正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

🗣️ “[𝘕𝘰𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘣𝘶𝘮𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘌𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘢𝘳] narrative is crazy. #Eminem𓃵 is a 𝘎𝘖𝘈𝘛, 𝘭𝘦𝘵’𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦.” ——T3 from Slum Village (July 2024)

Eme Latina

7,819 subscribers

22,807 次观看 • 2 年前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐎𝐑 𝐃𝐀𝐕𝐈𝐒 𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐎𝐍: 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐊𝐈𝐂𝐊𝐄𝐃 𝐂𝐇𝐈𝐍𝐀 𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐎𝐅 𝐋𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐍 𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐑𝐔𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐀 𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐈𝐃𝐃𝐋𝐄 𝐄𝐀𝐒𝐓 — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐍𝐎𝐁𝐎𝐃𝐘 𝐈𝐒 𝐓𝐀𝐋𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐈𝐓 While the media obsesses over the optics of the Iran deadline, VDH just laid out the geopolitical map that nobody else is drawing. “𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘵𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘬𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘢. 𝘝𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘻𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦. 𝘈𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘢, 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦. 𝘉𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘢 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘺. 𝘊𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘨𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘢 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵-𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘩 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢.” Read that again. Under Biden, China, Russia, and Iran were 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚’𝐬 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐲𝐚𝐫𝐝 — Panama, Venezuela, the entire hemisphere. Under Trump, a conservative wave has swept Latin America and all three adversaries have been pushed out. Then Hanson turned to Russia: “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘺𝘳𝘪𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘥. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘣𝘰𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯.” Russia’s military is gutted. Its Middle East proxy network is collapsing. And Iran — its last remaining partner — is about to lose its drone and weapons pipeline because 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔.𝐒. 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐒𝐞𝐚 𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 at will. Hanson’s broader point is the one the Fareed Zakarias of the world refuse to acknowledge: “𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘦. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳.” The Strait of Hormuz crisis, Hanson argued, has a silver lining: “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘶𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴.” For decades, Europe free-rode on American security guarantees while funding adversaries through energy purchases. That era is ending. 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭. 𝐇𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐠𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐩 — 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚’𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭.

𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐎𝐑 𝐃𝐀𝐕𝐈𝐒 𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐎𝐍: 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐊𝐈𝐂𝐊𝐄𝐃 𝐂𝐇𝐈𝐍𝐀 𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐎𝐅 𝐋𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐍 𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐑𝐔𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐀 𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐈𝐃𝐃𝐋𝐄 𝐄𝐀𝐒𝐓 — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐍𝐎𝐁𝐎𝐃𝐘 𝐈𝐒 𝐓𝐀𝐋𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐈𝐓 While the media obsesses over the optics of the Iran deadline, VDH just laid out the geopolitical map that nobody else is drawing. “𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘵𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘬𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘢. 𝘝𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘻𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦. 𝘈𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘢, 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦. 𝘉𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘢 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘺. 𝘊𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘨𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘢 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵-𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘩 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢.” Read that again. Under Biden, China, Russia, and Iran were 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚’𝐬 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐲𝐚𝐫𝐝 — Panama, Venezuela, the entire hemisphere. Under Trump, a conservative wave has swept Latin America and all three adversaries have been pushed out. Then Hanson turned to Russia: “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘺𝘳𝘪𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘥. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘣𝘰𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯.” Russia’s military is gutted. Its Middle East proxy network is collapsing. And Iran — its last remaining partner — is about to lose its drone and weapons pipeline because 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔.𝐒. 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐒𝐞𝐚 𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 at will. Hanson’s broader point is the one the Fareed Zakarias of the world refuse to acknowledge: “𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘦. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳.” The Strait of Hormuz crisis, Hanson argued, has a silver lining: “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘶𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴.” For decades, Europe free-rode on American security guarantees while funding adversaries through energy purchases. That era is ending. 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭. 𝐇𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐠𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐩 — 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚’𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭.

M.A. Rothman

171,296 次观看 • 3 个月前

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 次观看 • 3 个月前

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 次观看 • 3 个月前

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

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

M.A. Rothman

425,173 次观看 • 3 个月前

𝐂𝐑𝐀𝐈𝐆 𝐅𝐄𝐑𝐆𝐔𝐒𝐎𝐍 𝐒𝐇𝐔𝐓 𝐃𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐕𝐈𝐄𝐖’𝐒 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐁𝐀𝐈𝐓: “𝐈’𝐌 𝐒𝐈𝐂𝐊 𝐎𝐅 𝐏𝐄𝐎𝐏𝐋𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐈 𝐀𝐆𝐑𝐄𝐄 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐇” The hosts of The View tried the move they always try: drag the funny guest into bashing Donald Trump. They asked Craig Ferguson whether his new tour, “𝘗𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘦”, was loaded with Trump material. He 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧'𝐭 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐢𝐭 for a second: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭.” Then he explained why, and it was sharper than anything the panel managed all show: “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬... 𝘐’𝘮 𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩.” And the line that should embarrass every cable-news scold: “𝘐’𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘰 𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘦, 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢 𝘣𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘫𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘧𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬. 𝘐’𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘺𝘰𝘶.” Here's the context that makes it sting. Ferguson hosted CBS's Late Late Show for a decade. CBS just 𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐭 𝐞𝐫𝐚 and handed its 11:35 slot to a syndication package — no host, no desk, no charm. Meanwhile the genuinely funny guy is selling out theaters doing the one thing late night forgot how to do: 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐚 𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞. 𝐋𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐧𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐈𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞.

𝐂𝐑𝐀𝐈𝐆 𝐅𝐄𝐑𝐆𝐔𝐒𝐎𝐍 𝐒𝐇𝐔𝐓 𝐃𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐕𝐈𝐄𝐖’𝐒 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐁𝐀𝐈𝐓: “𝐈’𝐌 𝐒𝐈𝐂𝐊 𝐎𝐅 𝐏𝐄𝐎𝐏𝐋𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐈 𝐀𝐆𝐑𝐄𝐄 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐇” The hosts of The View tried the move they always try: drag the funny guest into bashing Donald Trump. They asked Craig Ferguson whether his new tour, “𝘗𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘦”, was loaded with Trump material. He 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧'𝐭 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐢𝐭 for a second: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭.” Then he explained why, and it was sharper than anything the panel managed all show: “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬... 𝘐’𝘮 𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩.” And the line that should embarrass every cable-news scold: “𝘐’𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘰 𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘦, 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢 𝘣𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘫𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘧𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬. 𝘐’𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘺𝘰𝘶.” Here's the context that makes it sting. Ferguson hosted CBS's Late Late Show for a decade. CBS just 𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐭 𝐞𝐫𝐚 and handed its 11:35 slot to a syndication package — no host, no desk, no charm. Meanwhile the genuinely funny guy is selling out theaters doing the one thing late night forgot how to do: 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐚 𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞. 𝐋𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐧𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐈𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞.

M.A. Rothman

418,321 次观看 • 1 个月前

“𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓’𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐀𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐈𝐃. 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓’𝐒 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐇𝐎𝐖 𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊.” A devastating takedown of the “Israel is an apartheid state” lie—explained so simply that even a college protester could understand it: “𝘈𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘥.” “𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣, 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮, 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯, 𝘑𝘦𝘸, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦, 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬, 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘯—𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴.” Then the key distinction: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭𝘪 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘥. 𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘥𝘢 𝘰𝘳 𝘔𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘤𝘰. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬.” The facts back this up: 𝐀𝐫𝐚𝐛 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥 serve in the Knesset, on the Supreme Court, in the IDF, in universities, and in hospitals. Israel’s 𝟐𝟏% 𝐀𝐫𝐚𝐛 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 has full voting rights, freedom of worship, and equal protection under law (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics). In actual apartheid South Africa, 𝟖𝟎% 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 was denied the vote, restricted to Bantustans, and barred from public facilities. Comparing Israel to that regime is not criticism—it’s blood libel. “𝘎𝘢𝘻𝘢 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘏𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘎𝘢𝘻𝘢. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘈𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺. 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘴.” 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥𝐢 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭. 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐧𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 “𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐝” 𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐥𝐢𝐞—𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧.

“𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓’𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐀𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐈𝐃. 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓’𝐒 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐇𝐎𝐖 𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊.” A devastating takedown of the “Israel is an apartheid state” lie—explained so simply that even a college protester could understand it: “𝘈𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘥.” “𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣, 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮, 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯, 𝘑𝘦𝘸, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦, 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬, 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘯—𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴.” Then the key distinction: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭𝘪 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘥. 𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘥𝘢 𝘰𝘳 𝘔𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘤𝘰. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬.” The facts back this up: 𝐀𝐫𝐚𝐛 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥 serve in the Knesset, on the Supreme Court, in the IDF, in universities, and in hospitals. Israel’s 𝟐𝟏% 𝐀𝐫𝐚𝐛 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 has full voting rights, freedom of worship, and equal protection under law (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics). In actual apartheid South Africa, 𝟖𝟎% 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 was denied the vote, restricted to Bantustans, and barred from public facilities. Comparing Israel to that regime is not criticism—it’s blood libel. “𝘎𝘢𝘻𝘢 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘏𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘎𝘢𝘻𝘢. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘈𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺. 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘴.” 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥𝐢 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭. 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐧𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 “𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐝” 𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐥𝐢𝐞—𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧.

M.A. Rothman

36,275 次观看 • 3 个月前

Democrats like to clutch their pearls and cry about “separating families” at the border, but on October 16, 2024, the Biden-Harris regime had no issue with separating 𝘉𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺𝘯 𝘞𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘮𝘴 from her young child, when she was 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳... 𝙬𝙖𝙞𝙩 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙞𝙩... 𝐔𝐍𝐋𝐀𝐖𝐅𝐔𝐋 𝐀𝐒𝐒𝐄𝐌𝐁𝐋𝐘. Williams, who runs a ministry called, “At Well Ministries,” is accused of blocking access to an abortion clinic, but says that she was there praying and preaching the gospel. “I was persecuted as a Christian standing for my beliefs when it comes to (pro) life.” 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐚 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧.

Democrats like to clutch their pearls and cry about “separating families” at the border, but on October 16, 2024, the Biden-Harris regime had no issue with separating 𝘉𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺𝘯 𝘞𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘮𝘴 from her young child, when she was 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳... 𝙬𝙖𝙞𝙩 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙞𝙩... 𝐔𝐍𝐋𝐀𝐖𝐅𝐔𝐋 𝐀𝐒𝐒𝐄𝐌𝐁𝐋𝐘. Williams, who runs a ministry called, “At Well Ministries,” is accused of blocking access to an abortion clinic, but says that she was there praying and preaching the gospel. “I was persecuted as a Christian standing for my beliefs when it comes to (pro) life.” 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐚 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧.

𝒞ℴ𝓃𝓈ℯ𝓇𝓋𝒶𝓉𝒾𝓋ℯ 👑 𝒟𝒾𝓋𝒶™

14,572 次观看 • 1 年前

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 次观看 • 3 个月前

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 次观看 • 3 个月前

We know Harry's team chose specific journalists and press to cover his few days of celebrity appearances, to report on him favourably. His goal was to 'curate a narrative'. This is made clear below, in comments by Rebecca, Matt, and Roya and Kate. It was the PR strategy by his new team. • Note: Roya comments she found it surprising to not only see who else Harry had chosen (she was one of the chosen), but also that not all the reporters chosen had given positive coverage - guessing she's talking about Matt. (𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 '𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘧', 𝘰𝘳 '𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴'?) • Note: Matt suggests maybe it's 'mostly' just the media who were excited to see him, which really seems to be the case. 🤷🏻‍♀️ remember, H+M also arranged friendly media for their celebrity visits to Nigeria and Colombia (for Colombia they actually just chose one, from a US celebrity publication). This is done as a way to control information about themselves and create a narrative. 👉🏽 celebrity client journalism. How can people take these two Californian celebrities seriously? And also, how can those working in the media take them seriously? It's all so inauthentic, so manufactured. I'd love to hear from knowledgeable people about all this. (𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟥) 𝘙𝘦𝘥𝘥𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨: '𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘢 𝘗𝘙 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘮 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘢 𝘤𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺'𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘴𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘺 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘯? 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘥𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘮 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴?'

We know Harry's team chose specific journalists and press to cover his few days of celebrity appearances, to report on him favourably. His goal was to 'curate a narrative'. This is made clear below, in comments by Rebecca, Matt, and Roya and Kate. It was the PR strategy by his new team. • Note: Roya comments she found it surprising to not only see who else Harry had chosen (she was one of the chosen), but also that not all the reporters chosen had given positive coverage - guessing she's talking about Matt. (𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 '𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘧', 𝘰𝘳 '𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴'?) • Note: Matt suggests maybe it's 'mostly' just the media who were excited to see him, which really seems to be the case. 🤷🏻‍♀️ remember, H+M also arranged friendly media for their celebrity visits to Nigeria and Colombia (for Colombia they actually just chose one, from a US celebrity publication). This is done as a way to control information about themselves and create a narrative. 👉🏽 celebrity client journalism. How can people take these two Californian celebrities seriously? And also, how can those working in the media take them seriously? It's all so inauthentic, so manufactured. I'd love to hear from knowledgeable people about all this. (𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟥) 𝘙𝘦𝘥𝘥𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨: '𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘢 𝘗𝘙 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘮 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘢 𝘤𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺'𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘴𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘺 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘯? 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘥𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘮 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴?'

mrc 🦇

49,720 次观看 • 10 个月前

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

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

M.A. Rothman

709,929 次观看 • 2 个月前

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

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

M.A. Rothman

28,463 次观看 • 3 个月前

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 次观看 • 3 个月前

Joe Rogan just said the quiet part out loud about Trump’s war on drugs and it completely shatters the media’s narrative. Overdose deaths are COLLAPSING nationwide and Rogan says it’s not an accident. “They’re blowing up these f*cking boats that are bringing in all the drugs!” ROGAN: “From the time Trump’s been in office, deaths by overdose have dropped off a cliff.” [Pulls up a chart] “Look at that! Look at 2024…and leading into 2025.” “These are all deaths from overdoses…I mean that’s kind of crazy.” “Look at that drop!” “Between 2023 and 2024, that’s the peak where people are dying. And then from the time Trump’s in office, it’s taking a F*CKING SHARP down turn!” “And why is that? Well, part of it is because they’re blowing up these f*cking boats that are bringing in all the drugs!”

Joe Rogan just said the quiet part out loud about Trump’s war on drugs and it completely shatters the media’s narrative. Overdose deaths are COLLAPSING nationwide and Rogan says it’s not an accident. “They’re blowing up these fcking boats that are bringing in all the drugs!” ROGAN: “From the time Trump’s been in office, deaths by overdose have dropped off a cliff.” [Pulls up a chart] “Look at that! Look at 2024…and leading into 2025.” “These are all deaths from overdoses…I mean that’s kind of crazy.” “Look at that drop!” “Between 2023 and 2024, that’s the peak where people are dying. And then from the time Trump’s in office, it’s taking a FCKING SHARP down turn!” “And why is that? Well, part of it is because they’re blowing up these f*cking boats that are bringing in all the drugs!”

Overton

2,502,752 次观看 • 6 个月前

🚨 Ryan Reynolds & Blake Lively pressured Justin Baldoni to read a statement they drafted, forcing him to take the blame for everything amid backlash over a growing online narrative accusing Blake of mean girl behavior and insensitivity toward domestic violence. What started as mean girl accusations has now escalated to people having a visceral reaction, calling them crazy and psychos. And honestly, given their antics, it’s not far-fetched or hyperbolic. This was a calculated PR move to deflect negative attention away from Blake. The proposed statement, dated August 12, 2024, is provided and discussed below ⬇️ 📌 Watch the full clip here👇

🚨 Ryan Reynolds & Blake Lively pressured Justin Baldoni to read a statement they drafted, forcing him to take the blame for everything amid backlash over a growing online narrative accusing Blake of mean girl behavior and insensitivity toward domestic violence. What started as mean girl accusations has now escalated to people having a visceral reaction, calling them crazy and psychos. And honestly, given their antics, it’s not far-fetched or hyperbolic. This was a calculated PR move to deflect negative attention away from Blake. The proposed statement, dated August 12, 2024, is provided and discussed below ⬇️ 📌 Watch the full clip here👇

The Spiritual Shift

56,544 次观看 • 1 年前

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 次观看 • 3 个月前

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

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

M.A. Rothman

90,990 次观看 • 2 个月前

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

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

M.A. Rothman

700,664 次观看 • 3 个月前

#Bulldozer | #MP A BJP MLA from Mauganj, Madhya Pradesh, Pradeep Patel, took the law into his own hands on Nov 19, 2024 defying the Supreme Court’s directives on bulldozer justice or demolition. Patel attempted to evict residents from a plot of land in Khatkari village, where 43 families, including 7 tribal and 13 Hindu have been living for generations. Patel and right-wing groups alleged that the villagers, particularly Muslims, had encroached on land associated to the Mahadev Temple and demanded their eviction. They argued that the Revenue Court had ruled in favor of eviction from the 9 acres 27 decimal of Temple's land, yet the administration had not carried complied with the order. Advocate Anil Tiwari, who is defending the case, clarified that the 9 acres 27 decimal land does not belong to the temple as the Temple itself constructed on Revenue's land much later. It's a Govt land. When the district admin sought time to comply with the Supreme Court’s demolition guidelines after the Revenue Court ruled in favor of eviction, BJP MLA Patel allegedly went to the village with a bulldozer to demolish homes, amid religious slogans. This led to violent clashes, with arson and incidents of stone-pelting in the village. To maintain law and order, the police arrested Patel imposing a curfew in the locality. Meanwhile, villagers claimed that a mob of 25-30 people attacked their homes on Tuesday, targeting Muslims and their properties. Police lodge FIRs against 30 individuals involved in the incident. Mauganj District Magistrate Ajay Shrivastava explained that all the families were given eviction notices after the Revenue Court order. The admin ensured to comply with the Supreme Court's order and taking actions accordingly. Brushing aside BJP MLA's claims, Adv Anil Tiwari said that R/W Groups propagating that it's a Muslim village which is not true. "It's a village with a mixed population and over 30 families were given lands under different Govt schemes over the years. And some homes were built on Govt's land," he said. Instead of issuing eviction notice to only illegally built homes, the Revenue Court ordered to evict the entire village and Dist admin subsequently served eviction notices to all. "Since many residents have legal land titles, we have challenged the Revenue Court's eviction notice in the High Court and it's under review," he said. He concluded, the entire ruckus was created over lies to create anti-Muslim narrative for political gain and whatever the theatrics media is showing is different from the records.

#Bulldozer | #MP A BJP MLA from Mauganj, Madhya Pradesh, Pradeep Patel, took the law into his own hands on Nov 19, 2024 defying the Supreme Court’s directives on bulldozer justice or demolition. Patel attempted to evict residents from a plot of land in Khatkari village, where 43 families, including 7 tribal and 13 Hindu have been living for generations. Patel and right-wing groups alleged that the villagers, particularly Muslims, had encroached on land associated to the Mahadev Temple and demanded their eviction. They argued that the Revenue Court had ruled in favor of eviction from the 9 acres 27 decimal of Temple's land, yet the administration had not carried complied with the order. Advocate Anil Tiwari, who is defending the case, clarified that the 9 acres 27 decimal land does not belong to the temple as the Temple itself constructed on Revenue's land much later. It's a Govt land. When the district admin sought time to comply with the Supreme Court’s demolition guidelines after the Revenue Court ruled in favor of eviction, BJP MLA Patel allegedly went to the village with a bulldozer to demolish homes, amid religious slogans. This led to violent clashes, with arson and incidents of stone-pelting in the village. To maintain law and order, the police arrested Patel imposing a curfew in the locality. Meanwhile, villagers claimed that a mob of 25-30 people attacked their homes on Tuesday, targeting Muslims and their properties. Police lodge FIRs against 30 individuals involved in the incident. Mauganj District Magistrate Ajay Shrivastava explained that all the families were given eviction notices after the Revenue Court order. The admin ensured to comply with the Supreme Court's order and taking actions accordingly. Brushing aside BJP MLA's claims, Adv Anil Tiwari said that R/W Groups propagating that it's a Muslim village which is not true. "It's a village with a mixed population and over 30 families were given lands under different Govt schemes over the years. And some homes were built on Govt's land," he said. Instead of issuing eviction notice to only illegally built homes, the Revenue Court ordered to evict the entire village and Dist admin subsequently served eviction notices to all. "Since many residents have legal land titles, we have challenged the Revenue Court's eviction notice in the High Court and it's under review," he said. He concluded, the entire ruckus was created over lies to create anti-Muslim narrative for political gain and whatever the theatrics media is showing is different from the records.

काश/if Kakvi

35,056 次观看 • 1 年前

𝗗𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗠𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗩𝗶𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗿: Because I almost always have some gear with me—a drone, a mirrorless camera, or at least a phone—I can capture scenes on the spur of the moment. Here I am freely flying through 3D Gaussian Splats scenes trained from these impromptu captures. It has been several years now since I've developed a real passion for 3D scanning, photogrammetry, and—for the last two and a half years—radiance fields. We actively use these technologies on a professional level at Dpt. , but this is also a personal passion of mine. I love capturing scenes, places, people, moments in time—memories. I enjoy the process of doing it; yes, capturing several hundreds of photos at a time, going in circles around a 'subject' for 15 minutes—all of which can drive my family nuts when they're with me. I have fun pre-processing, aligning, and using datasets to finally see those memories form and then be able to explore them freely in real-time. This week, Meta announced Hyperscape during this year's Meta Connect event… "𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘵𝘰𝘰. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦, 𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘩𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦—𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘵 𝘏𝘺𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘦." …it's exciting to see major players like Meta pushing the boundaries of immersive experiences. Their announcement of Hyperscape resonates deeply with the work I've been doing and my passion for capturing and recreating photorealistic environments and memories. It feels like we're all moving toward a future where the lines between the physical and digital worlds blur, allowing us to share spaces and moments in unprecedented ways. I'm thrilled to be contributing my own explorations to this ever-evolving field. The attached video is a screen recording of myself exploring and flying through volumetric captures—dormant memories—in real-time using an app I crafted for this purpose. The first part shows me moving from one memory to another (btw, this works in tethered VR), and in the second part of the video at , I explore two memories simultaneously, rendering two 3D Gaussian Splats of the same location onto two monitors. #gaussiansplatting #radiancefield #digitaltwin #hyperscape #memories

𝗗𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗠𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗩𝗶𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗿: Because I almost always have some gear with me—a drone, a mirrorless camera, or at least a phone—I can capture scenes on the spur of the moment. Here I am freely flying through 3D Gaussian Splats scenes trained from these impromptu captures. It has been several years now since I've developed a real passion for 3D scanning, photogrammetry, and—for the last two and a half years—radiance fields. We actively use these technologies on a professional level at Dpt. , but this is also a personal passion of mine. I love capturing scenes, places, people, moments in time—memories. I enjoy the process of doing it; yes, capturing several hundreds of photos at a time, going in circles around a 'subject' for 15 minutes—all of which can drive my family nuts when they're with me. I have fun pre-processing, aligning, and using datasets to finally see those memories form and then be able to explore them freely in real-time. This week, Meta announced Hyperscape during this year's Meta Connect event… "𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘵𝘰𝘰. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦, 𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘩𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦—𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘵 𝘏𝘺𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘦." …it's exciting to see major players like Meta pushing the boundaries of immersive experiences. Their announcement of Hyperscape resonates deeply with the work I've been doing and my passion for capturing and recreating photorealistic environments and memories. It feels like we're all moving toward a future where the lines between the physical and digital worlds blur, allowing us to share spaces and moments in unprecedented ways. I'm thrilled to be contributing my own explorations to this ever-evolving field. The attached video is a screen recording of myself exploring and flying through volumetric captures—dormant memories—in real-time using an app I crafted for this purpose. The first part shows me moving from one memory to another (btw, this works in tethered VR), and in the second part of the video at , I explore two memories simultaneously, rendering two 3D Gaussian Splats of the same location onto two monitors. #gaussiansplatting #radiancefield #digitaltwin #hyperscape #memories

Hugues Bruyère

16,304 次观看 • 1 年前