They had to know this was not going to help CNN regain credibility. They had to know this was, as the blue checks say, “bad optics.”
But they didn’t care. They couldn’t contain themselves. Their disdain for Middle America is so intense that they could not refrain from spending a full minute smugly and maliciously ridiculing Trump voters with cackling condescension.
Their hatred is palpable. It’s uncontrollable. They are happily telling you how much they hate you straight to your face.
Not just your ideas.
It’s personal. They hate you.
They do not see you as a fellow American. They see you as the enemy. They would defend ISIS before they spoke a kind word about you.
You are their #1 enemy in the world.
And yet they whine and cry when Trump calls them the enemy of the people. Jim Acosta bawls like a child when Trump voters make fun of him at rallies.
When we ridicule them, it’s an “assault on the free press,” it’s unconstitutional, it endangers their lives, they claim.
But then they turn around and do this.
If you ever wondered why our elite would allow the opioid crisis to spiral out of control, why it would allow the economy to be completely hollowed out by global free trade and illegal immigration, and why it would allow the middle class to be decimated, this is why.
They want it to happen because they hate you. They hate you more than you can possibly imagine.
The media may piss you off, but I promise you the hatred they feel for you–you personally–greatly surpasses whatever animosity you may have for them.
They want your children to be murdered by illegal immigrants, and then they will be the loudest voices in the room demanding the illegal that killed your child be let off the hook. They want your communities flooded with dangerous drugs, which your children will overdose on and die. They want immigrants to take your jobs and leave your family broke and miserable. They want your kids’ minds being corrupted by sexual deviants and degenerate celebrities. They want to turn your own kids against you by indoctrinating them with leftwing ideology.
They want you to suffer under a regime of anarcho-tyranny where the barbarians and gangbangers and degenerates run amok while the peaceful, law-abiding folk don’t even have so much as the freedom of speech to speak out against the destruction of their country, or the right to arm themselves for self-defense.
They want to destroy you.
This clip from CNN should make it clear just how intensely they hate you and want you destroyed.
In light of this I simply cannot see how or why this country can remain intact for much longer.
Every country’s majority population has “privilege.”
I wouldn’t have white privilege in the Congo. In fact I’d have the opposite of white privilege.
Saying the majority population in a country has a built-in advantage or “privilege” in that country is a self-evident truth.
It’s more like home-field advantage than anything.
But now it’s seen as bad and evil–instead of an obvious fact of life–for America to favor the particular ethnic group that has represented the historical majority in this country for three-plus centuries (going back before the founding).
Eradicating “white privilege” in America has been the main focus of affirmative action policies since the late 1960s. It has become secular America’s de facto religion: white people must recognize and denounce their original sin of “white privilege” or else be condemned as Racists™️.
Even lots of white “conservatives” have accepted and internalized the idea of white privilege. The difference between them and the woke, self-hating white leftists is only that they feel no guilt and angst over their white privilege. But many still acknowledge white privilege is a thing.
Norway is a country built for and by Norwegians. Its culture and customs are made for Norwegians. Norway is a Norwegian’s natural habitat. It’s where they come from and where they are meant to live. It’s made for Norwegians. They made it, and it made them.
The idea of “Norwegian privilege” didn’t even exist until the first Swede walked across the border and settled down in a foreign country built by and for Norwegians.
A lion does not have “lion privilege” over a penguin that immigrates to the Savannah. The Savannah is simply the lion’s natural habitat. The Savannah was there before the lion so the lion adapted and made the Savannah his home. The penguin that immigrated from Antarctica should not blame the lion for being better able to survive and thrive in the Savannah, just as the lion cannot blame the penguin for the penguin being more at home in Antarctica if the situation was reversed.
The idea of white privilege in a white country is as stupid as saying the 49ers had “49er Privilege” at their home stadium in the NFC Championship Game, and that the Green Bay Packers were helpless victims because they did not enjoy the same home field advantage.
It will soon be illegal to say but it doesn’t make it any less true: America is and has been a white country since day one. The elites are doing everything they can to change that but until they do, America is still a white country. So of course white people are going to have the natural advantage here. Same goes for England and Germany and Sweden. A white country means a white society and hence a natural “bias” toward white people.
A Black Country results in a black society and an inevitable bias toward black people over all others.
If there are 100 people in a room and 95 of them are Asian, with the remaining 5 being white, the whites will not have any sort of privilege or advantage to speak of.
It’s just natural. In-groups, out-groups. Majorities, minorities.
People are naturally “biased” to favor their own kind. However, modern white liberals may be the first ethnic subgroup in human history to actually have trained themselves (or, if you prefer, been trained) to be biased against their own ingroup and in favor of outgroups. The media, Hollywood and the education system have really done a number on white liberals.
Through this lie of “white privilege,” lots white people are being brainwashed to actively work to demolish their own race.
They have been convinced that America is “biased” towards white people, and that this is wrong and must be changed. They are driven by a tremendous sense of guilt over their perceived “privilege” over helpless minorities.
But it’s not even technically “biased.” I put that word in quotations for a reason: because it’s not really accurate to say America is “biased” toward white people. It was a white country and a white society, until other people started showing up. Then, by definition, it became “biased” toward its white majority, but only because outsiders started moving there. There’s no such thing as an in-group until an out-group is introduced. There’s no majority until there’s a minority.
From the earliest days of America until the waves of mass foreign immigration that began in 1965 with the Ted Kennedy Immigration reform, America was a 90% white country. So the idea of white privilege didn’t even exist: it was simply a white country. There was no consciously-developed system where the people in power said, “We’ve got to make sure this country favors white people.” It was just an inherent byproduct of the fact that America was a 90% white nation. No one ever thought about the idea of “white privilege” or keeping white people atop the racial pecking order.
The term “white privilege” didn’t even exist until the 1960s, and only entered the mainstream vocabulary in the 1990s:
“White privilege” wasn’t a thing until the 1960s, when our government decided that we were to be a “diverse” country instead of a white one.
You can’t expect a native population to suddenly and immediately bend over backwards to cater to a newly-arrived minority of outsiders. That’s not how it works. Outsiders generally have to be the ones to change and adapt to the customs and ways of their new country. They have to assimilate–in other words, try to be like the native population as much as they possibly can to fit in.
You can’t just move to someone else’s country and then complain that the people who were already there, who have historically populated that country, have “privilege.” Well, no shit they do: it’s their country. They founded it, they built it, and they make up its society. Of course it’s “biased” towards them.
It’s their country.
If you don’t like it, then go back to your own country where it’s “biased” towards you.
I can’t move to Pakistan and claim society’s biased towards Pakistanis. That’s idiotic.
Outsiders in foreign lands are naturally at a disadvantage, and probably always will be no matter how much they assimilate. As long as you’re the minority group, you will always be at a disadvantage compared to the majority group.
It sucks but it’s a fact of life no matter where you go. If you don’t like it you can leave.
But of course none of the people complaining about “white privilege” actually will leave, will they? No, because it’s objectively better here, and they all know it.
But that doesn’t stop them from wanting to have their cake and eat it too: they want to come here because it’s better than their old country, but they also don’t want to be treated as foreigners.
Well, tough shit. You can’t have it both ways. You want home field advantage? Then go back home.
You want to live in our land of opportunity? Then you forfeit your home field advantage. You’ll have to adapt to the new playing field.
Weigh the pros and cons, then make a decision.
Fortunately for you this country you bash for having “white privilege” is also the most hospitable and most welcoming to foreigners and immigrants in the world. Immigrants can get rich and famous and beloved in this country. Immigrants can make it to the top—hell, one was even President. Even if your dream is not fame and fortune, there are plenty of immigrants who become wealthy, successful, secure and happy in this country. There are countless examples of foreigners who have come to America and overcome the supposed albatross of “white privilege.”
They made it. Why can’t you?
I’m white, and most of the landlords I’ve had in my life weren’t white. Most were first or second generation immigrants. What kind of “white privilege”-based society would allow that? I’ve had plenty of nonwhite bosses. (Even nonwhite female bosses. Some patriarchy.)
And try being an American expat in another country. See how far your white privilege gets you. Here are a couple of examples of what it’s like to be a foreigner living in Japan. Spoiler: it’s not easy.
The idea of “white privilege” is completely illogical to anyone who thinks about it for more than 10 seconds. The shark has “shark privilege” over me when I’m in the ocean, but he probably couldn’t do much to me when he’s on dry land, my turf.
I have as much “white privilege” over a black immigrant from Nigeria as he has “black privilege” over me in his own country. Actually, a black Nigerian has it much easier in America than a white American would have it in Nigeria. The evidence is in the number of black Nigerians that want to immigrate to America and the lack of white Americans that want to immigrate to Nigeria.
If you believe in white privilege in America but not in black privilege in Nigeria, you’ve been brainwashed.
You should ask yourself, “By whom?” And “why?”
To sum up, racial-majority “privilege” is not:
Unique to America.
A deliberately-constructed system.
In need of rectification.
Now, there is a very big difference between a society that deliberately discriminates against and oppresses certain groups on the grounds of ethnicity, and a society that is simply inherently favorable to the people that a. built that society, and b. have been the majority population in that country historically.
The idea that America has a deliberately-constructed system in place designed specifically to oppress nonwhites is just nonsense. That system (“Jim Crow”) was dismantled decades ago. And the system we created after Jim Crow has been a system designed to rectify the sins of Jim Crow. Most social policies enacted since the 1960s have had the express goal of favoring nonwhites, if anything.
Everyone knows the post-Jim Crow era has been the “affirmative action” era, but “affirmative action” is better described as nonwhite privilege.
Hire someone for a job because they’re not a white male. Grant someone admission to a college that they otherwise couldn’t get into because they’re not a white male. Hold non-white males to a different set of laws and rules simply because of their skin color or gender.
Why do you think Elizabeth Warren pretended to be an Indian? If America was truly based on white privilege, then why would she have made efforts to claim she wasn’t white?
Of course, the whole idea behind nonwhite privilege is to level the playing field–in other words, give preferential treatment to non-white males so that they can “catch up” to white males, who were previously the supposed privileged group.
But that still doesn’t change what affirmative action is. It’s nonwhite privilege.
Affirmative action is nonwhite privilege.
Why do you think the next 007 is a black woman? It’s not because Ian Fleming’s books describe 007 as a black woman. It’s not because casting a black woman as 007 would lead to more ticket sales.
It’s because our cultural elites have decided that White Men Are Bad and their time is over. It’s because they believe there are too many Old White Men around. In fact, the term “Old White Men” has become a pejorative over the past five years or so.
The Cultural Marxists want cultural redistribution.
So not only is the idea of “white privilege” in America nonsensical, if anything the opposite exists today.
“Trump voters motivated by racism may be violating the Constitution.”
It has finally happened. Let the record show that in the year 2020 A.D., the idea of making it illegal to vote for Donald Trump was first submitted for consideration in the “National Debate.”
“If the Trump era has taught us anything, it’s that large numbers of white people in the United States aremotivated at least in part byracism in the voting booth. Donald Trump ran an openly racist campaign for president, calling Mexicans rapists and criminals, regularly retweeting white supremacists and at least initially balking at repudiating former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Trump made it clear in his campaign that “Make America Great Again” meant that America was greater when white people’s power was more sweeping and more secure. White voters approved of that message by a whopping 58 percent to 37 percent.”
I still think it’s funny that above all else, the central piece of “evidence” of Trump’s racism trotted out by Establishment Propagandists and brainwashed normies alike (the latter being a product of the former) is that Trump called all Mexicans rapists and criminals. He supposedly said this way back in June 2015 when he officially announced his candidacy for President, and ever since that day, the “Trump called every single Mexican a rapist!!!” lie has been cited endlessly as all the proof one needs to say “TWUMP IS WACIST!” But it’s not true. Even the shills over at PolitiFact have rated this claim “False.”
But let’s continue with Berlatsky’s piece. We’ll overlook his false premise and entertain his claim that Twump is Wacist and therefore anyone that voted for him is Wacist:
“Somepoliticians deny the evidence, no doubt because they don’t want to alienate white voters, including prejudiced ones. Othercommentators try to parse whether Trump’s racism will be a winning strategy in 2020. Terry Smith, a visiting professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, offers a different response in his new book, “Whitelash: Unmasking White Grievance at the Ballot Box.” Rather than excuse racist voters or try to figure out how to live with their choices, he argues that racist voting is not just immoral, but illegal. The government, Smith says, has the ability, and the responsibility, to address it.”
Oh boy, there it is.
“This sounds radical.”
“But Smith argues that it’s in line with the Constitution and with years of court rulings. For example, Smith points out that racist appeals in union elections are illegal and that an election in which one side uses racist appeals can be invalidated by the National Labor Relations Board. Similarly, in the 2016 case Peña v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court ruled that when a juror expresses overt bigotry, the jury’s verdict should be invalidated.”
Great. Two cases decided within the past 15 years are proof that The Founding Fathers would totally support making it illegal to vote for Trump. Yes, this scheme Big-Brained, Prudent and Totally Legitimate Interpretation of the Constitution certainly has deep historical roots and is not in any way a modern, Diversity Is Our Strength-driven perversion of both the law and the very idea of legal precedence. (In other words, a legal system based on “precedence” crumbles when it turns into one dishonest leftwing activist hack citing the ruling of another dishonest leftwing activist hack from a decade prior.)
“When voters go to the booth, they’re not expressing a mere personal preference,” Smith told me. According to Smith, voters who pull the levers to harm black people are violating the Constitution. If the Constitution means that overt racist appeals undermine the legality of union elections, it stands to reason that they undermine the legality of other elections, as well.”
Can I just say something real quickly before we get into this? Why are these Anti-Racism White Knights so monumentally narcissistic? They really believe white voters “pull the lever to harm black people,” and for no other reason. Listen you self-obsessed idiots: other people do not base their voting decisions on you.
Don’t these ethnonarcissists realize most voters don’t base their decisions on sticking it to some other group? Not everything is always about you and your imaginary oppression complex. Good Lord. Poor rural white voters in Kentucky have bigger things to worry about in their lives than “harming black people” by voting Republican.
Is it so completely unfathomable that someone would vote for a different party than you because they perceive it to be in their own self-interest, and not because they think it would “harm” you or some ethnic group you’re trying to white knight for? Get over yourselves, for Pete’s sake.
At the heart of all these racial grievances is an all-consuming narcissism, this belief that outside of your ethnic group, the country is filled with single-minded enemy drones that have devoted their entire lives to making you miserable. As if everyone else thinks about you just as much as you think about you–which is to say, always.
This may come as a shock but the vast majority of the country has better things to do than worry about oppressing you. You think we sit around all day scheming ways to make your life miserable? Honestly if that’s how you view the world you might be clinically insane. I’m not even kidding. There are lots of paranoiacs out there who imagine the whole world is a big conspiracy designed to Get Them; that massively powerful forces are working tirelessly around the clock to Get Them.
Most people vote based on what they perceive to be good for themselves first and their country second. That’s basically it. They don’t base it off of what might be bad for you. I’m sorry to inform the self-proclaimed “oppressed groups” but your perceived oppressors just don’t really care all that much about you one way or another. Very few people in this country have enough time and energy to hatch plans to oppress other people. They’re too worried about their own lives and problems. Hate to break it to you. They don’t think about you anywhere near as much as you think they think about you.
Oh, and normally when people try to presume others’ motives, they usually reveal more about themselves than the other person. For instance, assuming that white people go into the voting booth with the thought, “Which candidate will hurt (outgroup) more?” is probably an indicator that you go into the voting booth thinking that. It’s classic projection, and the left does it all the time. I say it a lot on this site but it’s worth repeating: whatever evil the left accuses us of, the left is invariably guilty of that very same evil. It’s like when that tennis announcer was fired by ESPN for saying Serena Williams used “guerrilla” tactics. He was merely describing the strategy she used in the match, but all the tolerant and progressive liberal execs at ESPN freaked out because as soon as they heard the word “guerilla” they immediately thought of black people. “You just compared a black woman to a gorilla you racist! Even though you didn’t even mean gorilla the animal and we were the ones that immediately thought “black people” upon hearing the word “guerilla”‘
Anyway, there you have it: the shoddy “legal foundation” for the mass disenfranchisement of white voters. Now, the Super Smart Liberals On TV and the Constitutional Scholars can claim this is a legitimate idea rather than a blatant power grab.
Every social or political movement begins as an idea, then it is written or spoken into existence, then it spreads, then it becomes reality.
No chance Noah Berlatsky is the first to have the idea that it should be illegal to vote for Trump, but as far as I know, he’s the first to transmute his ideas to text and have them published at a major Establishment Propaganda Outlet.
This is step two in turning this idea into reality.
By this point it’s undeniable: our enemies are power-mad tyrants who will let nothing stand in their way. They are full-blown totalitarians who will not hesitate for a second to destroy any person, group of people, or institution that stands in their way, including democracy itself. The second they conclude that they’ve lost control of the elections system and that allowing people to vote is a problem for them, they will begin publicly advocating for the end of elections. And they have. They are probably 5-10 years away at most from demanding gulags and straight-up mass killings.
These are the same people that accuse us of “vote suppression” for wanting mandatory Voter ID laws enacted nationwide.
How can it be that they hold these two seemingly contradictory ideas–namely, shrieking about us wanting to “suppress the vote” while actively campaigning to suppress the votes of those who don’t vote Democrat?
It’s only contradictory when you operate under the false premise that they are engaged in intellectual and political debate.
But it makes perfect sense when you recognize that their goal is to seize and hold power by just about any means necessary.
Would voter ID laws be bad for Democrats? Yes.
So they shriek that it’s “racist” to expect minorities to figure out how to obtain a valid, government-issued photo ID.
Do white voters hurt Democrats’ chances in elections? Yes.
So they shriek that white voters are motivated by “racism” (conveniently for them, a term they and only they get to define) and should therefore be banned from voting.
See? There’s no contradiction at all. If it helps Democrats seize and hold power, they are for it. Simple as that.
I first encountered the term “The War on the Private Mind” about five years ago in an article written at the once-proud National Review by the once-respectable Kevin D. Williamson. The idea is that the private mind is the final obstacle to the Liberal Globalists gaining absolute power. As soon as they successfully gag everyone in America through “political correctness,” speech codes and social pressures that make Anti-Racism the highest possible virtue, the final frontier is the very thoughts in your head.
They don’t just want to prohibit people from saying Racist Things, they want to prohibit people from thinking Racist Things.
But how do they know what unvocalized thoughts are in someone’s private mind? You can’t know for sure, can you? Well, it helps when you write the rules: they’ve decided that white people who don’t vote Democrat are racist by default. Of course, whites who vote Democrat are still always just one tiny slip-up away from being #Canceled, and they know it, but the general rule of thumb is that White People are born with inherent sin and rotten souls, so the only way they can atone for their innate evil is a lifetime of voting Democrat and hating themselves for being white.
White people who don’t play by those rules are automatically deemed Evil Bigoted Racists, even if nothing they’ve done or said in their lives proves the charge.
And now, the left is beginning to make the case that it should be flat-out illegal to vote for Donald Trump–and, of course, any future candidate they decide is Racist. Which is to say, every future Republican Presidential Candidate from now until either the end of days or this country descends into full-on civil war.
It’s not so much that they truly deign to know what Evil, Racist Thoughts you hold in your private mind. (Well, I’m sure there are a good many brainwashed fanatics on the left that uncynically believe white racism is the greatest threat to America and must be stamped out at all costs.)
Rather, it’s that purporting to know the (admittedly unvocalized but nevertheless extant) Racist Thoughts inside your head gives them an excuse to revoke your right to vote against them and clears the way for them to forever secure absolute power over you.
Last Thursday night, news broke that President Trump ordered a drone strike on an airport in Baghdad that killed a high-ranking Iranian Military official named Qasem Soleimani.
You have probably seen Soleimani’s picture once or twice in past news stories. He looks like a Bond villain, or a prototypical Hollywood Middle Eastern Bad Guy.
Soleimani is–was–the commander of the Quds Force, described on Wikipedia as “a unit in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) directed to carry out unconventional warfare and intelligence activities. Responsible for extraterritorial operations, the Quds Force supports non-state actors in many countries, including Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, Yemeni Houthis, and Shia militias in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.”
Interestingly, “al-Quds” is the Arabic word for Jerusalem, so “Quds Force” actually means “Jerusalem Force,” as in dedicated to the liberation of Jerusalem. He was most certainly at or near the top of Israel’s enemies list.
Solemani was basically Iran’s equivalent of the Director of the CIA–establishing, funding, arming, supporting and even directing foreign paramilitary groups to advance Iran’s interests. So it’s a very big deal that we assassinated him. For those saying that this was somehow not an act of war, imagine if Iran assassinated our CIA Director. Would that be an act of war? Of course it would be. But more on this in a bit.
Soleimani, while accurately described as an enemy of the United States, is different from Bin Laden and Al Baghdadi in that he was an actual government official, and not the leader of a rouge terror group or “non-state group.” That’s what makes this different from the others.
That said, just because he was a legitimate state official does not mean he shouldn’t be categorized as a “terrorist,” or at the very least a terror orchestrator. What do you think “unconventional warfare” means?
Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of many of Americans in Iraq, at least according to former US General Stanley McChrystal, via a New Yorker piece from 2013:
“Suleimani took command of the Quds Force fifteen years ago, and in that time he has sought to reshape the Middle East in Iran’s favor, working as a power broker and as a military force: assassinating rivals, arming allies, and, for most of a decade, directing a network of militant groups that killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq. . .
In 2004, the Quds Force began flooding Iraq with lethal roadside bombs that the Americans referred to as E.F.P.s, for “explosively formed projectiles.” The E.F.P.s, which fire a molten copper slug able to penetrate armor, began to wreak havoc on American troops, accounting for nearly twenty per cent of combat deaths. E.F.P.s could be made only by skilled technicians, and they were often triggered by sophisticated motion sensors. “There was zero question where they were coming from,” General Stanley McChrystal, who at the time was the head of the Joint Special Operations Command, told me. “We knew where all the factories were in Iran. The E.F.P.s killed hundreds of Americans.”
However, others claim Soleimani was the man behind the eradication of ISIS, and that we just killed a guy who had actually done a lot of our dirty work for us–even though our invasion of Iraq is what led to the creation of ISIS in the first place.
And that last part–American involvement in the Middle East being the root of all this–is the rub, isn’t it? After all, had we never invaded Iraq under false pretenses, “hundreds of Americans” wouldn’t have been killed by Iranian-made explosives in the first place.
It is not as if Soleimani sought out a fight with America. He hasn’t killed Americans on American soil. He became our enemy because we were meddling in his backyard.
My best guess as to Trump’s motives here is that it was a combination of pressure from his Beltway Neocon advisers and his own desire to project American strength. We’ll focus more on that latter part first.
Trump has a long and documented history–as a public figure, as a Presidential candidate, and as President–of opposing the Endless, Pointless Wars In the Middle East Beltway Foreign Policy Consensus. But he also wants to make it clear that nobody fucks with the United States and gets away with it.
For years Trump has been saying nobody respects the United States anymore and that Obama was a weak president. It’s no secret that Trump has made it a point to reassert American strength globally and remind everyone that the USA is the alpha nation. Snuffing out a major player like Soleimani is a highly audacious move by Trump that sends a message not just to Iran but to other nations in the world with designs on supplanting America as the top dog–China, Russia–as well as nations that give us a hard time–North Korea, Iran itself.
It’s a very clear statement: this is what happens when you fuck with America, so do not fuck with us.
At first I figured the Soleimani hit was an effort to promote the “Madman Perception,” as taken from the “Madman Theory” adopted by the US during the Nixon administration:
“The madman theory is a political theory commonly associated with U.S. President Richard Nixon’s foreign policy. He and his administration tried to make the leaders of hostile Communist Bloc nations think Nixon was irrational and volatile. According to the theory, those leaders would then avoid provoking the United States, fearing an unpredictable American response.”
But this goes well beyond that. The Madman Theory cultivated the perception that Nixon was a loose cannon that might decide to do something drastic if pushed. In other words, “Don’t even try.” It was about deterrence–a bluff, really.
Nixon merely promoted the belief that he might do something audacious and shocking, Trump, however, actually did something audacious and shocking. No bluff.
In Nixon’s days, the US could bluff because the US was still universally feared and respected. But some 50 years hence, we cannot bluff so easily. America’s words alone could not strike fear into the hearts of our enemies around the world.
So Trump let his actions speak for him, and for America. He went and did it.
I am opposed to the idea of the Forever War. I think we should get out of the Middle East and never return. Let them sort out their own affairs and hopefully, one day, we can just leave each other alone for good.
I certainly do not want war with Iran, or any other country for that matter. In my view the true enemy of all that is good and pure is here at home, for instance:
Uniparty Globalists have done far more direct harm to America than the Iranians could ever dream of. But this is a whole ‘nother can of worms to get into, and I’d prefer to stay on topic here.
So while I’m obviously strongly opposed to yet another pointless war in the Middle East in which young American men will be sent do die on sand dunes in a country that poses no direct threat to our safety, I also realize Great Power Politics is messy business.
When you are the Apex State like the U.S., you have to keep your enemies in check. You have to periodically remind them what happens when they step out of line. From time to time, you have to show them Who’s The Boss, just in case they forget.
There’s a scene in the Sopranos Season 6A (second-to-last season) where Tony, the boss of the family, has recently recovered from surgery and awoken from a long coma in which he was very near death. He begins to worry that perhaps his guys don’t fear him anymore, and that they view him as vulnerable. So one day, while all the guys are together shooting the shit, and seemingly for no reason at all, Tony picks a fight with his new bodyguard Perry Annunziata, a younger bodybuilder-type who is clearly the toughest-looking guy in the room. It takes a lot out of him, but Tony wins, and all the guys look on in a sort of bewildered unease. The message was clear: Tony Soprano is still the boss. Don’t any of youse get any fucking ideas. Capish?
You have to reestablish dominance every so often. When the crown starts to slip, you have to remind everyone who is in charge, or else you won’t have the crown for long.
Most people don’t have the stomach for this type of thing. Most of us are not prepared to kill to assert dominance, and that’s a good thing, because otherwise this world would be a much more violent place than it is already.
This is not unique to America. Every great power in history has had to do things like this. Running an empire is unavoidably a violent and messy business, and it takes rough men who are willing and able to carry out acts of violence, when it is necessary, to effectively maintain the status of great power nations.
No matter how much they try to pretend otherwise, with their tailored suits and speeches filled diplomatic jargon, and their “international forums” and “summits,” all great leaders of nations since the dawn of human civilization have been killers.
I say all this because I want to make it clear that while acts of violence like this may not seem acceptable to us civilians, we must understand that there are instances where violence is necessary. If you don’t believe this, then never watch a movie again, because most movies end with the bad guy getting killed by the good guy.
This is why most people cannot lead nations. Most people–thankfully–are not killers. But never forget: we only enjoy lives of luxury and peace because the men in charge of our country are killers who are feared by those who wish us harm.
Against Trump’s Soleimani hit because you personally don’t have the stomach for violence and killing? That’s good. You’re entitled to your opinion. And you’re right: in an ideal world there would be no violence or killing at all.
But we don’t live in an ideal world. We live in the real world where sometimes, men who are tougher than you and I have to commit acts of violence and kill in order to maintain our way of life. If the only reason you oppose this violence done on our behalf is because you personally don’t have the stomach to do such a thing, then you are not helping us at all. Just because you personally couldn’t do such a thing doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
If the only reason you oppose it is because you believe Violence Is Bad, then please shut the fuck up before your weakness gets us all killed.
Weakness and passivity lead to war just as often as belligerence and aggression do. In fact those polar opposites are often the main ingredients in war, as perceived relative weakness in one nation will naturally invite bellicosity and aggression by others.
Bullies prey on the weak. Only strong good guys can stop strong bad guys.
Whether the assassination of Soleimani was one of those instances of necessary violence is of course up for debate. But sometimes, in the the Great Game of foreign policy, you have to kill your enemies. There’s no way around it. This is why the unbending pacifists are almost equally as dangerous to American national security as the bloodthirsty neocons.
Still, the idea of assassinating a foreign power’s high-ranking military official just does not sit well with me. That was my initial gut reaction to hearing this news. For some the first thought that crossed their heads may have been “Hell yeah! We got him!” I did not react that way, personally.
It’s no secret that he Beltway Neocons have been agitating for war with Iran for some time now. Isn’t it curious that somehow, anytime Trump gets us closer to pulling out of the Middle East, something happens to pull us back in? The recent (and likely CIA-orchestrated) US Embassy riot in Baghdad was said to be the work of Iran, specifically Soleimani’s Quds Force operatives.
Attacking Iran like this plays into the Neocons’ hands. They’ve been itching to go to war with Iran for 20 years now. George W. Bush included Iran in his infamous “Axis of Evil” speech. A sizable contingent of the Permanent National Security Apparatus has wanted to take down Iran for two-decades plus now. All the other names on their Regime Change Wish List have basically already been checked off by now (other than North Korea): Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria.
I trust Trump’s judgement. I do not trust the hardcore Neocons who have infiltrated his White House and administration. I do not trust the Pentagon. I would not for a second put past them the idea of feeding the President false or misleading intel in order to guide him toward the neocons’ preferred goals. It is heartening to hear of the many times in the past when Trump has overruled his warmongering advisers–especially that bit about how he wanted to hear from the soldiers themselves about how the war in Afghanistan was going themselves rather than the generals–so he does deserve some leeway here. We should give him credit especially for when he resisted the calls for full-blown war in Syria over a supposed Assad chemical weapons massacre that we now know was totally fabricated for the express purpose of ensnaring America in another war.
But still: if we end up going to war with Iran, it will not only be a devastating and costly slog that will likely last over a decade (if our previous Middle Eastern wars are any indication), but it will be one of the final nails in the coffin of American democracy.
Trump going to war with Iran would prove it beyond a reasonable doubt: the American people have no say in foreign policy. Both parties will deliver Forever War whether you like it or not. If even the great populist outsider Trump can succumb to the will of the Neocon Foreign Policy Establishment, then who can actually overcome them?
At the end of the day, I seriously doubt this Soleimani assassination will lead to a war between the US and Iran, primarily because Iran does not want a war with America. Plus, Trump knows he will lose in 2020 if he starts a war–which the American public has zero appetite for–with yet another country that does not pose a direct threat to our safety.
Normie Social Media is abuzz over the prospect of “World War III,” but this, to me, is a ridiculous notion–not because I doubt Iran would be able to muster a network of allies anywhere close to the one that would confront them in such a conflict, but because Iran would be foolish to even retaliate against us. Iran’s government would be decimated in short order, and the Iranian government is fully aware of this fact.
In other words, no shit this was an act of war. We brazenly murdered one of Iran’s most important military leaders.
But what can Iran actually do about it? I’d argue that an “act of war” is not the same thing as starting a war. Because if the other side has neither the ability nor the will to engage in a war with you, your “acts of war” will not lead to war.
But we can’t keep doing this. Eventually a cornered animal will attack you, whether it has any shot of winning or not.
And even if, as I expect, nothing comes of this, and it does not lead to war with Iran, was this really necessary? Did Soleimani genuinely pose a threat to American lives here? Does this make Americans safer? I really don’t buy it. In my view, all it does is further alienate us from Iran, one of the most powerful countries in the Middle East. It only gives them further reason to hate us.
I simply don’t buy the narrative that everyday Iranians are actually happy we killed Soleimani and that most Iranians hate the ruling regime in their country. Neocons can cherry-pick jubilant testimonials from Iranians as supposed proof that what we did to Soleimani has actually gone over well with the Iranian masses, but I don’t believe it. America was already unpopular in Iran before the Soleimani strike. Now we’re even less popular in Iran. It’s not just the Iranian regime that despises America; I’m willing to bet a sizable majority of Iranian people do, too. And it’s mostly our fault.
It’s obviously bad and unacceptable that Soleimani was said to be responsible for the deaths of many Americans, but those Americans should never have been in the Middle East in the first place. We need to pull out of there for good.
The longer we stay over there, the more enemies we make, the more we will find ourselves in situations like this: going after some Middle Eastern “terror leader” for the crime of killing Americans who should never have been over there in the first place.