute in the distance and I heard nothing, or someone heard the shepherd singing, and again I heard nothing." He wrote, in the same letter, that he had thought of ending his life. And then he wrote the line that explains everything that followed: "Only my art held me back. It seemed impossible to me to leave the world before I had produced everything I felt called upon to produce." He went back to Vienna. He went on composing. Over the next two decades his hearing continued to fade. Friends began writing their words down in small notebooks instead of speaking them aloud, and waiting while he read. Modern scholars call these the conversation books. Around four hundred of them survive. To compose, he developed his own methods. He bit one end of a wooden rod and pressed the other against the soundboard of his piano, letting the vibrations travel through his jaw to his inner ear. He had stumbled, through trial and error, onto the principle that modern science calls bone conduction. The cause of his deafness has never been settled. What we do know is this: he realized he was losing his hearing at twenty-eight, and he could have stopped. He wrote the letter, he held the thought of dying in his hand, and then he put down the pen and went back to work. Most of what he is remembered for was composed after that moment: The Fifth Symphony. The Seventh. The Ninth. The Missa Solemnis. The late quartets. All of it was made by a man who could no longer hear most of what he was writing. There are people who give the world what they receive, and there are people who give the world what they were never able to receive. The most enduring beauty in human history has almost always come from the second kind... -- -- -- If you enjoyed this, I write a weekly newsletter read by over 50,000 people who love rediscovering the beauty of the past. You can join us here: I write about beauty in all its forms. If you'd like to support my work, a paid subscription is what makes it possible.

James Lucas

153,966 Aufrufe • vor 2 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

700,936 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

189,798 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 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

🔥🇺🇸 WOWW… YOU CANT UNSEE IT. OUR UNITED STATES SOCCER TEAM IS NOT FACING BELGIUM TONIGHT… WE ARE FACING THE EU GLOBALISTS. The HQ of The EU projects its power from Brussels, Belgium. Watch til the end and you will see President Trump KNEW that a fix may have been in. What if I told you that I don’t think the RED CARD was bad refereeing? What if I told you BRAZILIAN ref Raphael Claus didn’t make the call on the field initially? What if I told you it came from the VAR booth where a Venezuelan, Colombian & Frenchman were manning? What if I told you Claus has been accused of ISSUING IRREGULAR RED CARDS AND MATCH FIXING in Brazil? He was cleared 🤪 What if told you he not only made the call after THE BOOTH requested it (provided insulation from accusation) but that it was so OVERTLY an accidental tangle up that he went AGAINST RULES to use slow mo make his call? What if I told you he had only refereed one game of the tournament previous and it was in ATLANTA? What if I told you he was announced as referee for the game ONLY HOURS after Belgium knew they would be facing the winner of the U.S./ Bosnia game and it was the same night ? He was flown out to the West Coast from the East Coast days before and waiting for his next assignment. They didn’t send him to an EAST COAST Boston game… they didn’t send him to a NYC/NJ game… or even the very close to Atlanta city of Miami. Could this be standard practice… yes possibly and so can the naming of the ref only hours before… we are just talking coincidences here right? Now what if I told you that Brazil just signed a TRADE DEAL WITH URSULA von der Leyen in January called the EU-MERCOSUR deal and even flew out to Brazil for the signing? Ursula calls it engaging with THE GLOBAL SOUTH… which is code speak for Globalist Alliance. Now what if I told you that it is widely theorized that USAID & NGOS helped get Brazil President Lula elected by helping in the censoring of Bolsanaro? Now what I told you that the European Union Football Association today called lifting the Red Card crossing a “Red Line”. Perception is politics and the EU has endlessly been undermining Trump in coordination with whomever REALLY controls these politicians. President Trump KNEW that something nefarious may have been underway because he has GREAT instincts. Now the EU & LEFTISTS are melting down over our success and ALSO seeing European tourists visiting the U.S. saying that they have been LIED TO about America. Like I said… we are facing THE GLOBALISTS tonight … not Belgium and I believe they may have been trying to rig the outcome to prevent from being embarrassed. Do you really think it’s a coincidence that we got a VAR SLO-MO call against the rules to REMOVE Folarin Balogun… our best striker… from the game against them?

🔥🇺🇸 WOWW… YOU CANT UNSEE IT. OUR UNITED STATES SOCCER TEAM IS NOT FACING BELGIUM TONIGHT… WE ARE FACING THE EU GLOBALISTS. The HQ of The EU projects its power from Brussels, Belgium. Watch til the end and you will see President Trump KNEW that a fix may have been in. What if I told you that I don’t think the RED CARD was bad refereeing? What if I told you BRAZILIAN ref Raphael Claus didn’t make the call on the field initially? What if I told you it came from the VAR booth where a Venezuelan, Colombian & Frenchman were manning? What if I told you Claus has been accused of ISSUING IRREGULAR RED CARDS AND MATCH FIXING in Brazil? He was cleared 🤪 What if told you he not only made the call after THE BOOTH requested it (provided insulation from accusation) but that it was so OVERTLY an accidental tangle up that he went AGAINST RULES to use slow mo make his call? What if I told you he had only refereed one game of the tournament previous and it was in ATLANTA? What if I told you he was announced as referee for the game ONLY HOURS after Belgium knew they would be facing the winner of the U.S./ Bosnia game and it was the same night ? He was flown out to the West Coast from the East Coast days before and waiting for his next assignment. They didn’t send him to an EAST COAST Boston game… they didn’t send him to a NYC/NJ game… or even the very close to Atlanta city of Miami. Could this be standard practice… yes possibly and so can the naming of the ref only hours before… we are just talking coincidences here right? Now what if I told you that Brazil just signed a TRADE DEAL WITH URSULA von der Leyen in January called the EU-MERCOSUR deal and even flew out to Brazil for the signing? Ursula calls it engaging with THE GLOBAL SOUTH… which is code speak for Globalist Alliance. Now what if I told you that it is widely theorized that USAID & NGOS helped get Brazil President Lula elected by helping in the censoring of Bolsanaro? Now what I told you that the European Union Football Association today called lifting the Red Card crossing a “Red Line”. Perception is politics and the EU has endlessly been undermining Trump in coordination with whomever REALLY controls these politicians. President Trump KNEW that something nefarious may have been underway because he has GREAT instincts. Now the EU & LEFTISTS are melting down over our success and ALSO seeing European tourists visiting the U.S. saying that they have been LIED TO about America. Like I said… we are facing THE GLOBALISTS tonight … not Belgium and I believe they may have been trying to rig the outcome to prevent from being embarrassed. Do you really think it’s a coincidence that we got a VAR SLO-MO call against the rules to REMOVE Folarin Balogun… our best striker… from the game against them?

Johnny St.Pete

122,154 Aufrufe • vor 25 Tagen

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

SAME ISLAMIC JIHAD: DIFFERENT TARGETS: THIS IS WHAT THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO HEAR The Bondi Beach Hanukkah massacre was not “senseless,” “complex,” or “motiveless.” It was Islamic jihad, and anyone pretending otherwise is lying or complicit. A Muslim father and son aligned with ISIS opened fire on a Jewish Hanukkah celebration in Australia. Jews were targeted. Islam was the motive. Jihad was the method. Full stop. Within hours, political leaders and media outlets did exactly what they always do: erase the ideology, obscure the motive, and protect the narrative, even as blood was still on the ground. That is why this interview matters. In this exclusive RAIR Foundation USA interview, Robert Spencer—Director of Jihad Watch and one of the world’s foremost authorities on Islamic doctrine—states plainly what governments, police, and journalists refuse to say. Spencer explains why the Bondi Beach attack is identical in ideology to the Christmas market attacks across Europe. Different countries. Different victims. Same doctrine. Same war. Jews in Australia. Christians in Europe. Buddhists in Canada. The targets vary. The ideology does not. Islamic jihad is political, aggressive, and expansionist. It explicitly calls for the subjugation of Jews and Christians. That is why attackers strike Hanukkah celebrations and Christmas markets, moments when religious identity is most visible. The message is deliberate: you are being attacked because of who you are. Yet Western leaders still claim they “don’t know why.” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese could not even bring himself to mention Jews or Islam in his statement. Not from ignorance, but from calculation. Naming the truth costs votes. So he chose silence, and the media ran cover. This is not confusion; it's policy! For decades, Western governments have upheld the lie that Islam is “harmless,” even when attackers shout Allahu Akbar, pledge allegiance to ISIS, and act in direct accordance with Islamic texts. Those who point this out are smeared as “racist” or “Islamophobic”, while the bodies accumulate. Spencer dismantles the deception: Terrorism is not the problem—it is the tactic Jihad is not random; it is doctrinal Denial is not accidental; it is deliberate His warning is unmistakable: Submission, not safety, is the objective. Canceling Christmas markets. Canceling public celebrations. Canceling Western identity itself. This is not prevention. It is surrender. History has already written the ending. Every Islamic state was once something else—Christian, Hindu, Zoroastrian. They were transformed by the same process now unfolding in the West. There is no “Western Islam.” No revised Quran. No exemption clause. The time for euphemisms is over. The victims were Jewish. The attackers were Muslims. The motive was Islamic jihad. RAIR Foundation will continue saying what governments and media refuse to say - until denial is no longer possible. 🎥 SEE OUR FULL REPORT AND FULL INTERVIEW HERE:

SAME ISLAMIC JIHAD: DIFFERENT TARGETS: THIS IS WHAT THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO HEAR The Bondi Beach Hanukkah massacre was not “senseless,” “complex,” or “motiveless.” It was Islamic jihad, and anyone pretending otherwise is lying or complicit. A Muslim father and son aligned with ISIS opened fire on a Jewish Hanukkah celebration in Australia. Jews were targeted. Islam was the motive. Jihad was the method. Full stop. Within hours, political leaders and media outlets did exactly what they always do: erase the ideology, obscure the motive, and protect the narrative, even as blood was still on the ground. That is why this interview matters. In this exclusive RAIR Foundation USA interview, Robert Spencer—Director of Jihad Watch and one of the world’s foremost authorities on Islamic doctrine—states plainly what governments, police, and journalists refuse to say. Spencer explains why the Bondi Beach attack is identical in ideology to the Christmas market attacks across Europe. Different countries. Different victims. Same doctrine. Same war. Jews in Australia. Christians in Europe. Buddhists in Canada. The targets vary. The ideology does not. Islamic jihad is political, aggressive, and expansionist. It explicitly calls for the subjugation of Jews and Christians. That is why attackers strike Hanukkah celebrations and Christmas markets, moments when religious identity is most visible. The message is deliberate: you are being attacked because of who you are. Yet Western leaders still claim they “don’t know why.” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese could not even bring himself to mention Jews or Islam in his statement. Not from ignorance, but from calculation. Naming the truth costs votes. So he chose silence, and the media ran cover. This is not confusion; it's policy! For decades, Western governments have upheld the lie that Islam is “harmless,” even when attackers shout Allahu Akbar, pledge allegiance to ISIS, and act in direct accordance with Islamic texts. Those who point this out are smeared as “racist” or “Islamophobic”, while the bodies accumulate. Spencer dismantles the deception: Terrorism is not the problem—it is the tactic Jihad is not random; it is doctrinal Denial is not accidental; it is deliberate His warning is unmistakable: Submission, not safety, is the objective. Canceling Christmas markets. Canceling public celebrations. Canceling Western identity itself. This is not prevention. It is surrender. History has already written the ending. Every Islamic state was once something else—Christian, Hindu, Zoroastrian. They were transformed by the same process now unfolding in the West. There is no “Western Islam.” No revised Quran. No exemption clause. The time for euphemisms is over. The victims were Jewish. The attackers were Muslims. The motive was Islamic jihad. RAIR Foundation will continue saying what governments and media refuse to say - until denial is no longer possible. 🎥 SEE OUR FULL REPORT AND FULL INTERVIEW HERE:

Amy Mek

136,738 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Issues of paternity have shaped our society for generations, especially in Zimbabwe. They did not start today. I remember going to a funeral with my father in the 1990s, and as we sat around the fire the men began sharing stories. One of them has stayed with me ever since. A Zimbabwean doctor had married a nurse, and they struggled to have children. As usual, when there is no child, the blame was placed on the woman. She went to see her own doctor, who told her plainly that she was not the problem, and advised her to bring her husband for testing. The husband refused, as many Zimbabwean men tend to do. Their marriage eventually collapsed, with the man insisting he could not be the problem because he had a child with another woman before marrying the nurse. That woman, he said, was also a doctor, and he was raising that child. After the divorce, the nurse remarried another doctor, and she immediately fell pregnant. Because it was a tight medical community, the whole situation became a talking point. The ex-husband had loudly declared that his former wife was barren, yet here she was having one child after another, three in total, with her new husband. Meanwhile, the ex-husband remarried, and again there were no children. One day the ex-husband and his former wife met at a gathering. During a casual conversation, as people who once knew each other, she told him directly that he was raising a child who was not his. She told him that he had no capacity to father a child and that if he finally went for tests, he would discover the truth. She reminded him how he had insulted her and her parents, and how he had refused to listen. The revelation shook him. He went for tests, and it was confirmed that he was the problem. He had spent seventeen years looking after a child who was not his. The moral of the story is simple, and I always stress this when mentoring young people. When in doubt, check. In fact, even without doubt, check. A DNA test at birth saves you from future heartbreak. Many men are raising children who are not theirs. Some women know exactly what they are doing. Others genuinely do not know because their relationships overlapped before they settled down. In those cases, even the woman cannot be sure who the father is. So when you have a child, get a DNA test. If you ask for one and a woman becomes defensive or resistant, that is a major red flag. At that point, the test is no longer optional, it is necessary. That is the reality of life today. As they say, trust is beautiful, but DNA is confirmation. In this life we live, hope is not a strategy when it comes to your children, so test your child and protect your future, as the saying goes. I have DNA stories that I could share for a whole year. If compulsory DNA testing was demanded of all of us today, you will be shocked by what will come out. This brother in the video is now going through denial. He has been told the truth, but he is still in shock, which is why he is asking for silly things from this woman. It is hard for any man to discover that the child he believed was his belongs to another man. That is why DNA testing is a necessity and why it should be compulsory.

Issues of paternity have shaped our society for generations, especially in Zimbabwe. They did not start today. I remember going to a funeral with my father in the 1990s, and as we sat around the fire the men began sharing stories. One of them has stayed with me ever since. A Zimbabwean doctor had married a nurse, and they struggled to have children. As usual, when there is no child, the blame was placed on the woman. She went to see her own doctor, who told her plainly that she was not the problem, and advised her to bring her husband for testing. The husband refused, as many Zimbabwean men tend to do. Their marriage eventually collapsed, with the man insisting he could not be the problem because he had a child with another woman before marrying the nurse. That woman, he said, was also a doctor, and he was raising that child. After the divorce, the nurse remarried another doctor, and she immediately fell pregnant. Because it was a tight medical community, the whole situation became a talking point. The ex-husband had loudly declared that his former wife was barren, yet here she was having one child after another, three in total, with her new husband. Meanwhile, the ex-husband remarried, and again there were no children. One day the ex-husband and his former wife met at a gathering. During a casual conversation, as people who once knew each other, she told him directly that he was raising a child who was not his. She told him that he had no capacity to father a child and that if he finally went for tests, he would discover the truth. She reminded him how he had insulted her and her parents, and how he had refused to listen. The revelation shook him. He went for tests, and it was confirmed that he was the problem. He had spent seventeen years looking after a child who was not his. The moral of the story is simple, and I always stress this when mentoring young people. When in doubt, check. In fact, even without doubt, check. A DNA test at birth saves you from future heartbreak. Many men are raising children who are not theirs. Some women know exactly what they are doing. Others genuinely do not know because their relationships overlapped before they settled down. In those cases, even the woman cannot be sure who the father is. So when you have a child, get a DNA test. If you ask for one and a woman becomes defensive or resistant, that is a major red flag. At that point, the test is no longer optional, it is necessary. That is the reality of life today. As they say, trust is beautiful, but DNA is confirmation. In this life we live, hope is not a strategy when it comes to your children, so test your child and protect your future, as the saying goes. I have DNA stories that I could share for a whole year. If compulsory DNA testing was demanded of all of us today, you will be shocked by what will come out. This brother in the video is now going through denial. He has been told the truth, but he is still in shock, which is why he is asking for silly things from this woman. It is hard for any man to discover that the child he believed was his belongs to another man. That is why DNA testing is a necessity and why it should be compulsory.

Hopewell Chin’ono

67,842 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

When a Freshman Senator had the Guts to Call Out an Alleged Bribe in Public Only to be Muted and Have Everyone Look Away Last year, something happened on the floor of the South Carolina Senate that should have stopped everything. A freshman firebrand state senator said a hidden truth out loud. I was not surprised that the senator from Berkeley County had the courage to speak the truth and call out at the very least questionable unethical behavior. After all, he is a lawyer legislator who has stood up to the establishment to fight for judicial reform putting his money where his mouth is by not voting in judicial elections. We need more in the General Assembly with his integrity. So I was unsurprised when he stood up during session and said, plainly and on camera, that he had been offered between $50,000 and $100,000 by a lobbyist group for his campaign account if he would vote against tort reform. He didn’t say it in private. He didn’t say it anonymously. He said it out loud, in the Senate chamber, where laws are supposed to be made in the open. Anyone who believes in the rule of law should have had the same reaction I did: how is that not immediately investigated? What followed was just as telling as the allegation itself. The President of the Senate visibly lost control of the moment. He struggled to respond. When he finally did, he didn’t ask questions or refer the matter to law enforcement. He adjourned the Senate. They disappeared for two hours. When they returned, they went on with business as if nothing had happened. That silence wasn’t accidental. It was instinctive. It was the system protecting itself. If an ordinary citizen accused a powerful interest of offering a bribe, the wheels of government would turn quickly. Subpoenas. Statements. Investigators. But when the accusation lands inside the club, the first impulse is not truth. It’s containment. That is not how a healthy legislature behaves. That is how an institution behaves when it has something to lose. When I say that, as Attorney General, there will be no statute of limitations on misconduct in office, I mean exactly that. On day one, SLED will interview every senator who was present that day. Not to embarrass anyone. Not to posture. To answer the most basic question a free society must answer: what happened? Was money offered? Who made the offer? When did it happen? How was it communicated? Was it reported? Was it ignored? Those aren’t political questions. They’re law-enforcement questions. And the fact that no one asked them tells you everything you need to know about why corruption survives in Columbia. This is why there has been such an intense effort by the good o'le boys to keep me off the ballot. I will bring an end to the era of toleration. The good ole boys in both parties understand what comes next if I am Attorney General. They understand I don’t protect institutions at the expense of the public. I don’t confuse seniority with legitimacy. And I don’t pretend corruption doesn’t exist just because acknowledging it makes powerful people uncomfortable. For years, my opponents have tried to brand me as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. That’s never been true. I’m a wolf in wolf’s clothing. I don’t hide my intentions. I don’t pretend to be something I’m not. And I don’t apologize for enforcing the law evenly. If you think that moment on the Senate floor was an anomaly, you haven’t been paying attention. If you think it didn’t deserve investigation, you’re accepting a double standard that only benefits insiders. And if you think the system will fix itself without pressure, history says otherwise. Corruption doesn’t disappear because people are polite. It disappears when someone is willing to confront it directly, document it carefully, and prosecute it without fear. I’ve done that work before. I know what it costs. And I know why the establishment would rather stop me now than deal with what comes later. The culture of corruption in Columbia didn’t grow overnight. It won’t end overnight either. But it will end, not with speeches or slogans, but with enforcement. That’s what scares them.

David Pascoe

172,879 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Ambassador Chas Freeman: Israel Is Worse Than Nazis It’s very clear what Israel wants. It’s made no secret that it wants to depopulate Gaza by whatever means it can, by starving people into leaving, expelling them, or killing them all. And there’s no question that it meets the definition of genocide. They have the intent to destroy an entire people. They have the ability and they are, in fact, carrying out an operation intended to do so. I think it’s also quite clear why Hamas did what it did. This was in the nature of a jailbreak from the world’s largest concentration camp. And having been treated like animals they behaved like animals. What they did was horrifying, it was inexcusable, but it was understandable. The Israeli reaction has been vastly disproportionate and that is Israel’s custom. It tries to react disproportionately in order to intimidate and deter anyone from attacking it. That is not new but what is new are the genocidal statements and proposed emptying of Gaza. 60% of the buildings in Northern Gaza have been destroyed and we know that over 12,000 Palestinians have been murdered by one means or another. Israel has destroyed most of the hospitals in Gaza. It now seems to be working on the schools. So it is totally ruthless and the whole thing is particularly macabre because it is such a vivid reminder of the Warsaw Ghetto, a very parallel situation in which driven beyond any ability to tolerate what was being done to them, the Jewish inhabitants of the Warsaw Ghetto rose against Nazi Germany and the Nazis exterminated them all and leveled the ghetto. One would think that the survivors of that Holocaust and the larger Holocaust in Europe would not wish to repeat a holocaust against another people but evidently, that is expecting too much of human nature. It now appears that much of the killing at the music festival was actually done by Israeli forces who fired indiscriminately at both the Hamas warriors and the milling crowds at the festival. Similarly, some of the major damage in the kibbutzim and the murders of the settlers there were done not by Hamas but by Israeli forces firing tank bullets into houses and hellfire missiles into cars and so forth. So this was a dreadful beginning to what has turned out to be an absolutely nauseating months and a half of slaughter, not finished. The United States has the ability to stop this by halting armed supplies to Israel but does not do that, opposes a ceasefire in support of Mr. Netanyahu’s revenge against the Palestinians, and Mr. Netanyahu, I would remind you, is on record many years ago as expressing hope for a war in which Israel could expel all the Arabs in its midst and seems to be taking advantage of this to do that hoping, I suppose, that his reputation which has been greatly damaged by charges of corruption and by his suspension of judicial independence in Israel, can somehow be redeemed by this act of revenge. Where we are is a very bad place. What Israel is reporting is extraordinarily crude propaganda, some of it obviously, utterly false, and they’ve been caught. Even some of the mainstream media are beginning to report that the Israeli Defense Forces are lying about a huge number of things. Younger people, generally in the West, certainly in my own country the United States, are far more inclined to be sympathetic to the Palestinians than they ever were before. It’s not that they dislike Israelis but now confronted with with graphic images of horror, the murder of 12,000 [Palestinians], they’re not dispassionate. Not only are they demonstrating in all of the world’s capitals for a ceasefire which their governments declined to support for the most part, but social media is now overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian as opposed to pro-Israeli. But I think the Palestinians, generally, have been motivated to remind the world that they exist. That their problems can’t be set aside. The Israeli government, with the connivance of the Biden Administration, and before that the Trump Administration, was making an effort to set the Palestinian issue aside in order to produce Arab-Israeli normalization. And the Palestinians set out with this raid into Israel to demonstrate that that is impossible, that the only way that you can have peace in Palestine is with a two-state solution. And oddly enough, although Hamas, of course, started as a movement funded in part by the Israelis — Mr. Netanyahu has openly admitted that he corroborated with Qatar to fund Hamas in Gaza in order to divide the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza — I think Hamas seized the moment to provoke Israel into doing exactly what Israel has predictively done in order to make it clear to the world that you have to have a two-state solution which had become a talking point. There was no reality to it at all. There had been no peace process for twenty-some years. Now there must be. People have recognized that the one-state solution — which many favored, meaning a purely democratic one-man-one-vote arrangement in Palestine in which inevitably the Jewish population given its higher level of culture, civilization, and finance, would have called most of the shots — is off the table. After all the hatred that has been demonstrated on both sides, coexistence in one state is obviously impossible in Palestine. Two states, however, would give the Palestinians a stake in peace. They have no stake in peace at the moment. They’re like a rabbit being swallowed by some kind of boa constrictor. As time goes on they go farther and farther down the throat of the snake and they’re crying out, and they were doing so at a pitch that, apparently, no one internationally could hear. And now their cause has been dramatized. We can’t have a resolution of what is going on now that takes the form of another expulsion of Palestinians, more tolerance of massacres, the condoning of genocide... and I think those in the West, including President Biden, who has been prepared to give Israel a pass on these issues, are beginning to pay heavily in terms of their political prestige in their domestic politics. Settler colonialism invariably leads to some attempt at genocide. That was the case in the United States, Canada, and Australia. It wasn’t the case in New Zealand because the Māori were too tough. It wasn’t the case in South Africa because the Zulus, and other South African blacks, were too tough. It wasn’t the case in Kenya because, eventually, black Kenyans rose up in the Mau Mau movement, which was itself a horror, but it did result in a separation from the colonial rule of the British. The same thing could happen. Now the difficulty of all this is obvious in terms of the fact that you’ve got an Israeli cabinet that is the most determined, genocidal cabinet the world has ever seen, and I don’t excuse the Nazi cabinets from that comparison. The overt statements of genocidal intent are unmistakable. There’s no effort, as the Germans did make, to conceal what is in store for the Palestinians. There’s no fake camp for Jews like the one the Nazis set up to bring the Swiss Red Cross in to show how wonderful they were treating the people they had taken away from their homes. No effort whatsoever of that sort, just bombing and strafing and murder on the ground. Israel appears to be paying quite a heavy price for that in terms of combat losses, but, of course, is not reporting accurately what is happening.

Ambassador Chas Freeman: Israel Is Worse Than Nazis It’s very clear what Israel wants. It’s made no secret that it wants to depopulate Gaza by whatever means it can, by starving people into leaving, expelling them, or killing them all. And there’s no question that it meets the definition of genocide. They have the intent to destroy an entire people. They have the ability and they are, in fact, carrying out an operation intended to do so. I think it’s also quite clear why Hamas did what it did. This was in the nature of a jailbreak from the world’s largest concentration camp. And having been treated like animals they behaved like animals. What they did was horrifying, it was inexcusable, but it was understandable. The Israeli reaction has been vastly disproportionate and that is Israel’s custom. It tries to react disproportionately in order to intimidate and deter anyone from attacking it. That is not new but what is new are the genocidal statements and proposed emptying of Gaza. 60% of the buildings in Northern Gaza have been destroyed and we know that over 12,000 Palestinians have been murdered by one means or another. Israel has destroyed most of the hospitals in Gaza. It now seems to be working on the schools. So it is totally ruthless and the whole thing is particularly macabre because it is such a vivid reminder of the Warsaw Ghetto, a very parallel situation in which driven beyond any ability to tolerate what was being done to them, the Jewish inhabitants of the Warsaw Ghetto rose against Nazi Germany and the Nazis exterminated them all and leveled the ghetto. One would think that the survivors of that Holocaust and the larger Holocaust in Europe would not wish to repeat a holocaust against another people but evidently, that is expecting too much of human nature. It now appears that much of the killing at the music festival was actually done by Israeli forces who fired indiscriminately at both the Hamas warriors and the milling crowds at the festival. Similarly, some of the major damage in the kibbutzim and the murders of the settlers there were done not by Hamas but by Israeli forces firing tank bullets into houses and hellfire missiles into cars and so forth. So this was a dreadful beginning to what has turned out to be an absolutely nauseating months and a half of slaughter, not finished. The United States has the ability to stop this by halting armed supplies to Israel but does not do that, opposes a ceasefire in support of Mr. Netanyahu’s revenge against the Palestinians, and Mr. Netanyahu, I would remind you, is on record many years ago as expressing hope for a war in which Israel could expel all the Arabs in its midst and seems to be taking advantage of this to do that hoping, I suppose, that his reputation which has been greatly damaged by charges of corruption and by his suspension of judicial independence in Israel, can somehow be redeemed by this act of revenge. Where we are is a very bad place. What Israel is reporting is extraordinarily crude propaganda, some of it obviously, utterly false, and they’ve been caught. Even some of the mainstream media are beginning to report that the Israeli Defense Forces are lying about a huge number of things. Younger people, generally in the West, certainly in my own country the United States, are far more inclined to be sympathetic to the Palestinians than they ever were before. It’s not that they dislike Israelis but now confronted with with graphic images of horror, the murder of 12,000 [Palestinians], they’re not dispassionate. Not only are they demonstrating in all of the world’s capitals for a ceasefire which their governments declined to support for the most part, but social media is now overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian as opposed to pro-Israeli. But I think the Palestinians, generally, have been motivated to remind the world that they exist. That their problems can’t be set aside. The Israeli government, with the connivance of the Biden Administration, and before that the Trump Administration, was making an effort to set the Palestinian issue aside in order to produce Arab-Israeli normalization. And the Palestinians set out with this raid into Israel to demonstrate that that is impossible, that the only way that you can have peace in Palestine is with a two-state solution. And oddly enough, although Hamas, of course, started as a movement funded in part by the Israelis — Mr. Netanyahu has openly admitted that he corroborated with Qatar to fund Hamas in Gaza in order to divide the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza — I think Hamas seized the moment to provoke Israel into doing exactly what Israel has predictively done in order to make it clear to the world that you have to have a two-state solution which had become a talking point. There was no reality to it at all. There had been no peace process for twenty-some years. Now there must be. People have recognized that the one-state solution — which many favored, meaning a purely democratic one-man-one-vote arrangement in Palestine in which inevitably the Jewish population given its higher level of culture, civilization, and finance, would have called most of the shots — is off the table. After all the hatred that has been demonstrated on both sides, coexistence in one state is obviously impossible in Palestine. Two states, however, would give the Palestinians a stake in peace. They have no stake in peace at the moment. They’re like a rabbit being swallowed by some kind of boa constrictor. As time goes on they go farther and farther down the throat of the snake and they’re crying out, and they were doing so at a pitch that, apparently, no one internationally could hear. And now their cause has been dramatized. We can’t have a resolution of what is going on now that takes the form of another expulsion of Palestinians, more tolerance of massacres, the condoning of genocide... and I think those in the West, including President Biden, who has been prepared to give Israel a pass on these issues, are beginning to pay heavily in terms of their political prestige in their domestic politics. Settler colonialism invariably leads to some attempt at genocide. That was the case in the United States, Canada, and Australia. It wasn’t the case in New Zealand because the Māori were too tough. It wasn’t the case in South Africa because the Zulus, and other South African blacks, were too tough. It wasn’t the case in Kenya because, eventually, black Kenyans rose up in the Mau Mau movement, which was itself a horror, but it did result in a separation from the colonial rule of the British. The same thing could happen. Now the difficulty of all this is obvious in terms of the fact that you’ve got an Israeli cabinet that is the most determined, genocidal cabinet the world has ever seen, and I don’t excuse the Nazi cabinets from that comparison. The overt statements of genocidal intent are unmistakable. There’s no effort, as the Germans did make, to conceal what is in store for the Palestinians. There’s no fake camp for Jews like the one the Nazis set up to bring the Swiss Red Cross in to show how wonderful they were treating the people they had taken away from their homes. No effort whatsoever of that sort, just bombing and strafing and murder on the ground. Israel appears to be paying quite a heavy price for that in terms of combat losses, but, of course, is not reporting accurately what is happening.

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

22,308 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren