Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

𝘐𝘵'𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳. 𝘐𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘯𝘦, 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘺 𝘳𝘩𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘥𝘺, 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘱. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘴, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴, 𝘥𝘳𝘢𝘸 𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴, 𝘷𝘪𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘢... show more

Prog Rock Songs

59,274 subscribers

13,450 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Образование Музыка Искусство

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

𝘞𝘢𝘵𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤. 𝘐𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘐𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘴𝘰 𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦, 𝘴𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥, 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘤𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺, 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘺. — 𝗣𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗚𝗮𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗹

𝘞𝘢𝘵𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤. 𝘐𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘐𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘴𝘰 𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦, 𝘴𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥, 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘤𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺, 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘺. — 𝗣𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗚𝗮𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗹

Prog Rock Songs

14,311 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

🚨📸| 𝐁𝐫𝐲𝐚𝐧 𝐌𝐛𝐞𝐮𝐦𝐨 𝐕𝐢𝐚 𝐈𝐆 "6 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘭𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 6 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘴.⁣ ⁣ 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘦𝘦𝘴 𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘵. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘐 𝘨𝘰, 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶.⁣ ⁣ 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘢𝘳𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘴 𝘍𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘧𝘧 𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘺 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘮 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘥𝘰𝘸, 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘦, 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦, 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘍𝘢𝘯𝘴, 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘯𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘨𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘢𝘺, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵.⁣ ⁣ 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘫𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘺 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘴𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘦, 𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭. 𝘠𝘰𝘶’𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘺 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵. 🤍⁣ ⁣ 𝘞𝘦’𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴."⁣ ⁣ 𝖢𝗁𝖾𝖾𝗋𝗌⁣ ⁣ 𝖡𝗋𝗒𝖺𝗇.

🚨📸| 𝐁𝐫𝐲𝐚𝐧 𝐌𝐛𝐞𝐮𝐦𝐨 𝐕𝐢𝐚 𝐈𝐆 "6 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘭𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 6 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘴.⁣ ⁣ 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘦𝘦𝘴 𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘵. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘐 𝘨𝘰, 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶.⁣ ⁣ 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘢𝘳𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘴 𝘍𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘧𝘧 𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘺 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘮 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘥𝘰𝘸, 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘦, 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦, 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘍𝘢𝘯𝘴, 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘯𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘨𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘢𝘺, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵.⁣ ⁣ 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘫𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘺 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘴𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘦, 𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭. 𝘠𝘰𝘶’𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘺 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵. 🤍⁣ ⁣ 𝘞𝘦’𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴."⁣ ⁣ 𝖢𝗁𝖾𝖾𝗋𝗌⁣ ⁣ 𝖡𝗋𝗒𝖺𝗇.

Fan 珍宝

92,098 просмотров • 1 год назад

"𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘑𝘗 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘑𝘢𝘮𝘮𝘶 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘒𝘢𝘴𝘩𝘮𝘪𝘳. 𝘞𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘑𝘗 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳. 𝘞𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘰 𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵, 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘑&𝘒. 𝘓𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘺 𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘋𝘗 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘯 2015. 𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥. 𝘞𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯'𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘗𝘚𝘜𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘑&𝘒 𝘙𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘈𝘤𝘵. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘨𝘨𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦. 𝘖𝘯𝘦 𝘉𝘑𝘗 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘴 "𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦" 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦'𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 "𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦" 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘜𝘛. 𝘚𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘞𝘢𝘬𝘢𝘧 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘞𝘢𝘬𝘧 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘔𝘰𝘚 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘧 𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴. 𝘐 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘢𝘸 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘑&𝘒", 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘧 𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘖𝘮𝘢𝘳 𝘈𝘣𝘥𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘩 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘌𝘱𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘥𝘦-39 𝘰𝘧 "𝘒𝘢𝘴𝘩𝘮𝘪𝘳 𝘗𝘰𝘥𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘈𝘩𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘈𝘭𝘪 𝘍𝘢𝘺𝘺𝘢𝘻". 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘯 𝘛𝘈𝘓𝘒𝘐𝘚𝘛𝘈𝘕 𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘥𝘢𝘺.

"𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘑𝘗 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘑𝘢𝘮𝘮𝘶 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘒𝘢𝘴𝘩𝘮𝘪𝘳. 𝘞𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘑𝘗 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳. 𝘞𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘰 𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵, 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘑&𝘒. 𝘓𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘺 𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘋𝘗 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘯 2015. 𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥. 𝘞𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯'𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘗𝘚𝘜𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘑&𝘒 𝘙𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘈𝘤𝘵. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘨𝘨𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦. 𝘖𝘯𝘦 𝘉𝘑𝘗 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘴 "𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦" 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦'𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 "𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦" 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘜𝘛. 𝘚𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘞𝘢𝘬𝘢𝘧 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘞𝘢𝘬𝘧 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘔𝘰𝘚 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘧 𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴. 𝘐 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘢𝘸 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘑&𝘒", 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘧 𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘖𝘮𝘢𝘳 𝘈𝘣𝘥𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘩 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘌𝘱𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘥𝘦-39 𝘰𝘧 "𝘒𝘢𝘴𝘩𝘮𝘪𝘳 𝘗𝘰𝘥𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘈𝘩𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘈𝘭𝘪 𝘍𝘢𝘺𝘺𝘢𝘻". 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘯 𝘛𝘈𝘓𝘒𝘐𝘚𝘛𝘈𝘕 𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘥𝘢𝘺.

Ahmed Ali Fayyaz

13,493 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

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

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

Mr. Tshweu

89,644 просмотров • 2 лет назад

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

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

M.A. Rothman

23,602 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

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

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

M.A. Rothman

75,328 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

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

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

M.A. Rothman

187,560 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

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

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

M.A. Rothman

37,384 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

𝐕𝐀𝐍 𝐉𝐎𝐍𝐄𝐒: “𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐋𝐃 𝐍𝐄𝐄𝐃𝐒 𝐀 𝐅𝐑𝐄𝐄 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍” Van Jones is not a conservative. He’s a CNN commentator, a Yale Law grad, Obama’s former green jobs advisor, and the co-founder of multiple progressive organizations. He has spent his career on the political left. And he just delivered one of the clearest, most compelling cases for a free Iran that anyone on either side of the aisle has made. “𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥. 𝘠𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘯𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘩 90 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦, 𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺.” He’s right. Persia gave the world algebra, the concept of universal human rights under Cyrus the Great, and some of the most influential poetry, architecture, and scientific advances in recorded history. The Iranian people built a civilization that predates the Roman Republic — and then a gang of theocratic thugs put 𝐚 𝐥𝐢𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐚 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐲. Jones went further: “𝘈 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘱 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺, 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘉𝘚 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯.” Then the line that should make every interventionist skeptic pause: “𝘞𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬, 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨.” When a left-wing CNN commentator is making the same case as the Iranian diaspora, the MAGA base, and the 𝟖𝟏% of Iranians inside Iran who oppose the Islamic Republic (GAMAAN Institute) — that’s not a partisan argument anymore. That’s a consensus the media refuses to acknowledge. 𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠.

𝐕𝐀𝐍 𝐉𝐎𝐍𝐄𝐒: “𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐋𝐃 𝐍𝐄𝐄𝐃𝐒 𝐀 𝐅𝐑𝐄𝐄 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍” Van Jones is not a conservative. He’s a CNN commentator, a Yale Law grad, Obama’s former green jobs advisor, and the co-founder of multiple progressive organizations. He has spent his career on the political left. And he just delivered one of the clearest, most compelling cases for a free Iran that anyone on either side of the aisle has made. “𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥. 𝘠𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘯𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘩 90 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦, 𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺.” He’s right. Persia gave the world algebra, the concept of universal human rights under Cyrus the Great, and some of the most influential poetry, architecture, and scientific advances in recorded history. The Iranian people built a civilization that predates the Roman Republic — and then a gang of theocratic thugs put 𝐚 𝐥𝐢𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐚 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐲. Jones went further: “𝘈 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘱 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺, 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘉𝘚 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯.” Then the line that should make every interventionist skeptic pause: “𝘞𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬, 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨.” When a left-wing CNN commentator is making the same case as the Iranian diaspora, the MAGA base, and the 𝟖𝟏% of Iranians inside Iran who oppose the Islamic Republic (GAMAAN Institute) — that’s not a partisan argument anymore. That’s a consensus the media refuses to acknowledge. 𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠.

M.A. Rothman

28,028 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

𝐀𝐔𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐀𝐍 𝐏𝐌 𝐀𝐋𝐁𝐀𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐄 𝐀𝐓𝐓𝐀𝐂𝐊𝐒 𝐌𝐔𝐒𝐊 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐑𝐄𝐅𝐔𝐒𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐓𝐎 𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐒𝐎𝐑 𝐍𝐄𝐖𝐒 𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐕𝐈𝐎𝐋𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐀𝐓𝐓𝐀𝐂𝐊𝐒 𝐁𝐘 𝐌𝐔𝐒𝐋𝐈𝐌𝐒 Anthony Albanese was asked about Elon Musk mocking him for “𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘦𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩.” His response was a masterclass in authoritarian doublespeak. “𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘣𝘭𝘰𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰’𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘯 𝘦𝘨𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦.” He accused Musk of “𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘰𝘸 𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨.” He insisted Musk has “𝘢 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺” and that other social media companies “𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵.” Then came the tell: “𝘐 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘌𝘭𝘰𝘯 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘰𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵.” Let’s be clear about what’s actually happening. Australia experienced violent attacks by Muslims, and the government’s priority isn’t addressing the violence — it’s 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. Albanese doesn’t want Australians seeing what happened on their own streets. And when one platform refuses to comply with state-directed censorship, the Prime Minister calls its owner “𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘺.” Notice the framing: Albanese calls it “sowing division.” In his worldview, the 𝐟𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞 of the attack is the problem — not the attack itself. Showing people what happened is “distressing.” Hiding it is “common sense.” Every authoritarian in history has used this exact logic — the truth is destabilizing, therefore the truth must be managed. He even said it himself: “𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸. 𝘐𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨.” Translation: comply voluntarily, or we’ll make you. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐚 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐣𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦 “𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧” 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 “𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞” — 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭.

𝐀𝐔𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐀𝐍 𝐏𝐌 𝐀𝐋𝐁𝐀𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐄 𝐀𝐓𝐓𝐀𝐂𝐊𝐒 𝐌𝐔𝐒𝐊 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐑𝐄𝐅𝐔𝐒𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐓𝐎 𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐒𝐎𝐑 𝐍𝐄𝐖𝐒 𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐕𝐈𝐎𝐋𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐀𝐓𝐓𝐀𝐂𝐊𝐒 𝐁𝐘 𝐌𝐔𝐒𝐋𝐈𝐌𝐒 Anthony Albanese was asked about Elon Musk mocking him for “𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘦𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩.” His response was a masterclass in authoritarian doublespeak. “𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘣𝘭𝘰𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰’𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘯 𝘦𝘨𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦.” He accused Musk of “𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘰𝘸 𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨.” He insisted Musk has “𝘢 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺” and that other social media companies “𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵.” Then came the tell: “𝘐 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘌𝘭𝘰𝘯 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘰𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵.” Let’s be clear about what’s actually happening. Australia experienced violent attacks by Muslims, and the government’s priority isn’t addressing the violence — it’s 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. Albanese doesn’t want Australians seeing what happened on their own streets. And when one platform refuses to comply with state-directed censorship, the Prime Minister calls its owner “𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘺.” Notice the framing: Albanese calls it “sowing division.” In his worldview, the 𝐟𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞 of the attack is the problem — not the attack itself. Showing people what happened is “distressing.” Hiding it is “common sense.” Every authoritarian in history has used this exact logic — the truth is destabilizing, therefore the truth must be managed. He even said it himself: “𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸. 𝘐𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨.” Translation: comply voluntarily, or we’ll make you. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐚 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐣𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦 “𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧” 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 “𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞” — 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭.

M.A. Rothman

37,787 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

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

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

M.A. Rothman

100,835 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

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 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

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

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

M.A. Rothman

84,850 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

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

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

M.A. Rothman

13,628 просмотров • 18 дней назад

𝐀 𝐁𝐋𝐀𝐂𝐊 𝐌𝐀𝐍 𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐃 𝐅𝐑𝐎𝐌 𝐒𝐋𝐀𝐕𝐄𝐒 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐓𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐇𝐄 𝐈𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐎𝐏𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐄𝐃, 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐀 𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐌, 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐑𝐀𝐂𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐈𝐍 𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀 𝐖𝐎𝐔𝐋𝐃 𝐁𝐄 𝐃𝐄𝐀𝐃 𝐓𝐎𝐃𝐀𝐘 𝐈𝐅 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐈𝐍𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐓𝐔𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒 𝐊𝐄𝐄𝐏𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐈𝐓 𝐎𝐍 𝐋𝐈𝐅𝐄 𝐒𝐔𝐏𝐏𝐎𝐑𝐓. A black American testifying at a school-board meeting against critical race theory just delivered 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐲 heard at any public meeting in 2026. He earned a standing ovation. “𝘔𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬. 𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵-𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘴. 𝘖𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳’𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦, 𝘮𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢. 𝘖𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳’𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦, 𝘪𝘯 𝘛𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘴. 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥. 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮. 𝘐 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘭 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺, 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘴, 𝘧𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘨𝘰 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘭, 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵, 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘴𝘵.” “𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘴. 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘮𝘺 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴: 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘭𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯-𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘭. 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢. 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘯 190-𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳-𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘧𝘭𝘰𝘢𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳.” “𝘙𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥, 𝘣𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦, 𝘣𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘧 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘥𝘭𝘺, 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘥𝘭𝘺, 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘢 𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘺 𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘺 𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘰.” 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐡𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐂𝐑𝐓 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐞. You don’t fight 1860 racism by teaching 2026 children they are colored-in by their ancestors’ sins. 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤, 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧-𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲. 𝐋𝐞𝐭 𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐝𝐢𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐞𝐭’𝐬 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞. 𝘝𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 @𝘒𝘊𝘗𝘢𝘺𝘛𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘐𝘵

𝐀 𝐁𝐋𝐀𝐂𝐊 𝐌𝐀𝐍 𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐃 𝐅𝐑𝐎𝐌 𝐒𝐋𝐀𝐕𝐄𝐒 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐓𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐇𝐄 𝐈𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐎𝐏𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐄𝐃, 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐀 𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐌, 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐑𝐀𝐂𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐈𝐍 𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀 𝐖𝐎𝐔𝐋𝐃 𝐁𝐄 𝐃𝐄𝐀𝐃 𝐓𝐎𝐃𝐀𝐘 𝐈𝐅 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐈𝐍𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐓𝐔𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒 𝐊𝐄𝐄𝐏𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐈𝐓 𝐎𝐍 𝐋𝐈𝐅𝐄 𝐒𝐔𝐏𝐏𝐎𝐑𝐓. A black American testifying at a school-board meeting against critical race theory just delivered 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐲 heard at any public meeting in 2026. He earned a standing ovation. “𝘔𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬. 𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵-𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘴. 𝘖𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳’𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦, 𝘮𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢. 𝘖𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳’𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦, 𝘪𝘯 𝘛𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘴. 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥. 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮. 𝘐 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘭 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺, 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘴, 𝘧𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘨𝘰 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘭, 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵, 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘴𝘵.” “𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘴. 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘮𝘺 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴: 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘭𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯-𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘭. 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢. 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘯 190-𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳-𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘧𝘭𝘰𝘢𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳.” “𝘙𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥, 𝘣𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦, 𝘣𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘧 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘥𝘭𝘺, 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘥𝘭𝘺, 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘢 𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘺 𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘺 𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘰.” 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐡𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐂𝐑𝐓 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐞. You don’t fight 1860 racism by teaching 2026 children they are colored-in by their ancestors’ sins. 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤, 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧-𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲. 𝐋𝐞𝐭 𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐝𝐢𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐞𝐭’𝐬 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞. 𝘝𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 @𝘒𝘊𝘗𝘢𝘺𝘛𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘐𝘵

M.A. Rothman

109,615 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

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 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

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

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

M.A. Rothman

68,828 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

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

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

M.A. Rothman

89,400 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

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 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

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

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

M.A. Rothman

30,301 просмотров • 1 месяц назад