I’m been writing bitter screeds for a week or so now. Decided to skip it. It’s not going for anything. Bitterness is for loss. If there’s nothing to be saved, there’s nothing to be lost.

I do not mean some “all is dust in the wind” thing. Much more literal. Yes, after Trump was shot and they turned him into a savior figure, I said he would win in a landslide as a manufactured mythical figure (I still don’t believe the shooting was real, but hey, whatever, maybe just a neat coincidence). And yes, I did my best to keep the site alive with donations.

These were both completely futile things. No one was going to listen to me and like, cancel Trump’s election to stop WWIII. And not enough people were ever going to donate given the restrictions (almost the entirety of the last 4-5 years was paid for by one guy).

This is the way of things. The world goes to war. The Daily Stormer shuts down.

I barely have control over the quality of my bath towels. I have seized control of the radio in this room however. We will be listening to The Cars discography until I decide it stops, and I have a four-pound antique Japanese ashtray which will be buried deep within the skull of anyone who challenges me on this.

We control so very little. Think of the things you control. Write them down. Things that you really control. Things that people (other than police with guns) could never take control away from you. Sadly, that list doesn’t even include your kids. It’s mostly what video games you can play and what you can do at the gym.

Anyway, no one wants these stupid musings. There were two issues.

The first is the war:

• Israel somehow surrenders (or negotiates something that virtually all Israelis would view as a surrender)
• Israel uses nukes

These are the two options.

The first is so unlikely as to be almost completely dismissed. It is like listing “winning the lottery” on your five-year financial plan.

The plan, as it were, was to throw Iran into sectarian violence. Neither the Azaris nor the Kurds have moved, and have clearly signaled they won’t. So what that means is that the US can continue dumping “dumb bombs” and killing hundreds of thousands or millions of people, effectively creating the greatest Mujahideen force the world has ever seen.

And then eventually Israel will start sending nukes, I guess just trying to kill everyone or whatever, and then I have no idea what happens. No superpower, or any other country besides the US, will tolerate this, but Israel has too many nukes for anyone to really do anything.

You will hear stupid shit about how the US could send ten thousand marines to open the Strait of Hormuz, and this is nonsense. They have to have a beachhead of tens of thousands on the Iran side, and they would just get wiped out by ballistic missiles. Trying something retarded like that would make this debacle all the more embarrassing, and serve no purpose but to further embolden the Mujahideen.

The IRGC are not Arabs. Organizing independent cells of Mujahideen to act all over the region, all over the world, is something they’ve been meticulously planning since the invasion of Iraq. The mountainous nature of the land makes it very easy to avoid dumb bombs and very easy to cross borders.

This whole thing is so fucking retarded, the only possible move, planned by Bibi, who is not retarded, is some large-scale false flag inside of America which justifies an extensive nuking.

I don’t know what this means for you, but I do know it is impossible it means nothing for you. So, figure out what it means. Try your best to deal with it.

Among other things, it’s an impossibility that this ICE and NG paramilitary force built up in the US won’t be used to target “antisemites.” (As you’ll recall me explaining in an exasperated manner, that was the whole point of the program.) If I were you, I wouldn’t post too much. Seriously, why? Your tweets aren’t going to stop ZOG. Grow the fuck up, retard.

Oh, and the website. Shutting it down permanently at the end of the month.

Ideally, we’ll be able to keep a backup on Tor, as well as get the whole site on a torrent. I’ll do what I can.

As we get ready for the next round of the Iran war, Western governments need to come up with an explanation as to why we are going to war for Israel beyond “shielding Jews from blowback as a result of their genocide in Gaza.”

Enter: “Iranian backed terror.”

You have probably heard the claim in various Jewish media that Iran is a “state-backer of terrorism.” However, this claim, when dissected, does not refer to ISIS or al-Qeada style terrorism, but rather is a reference to Iran’s funding of various militias around the Middle East. For example, the media categorizes Iran’s support for Hezbollah and the Houthis as “backing terrorism.” Whatever you think of the militias Iran does back, this is something different than blowing up buildings or running people over with a big truck in Europe or America.

There have been some shaky claims of Iran sponsoring bombings in Saudi and Argentina in the 1990s, and in 2012, India said Iranians tried to kill an Israeli diplomat with a bomb. The same guy was accused of doing a bombing in Thailand, however, and after being extradited to Thailand from Malaysia, the Thai authorities refused to charge him and released him to Iran.

All of this is to say that this week’s accusations by the Australian Prime Minister that the Iranian government was behind the bombing of a synagogue and a Jewish deli in Australia are something different than we’ve seen before. The Melbourne synagogue was bombed on December 6th of last year. The Sydney deli, which burned up last October, was not even originally investigated as foul play by the cops. No one died in either “attack.”

As those who study the Jews are all too aware, Jewish very often commit hate crimes against themselves. Even before terrorism was a thing, Jews would regularly burn down their own properties to collect insurance money. The term “Jewish lightning” is in the lexicon to refer to anyone burning down their own property for the insurance, as Jews were so famous for this behavior (similarly to how a non-Jewish person viewed as greedy might be called “Shylock”).

It’s maybe worth noting that sense the bombing, the rabbi from the synagogue in question has been on a donations tour, and with the announcement it was Iran, is on another tour asking for even more free money.

What’s more, if these were indeed intentional attacks from someone, their timing, in the middle of the Gaza genocide, could mean that literally anyone could be responsible. Although Moslems would probably be more likely, it is not hard to imagine a non-Moslem outraged at the scenes on TikTok doing something like this. On its face, blaming the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps for the bombing of a random deli and synagogue in Australia sounds ridiculous, and it seems they would be some of the last people on the list of suspects.

Even if you believe Iran was responsible for the attacks they were accused of in the 1990s and then the 2012 events, those were all political or military targets. The idea of a serious military organization ordering random restaurants and synagogues in a random country blown up is silly. Iran is capable of sending rockets at Israel, they are capable of cutting off Israel’s access to shipping lanes. It makes no sense they would sink to street level random acts of random violence, which would not need any central planning.

Further, the fact that the firebombing would not need to be centrally planned means that it would be impossible to trace it to Iranian authorities. What would even be the claim? That they found text messages from a general in the IRGC? And that it took them nearly a year to find these text messages?

The identities of the accused have not been revealed, but the claim by the government is that they are street criminals who also committed other crimes who the IRGC hired through their networks to carry out these very serious firebombings that had no political purpose and where no one even died.

Here’s the Thing

This announcement by the weasel Prime Minister Anthony Albanese that Iran ordered the bombing of these random civilian locations in a white, Western country has been a top news story all over the world. Although no one is likely to look too deeply into it, because again, literally no one died, this gets the idea that “Iran is funding terrorist attacks on civilians” into the minds of the masses of the people.

With the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, the FBI had previously coordinated an attempted bombing of the same buildings in 1993 as a kind of precursor. Then you had the second attack, with the airplanes, lead to an invasion of Afghanistan. Then, in the weeks and months after 9/11, someone was sending Anthrax all around to media and government people, which is when the media/government started talking about Iraq as working with the al-Qeada. In 2008, they then said it was actually some random white guy that did the anthrax. He was, conveniently, already dead.

This is the note that was with the Anthrax sent to Tom Brokaw:

The FBI never really bothered to try to explain why a white guy would do that.

But refencing the Anthrax mailed around, Colin (pronuonced “Colon” for some reason) Powell brought white powder as a prop to his UN presentation on the need to. invade Iraq,

There was an ongoing triangle of disinformation and fake news passing from the New York Times, Dick Cheney, and Fox News. They were accusing Saddam of all kinds of things, just like they are with Iran right now, but the core of it was Cheney’s “Sinister Nexus of Terror.”

You still had the steam from 9/11 when they did the Iraq war less than two years later. But with Iran now, are we really supposed to do a massive war because of October 7th? Or is there going to need to be something more significant to motivate people?

I would very much expect that this Australian cafe and synagogue is the beginning of something bigger. With 9/11 and the Anthrax, when people were saying “oh they can’t be false flags, the government wouldn’t do that,” it was like “well, they started fake wars and killed like a million people, so why wouldn’t they blow up some buildings or send some powders?”

Looking back now, it feels like the “12 Day War” (the term they are using for the back and forth between Israel and Iran that involved Trump also dropping bombs on Iran) was a kind of probing event, where they wanted to see what Iran had. I think they were possibly a bit surprised at how capable Iran was. They were not the superpower capable of wiping Israel off the map that Scott Ritter had told everyone they were, but they were able to hit Israel and with missiles and cause real damage, and it was going to be impossible for Israel to keep going much longer before they were running out of their interceptor missiles.

Israel’s view on Iran has not changed, they are saying they are going to attack them again, and there is no way they can do it without the US, and involving the US on a large scale will probably take more than some all caps Trump tweets.

Obviously, at this point, huge numbers of people are going to be saying “false flag,” even if it is something on the scale of 9/11. So I don’t claim to know how this would work. If I was Donald Trump, I’d be worried the Mossad was going to assassinate me and blame Iran. That would get all the Trump supporters behind a war and it would leave leftists confused as to how they should feel, because if they said “false flag,” they might feel like they were defending Trump. Also, there has already been a “foreshadowing” event where Trump was allegedly scraped on the ear. And, I would add, that a personality like Trump getting shot would just generally be a bigger shock to the world than a bombing, which we’ve all already seen a lot of.

Or maybe I’m wrong and there is already enough noise and there doesn’t need to be some big event to justify further action in Iran. I guess the issue is that I don’t know really what it would take. If there needed to be an Iraq style invasion, then you would need some pretty big justification. But no one understands the logistics of this war. Like I said, I think the first thing was a test as much as anything.

But there are a lot of questions.

If there was large scale bombing of Tehran, could they do a “regime change” from the air? If so, could they keep shooting rockets without a “regime”? How stable is the domestic situation in the country? How do the Arabs, Azeris, and other minorities feel? (I think we know how the Kurds feel, lol. But the others, who knows? I don’t know. I do know that Persians are barely half the population.) Are there terrorists that can be moved in through Azerbaijan? What happened all those terrorists in Syria now that their guy is in charge? Can they be moved through Iraq and into Iran? It’s much more mountainous in Iran.

This is a lot different than when ISIS was able to just roll around wherever on the flats in the Iraqi/Syrian desert.

The mountains also provide a lot of cover for hydra-type break-off groups to operate if the government falls or is at least incapable of operating normally. I’m sure they have caves loaded up with drones and cheap missiles, and as we saw in the 12 Day War, the cost of shooting them down is too much for Israel to absorb. Even if they have infinity money from Big Daddy Donald, they can’t make that many interceptor missiles.

Those are some of the big questions. There are more questions. I’m sure the people with in intelligence have better estimates than I would be able to come up with as to what the answers to these questions might be, but I think even US/Israeli intelligence can’t give definite answers regarding most of these factors.

What I do think is that slowly drilling away at it until the armor cracks like they did with Syria is not a potential strategy given that unlike Syria, Iran can hit Israel with missiles. So I’m sure what Bibi wants is the full force of the US military to be brought to bear in a full invasion type war. And for that to happen, it is most likely that something very extreme would have to precipitate it.

Since the beginning of Donald Trump’s political career in 2015, “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) has been more than a slogan, and instead a concept that embodies a series of simple and easily understood principles about the problems facing America and the solutions to these problems. MAGA was never a specific series of policy proposals, as it was intended to be something bigger than any specific policy. It was a vision of a new America. While short on specifics, the vision was clear: the current establishment had wasted America’s wealth on foreign wars and domestic social engineering agendas that had hollowed out the nation. Though it was not theocratic or puritanical or otherwise moralizing, it was opposed to “weird stuff” which sought to undermine what were traditionally considered “American values,” and it was anti-immigration and anti-war. Again, it was never specific, but everyone definitely understood those three major cornerstones of the program. (It was also “anti-corruption,” though as no one is publicly “pro-corruption,” that is not a particularly meaningful position to take.)

During his first term, Trump failed to do much MAGA, but it was generally understood that he was trying to, but that the president simply doesn’t really have very much power in America. However, in these early months of his second term, Trump is not simply failing to live up to the ideals of MAGA, but is attempting to completely confuse the meaning of the term, attempting to convince his own followers that “MAGA” was never really what they thought it was.

In a series of statements reminiscent of Anthony Fauci’s infamous pronunciation that “I am The Science,” Trump has recently claimed “I am MAGA,” and that he is the decider of what is or isn’t MAGA, and whatever new policies he decides on do not necessarily need to have any relationship to what was previously understood to be the MAGA political platform.

What he is effectively saying is that his political movement was always just about him as a person, and that anyone who ever supported MAGA was supporting him as a person. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with his totally new series of policies he has developed in recent weeks, most of which are the opposite of how MAGA had previously been defined, is not actually a believer in MAGA, because MAGA was never a series of policies, but instead an expression of loyalty to Donald Trump personally, and a pledge to support whatever it is he decides to do at any moment.

This situation is most brightly highlighted in the way Trump has dealt with Congressman Thomas Massie, who is, I would argue, the standard-bearer of the MAGA platform as it was initially introduced by Trump in 2015. Trump has claimed Massie is a traitor and vowed to destroy him. It is very obvious to everyone that Massie has not changed any of his positions on anything.

In the most recent betrayal of the ideals that were sold as representing MAGA, Donald Trump has decided that he wants to continue the endless war in the Ukraine. While meeting with his handler and earthly master Bibi Netanyahu this week, Trump declared that there is no plan to cut any funding to the Ukraine, and he actually plans to increase weapons shipments.

Although it’s not totally clear what happened, it appears that last week, Pete Hegseth halted shipments of weapons to the Ukraine. During the questioning in front of his boss, Trump claimed he didn’t know who was responsible for canceling these weapons shipments, and asked the media to tell him who did it. (Hegseth was sitting directly to his left.) He then declared a planned increase in weapons.

Reporter: Who ordered the pause in weapons shipments to Ukraine?

Trump: “I don’t know. Why don’t you tell me?”

If Trump doesn’t know, who is running the country? pic.twitter.com/astMRRtVil

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) July 8, 2025

Following these statements, The Washington Post Editorial Board rushed to support Trump, publishing an op-ed praising his support for the Ukraine.

I would not suppose that anyone who voted for Trump in any of his three elections ever expected that the WaPo Editorial Board would become the standard bearer of MAGA, but that is apparently precisely what has taken place.

Trump had previously claimed that involving the US in Israel’s war with Iran actually was in-line with MAGA policy, which was explicitly anti-war, because he wasn’t really doing a war, he was just doing a bombing, not a war.

In another betrayal, Trump’s AG, Pam Bimbo, has claimed that there isn’t actually an Epstein client list. I don’t know what that means and no one has explained it, but the implication apparently is that Epstein did not have any clients, and either no women were trafficked, or they were trafficked to no one.

Remember when the Trump admin kept promising to release the Epstein files? No? We’ve got you. Watch this supercut.

And make sure to subscribe to Zeteo for more: https://t.co/X3GkKbDl2z pic.twitter.com/qdnIZsTLLP

— Zeteo (@zeteo_news) July 8, 2025

Though it is perhaps a slightly lesser offense to the MAGA agenda, which has never been particularly focused on fiscal responsibility, Trump has also this week moved to explode the national debt with the biggest spending bill in American history. What is most notable about this is that he vastly expanded military spending to the highest levels ever just weeks after claiming he was going to attempt to halve the military budget.

Trump said he would slash military spending, but just a few months into his second term, he proudly announced a one trillion dollar Pentagon budget.@ggreenwald on the Trump admin’s gift to the defense industry: pic.twitter.com/1lFMErnARb

— System Update (@SystemUpdate_) July 1, 2025

While “fiscal responsibility” might be slightly beyond the intellectual scope of MAGA, which has never been particularly sophisticated, “we’re going to stop wasting money on foreign wars and spend that money here at home where our country is falling apart” is definitely something we all understood to be core to the MAGA doctrine. Now, because MAGA has been redefined from a series of principles about how America should be run into “whatever Donald Trump says at whichever time he happens to be speaking,” the continuation of the Ukraine war, bombing countries for Israel, and spending the most money ever on war, all fall under the definition of “MAGA.”

A Test of the Limits of “Political Loyalty”

“Loyalty” is a quality that should be explicitly reserved for personal relationships. A man should be loyal to his family. Loyalty to a political figure or a political movement should not be possible, as it serves no purpose.

To be loyal to someone means that you will stick by them whether they are right or wrong. The reason we are loyal to our families is that we need them to be loyal to us, because this is how humans survive. If people abandoned family members because they were wrong about something, we would all be completely alone. We have to take the good and the bad with family members, because we need them.

Loyalty also makes sense in military units. It could make sense in the context of various business relationships. And there are, I’m certain, other examples of where the behavioral quality of loyalty would or could be appropriate.

One place where loyalty is not appropriate is in politics. Being “loyal” to a political figure is nonsensical. The only reason any person would support any political figure is that that political figure is doing political things they agree with and that help them and their personal agenda. There is no place at all for loyalty to a political figure, as you do not personally know the political figure, therefore do no owe the personal allegiance. There is no mutuality at all. Either the political figure is promoting an agenda you agree with, and therefore you rally for them and defend them because you benefit, or they are doing something different, which you do not benefit from, in which case you owe them nothing.

What Trump has done with intention is form a kind of personality cult, where people feel that they know him, and therefore owe him some kind of personal loyalty outside of his role as a policy maker. This is something that is only really possible in the age of electronic media. Most people see Donald Trump speaking nearly every day, and their subconscious mind, which is not familiar with the nature of video screens, registers him as someone they know personally, and are regularly hanging out with socially. Such a person would be the kind of person you would owe a personal loyalty to, and whose mistakes you would overlook, at least until they point where they got completely out of control.

We are going to see the limits of the “loyalty” personality cult tested.

Clearly, the personality cult is not considered ironclad, in the way it would be with someone like Jim Jones, as there is understood to be a need for distractions. This week, Trump is covering up the series of betrayals with a romanesque “cruelty circus,” sending immigrants to cages in an alligator swamp. The media that supports Trump will say “yeah so, I guess there never was an Epstein list, and yeah we’re just going to keep doing that Ukraine war forever apparently – now let’s go back to the scene of the alligator pit, where your tribal enemies, the immigrants, are going to be fed to large, nasty lizards.”

They will keep the circus distractions coming, I’m sure. But ultimately, there is going to be a strict math equation regarding how many people are willing to ignore the fact that Trump is abandoning most of the core of his platform, not only failing to do the things he promised to do, but telling people he never really cared about those things anyway.

It’s worth mentioning that people will continue supporting a political figure that fails if they feel he is trying his best, which is why Trump remained so popular after not doing very much the first time he was president. But this time, it seems he is attempting to completely shift his stated priorities. This week he said “we have to defend the Ukraine.” This is very much the diametric opposite of what he campaigned on when he said “it’s not our responsibility to defend the Ukraine.” That is different than “sorry, I can’t figure out how to get Congress to stop funding the Ukraine” or “I can’t figure out what I’m supposed to do to end this war, this whole thing is really confusing and I don’t know what to do.” What I mean to say is: failure is different than betrayal, and while failure is tolerable, betrayal should not be tolerable.

In the case of “actually, there never was an Epstein client list,” that is just obvious lying, which would fall under the “betrayal” category. Unless a person is stupid enough to believe that Gislaine Maxwell was convicted of sex trafficking underage girls to no one, which some Trump supporters are probably stupid enough to believe, though I can’t say for certain.

Unfortunately: Democracy

Fortunately for Donald Trump and his cadre, and unfortunately for all the people in America, we live in a democracy, and therefore it is possible for zero people to support Donald Trump, and for him to remain president, and continue to do whatever it is he feels like doing at any given time.

There are probably some reasons that political support is important in a democracy, but I can’t think of what they might be. Trump appears to care personally about people supporting him, as it appears he has a rather fragile ego that feeds on popular support, and if people are booing him, it appears to hurt his ego. But ultimately, because this is a democracy and there is therefore no mechanism through which the public can petition grievances, he can do whatever he wants while he remains in office, and no one’s opinion about what he does means anything.

That said, Trump probably will maintain some fanatical base of morons who don’t really know much about what is going on but are very excited by alligators. And of course, the polls published can say whatever.

Then, after he does whatever it is he is going to do, he can turn over the government to Gavin Newsom or AOC, and they can be popular for a while after claiming they are going to do something or other, and then become unpopular after they do something different than they claimed they would do. And we will just keep going on like that until eventually, something gives out, and the American empire falls into disarray, and something finally happens.

There is a supposedly edgy take on the whole Middle East conflict that goes something like: “it doesn’t involve me and so I don’t care.”

Here’s the problem: if you are living in a Western country, it does involve you, because it is your tax money that is paying for the Jews to kill all these people.

I am personally sympathetic to the “it doesn’t involve me” perspective, if it’s in a vacuum. I don’t think people should care about conflicts that don’t involve them. Most people on the internet seem to care a lot about every conflict, so it’s a bit suspect that the one where people say “it’s not my problem” is the one with the Jews. But sure, if there was no connection to the West in the Middle Eastern conflict, then okay.

Here’s the thing: Israel would not even exist at all without the support of the West and the tax dollars of the very edgy and clever people who claim they don’t need to pick a side. If you don’t stand against Israel, you are standing with Israel, because it is only through huge numbers of Westerners standing against Israel that there is ever going to be a possibility for the West to stop funding this terrorist state.

Anyone claiming “it doesn’t involve me so I’m not picking a side” is either simply dumb, or is a Jewish shill. Obviously, anyone who looks at the situation at all is going to side against the Jews, so saying “just don’t look, don’t think about it at all,” is a pro-Jewish position.

Cut all Western support for Israel. Once that’s done, I won’t be interested in picking a side either. I will just sit back and watch the clips of jihadists zerg-rushing a defenseless Israel, and smirk smugly about how glad I am not to be involved in that situation.

Donald Trump has turned against Thomas Massie for some reason. Very cleverly, however, he is tweeting opposite messages about him and making sure different parts of the voter base sees the tweets.

He is using Palantir AI to make sure different parts of his base see different tweets.

First, he tweeted – or “truthed” – out this one:

Then, realizing that many in the base would not like that tweet, he posted a second tweet which he will use AI to show to other people who are against the Jews:

Obviously, I agree with the second tweet, but I think it is very cynical to US AI to make sure different groups see different tweets with opposite messages.

I thought we were for transparency in MAGA??

Massie appeared on Theo Von this week (Theo is the realest). You can see his own views.

Personally, I would rather primary Trump than Massie, and I think when Trump fails to primary Massie, and when there is huge support against Trump and for Massie, it will be a big wakeup call as to just how much the base hates Trump’s insane allegiance to the Jews.

I think we’re going to see it long before that, in fact.

The midterms are going to be a complete disaster and probably everyone is just going to vote for Hamas agents like Zohran. I would vote today for any Hamas candidate over Donald Trump.

By the way, just so you understand: that second Trump tweet is a joke I made up for humor purposes. The first tweet is real. Trump is really saying Massie is not America First because he’s not Israel First and according to Trump, it’s the same thing and anyone who questions that is against him.

We’ll see how that goes for him.

I suspect it won’t go great.

‘Tonight I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated’

President Trump addresses the nation following US strikes on Iran.

Latest: https://t.co/je3LeESEFs pic.twitter.com/BFjyiJhk5X

— Sky News (@SkyNews) June 22, 2025

He should have brought the “Mission Accomplished” sign

This is more of an analysis site than a news site these days. Sometimes it’s a self analysis site. I’m thinking about focusing full-time on psychoanalyzing Jordan Peterson and his whore daughter.

But hard not to post the news that Trump bombed Iran.

I just wrote a long article about like, Ireland or the Jews or something, or whatever. I don’t have much analysis here.

Emmmm….

Seymour Hersch is trending on Twitter. And yeah, serious business to call it. But he said they were planning on bombing more than the nuke sites. He said “all-out bombing campaign.”

Maybe Trump is lying and they bombed more than the three nuke sites? No one seems to know anything right now. I guess we’ll have to wait for an update from Sy.

Meanwhile, Scott Ritter is reporting that his sources say Iran’s nuclear sites were a ruse and they were actually building a Metal Gear at a secret site in a secret location and that they will launch it on Wednesday at 1:34 PM local time and it will level Tel Aviv. “Excuse my language but Netanyahu and Smotrich and that gang are shitting in their boots because they know they don’t have a weapon to rival Metal Gear,” Ritter reported. “You know when the button on the toaster gets stuck and you don’t notice it until you start to smell the burning and see the smoke and then you pop the pop tart out and it’s pure black with bubbles? Well, excuse my language, but that is what all of Israel is going to look like, daddy-o.”

The True Conservative MAGA originalists are making some fire memes.

That shit is literally Musk-tier.

I don’t really… let me think…

That’s the best I’ve got for that format. Aya-COAL-ah, we can call it.

It’s leftist style too long. Really only needs four panels.

And uh….

I can’t into it. Boring.

But if I was in MAGA world trying to somehow prop it up right now, that’s the sort of shit I would be posting. But you’re not seeing anything like that because no one who isn’t the kind of Elon-tier retard who makes that original meme is trying to prop it up.

Anyway, the argument that it’s a quickie is… who knows. I don’t know. I guess I hope that’s true? Or I would hope that if I cared. I sort of just kinda don’t really even care very much, to be honest with you? Anyone else sort of feeling that?

I guess I do care it’s just that I can’t really feel outraged, since I’ve been telegraphing this since like, October 10, 2023.

The logic:

• October 7th couldn’t happen unless Israel allowed it
• Israel knew they couldn’t beat Hamas
• Gaza was designed to create a pretext to take out all of Israel’s more important enemies
• Trump would be better at getting Americans to go all in for Israel
• Trump took all that money from Miriam Adelson
• Trump was praised as a messiah after the ear scratching heard round the world
• Trump was always going to attack Iran after being “elected” in a fake US election

It’s boring and I’m bored.

I guess if Iran backs down now then Israel stop bombing and it’s supposed to be over just like that? That’s clearly what is being sold here. I don’t know if that is possible or not. I think it’s possible Iran would just stand down and take it, but if they do that they’re going to then actually build a bomb or just like, buy one from North Korea (couldn’t they have always done that? why don’t people ever mention that?). And I think it’s impossible Israel will settle for something less than regime change. And it is impossible that there will be a youth/slut revolution in Iran after the Israeli bombing.

Then regime change is complicated because… well, a lot of reasons, but if you kill the Ayatollah they just appoint a new Ayatollah. There is no path to really anything. Fox News is pushing the son of the Shah being made king. They’re literally calling him “His Royal Highness.”

So I guess he’s um, already the king?

I guess you can send the US military to invade and occupy Tehran for decades and say this guy is the king and then just hope the people eventually accept it? Is that the plan?

I don’t understand what the plan is here like at all.

Trump “standing up to Bibi” and saying he was only in for the nuke sites and not the regime change would just mean Israel false flags a US installation in Iraq. But it also doesn’t make sense from Trump’s position that blowing up these sites stopped the development of a bomb. It actually does the opposite?

Anyway, whatever.

Who cares.

I don’t care anymore.

President Trump responds to Tucker Carlson’s comments that he is complicit in the war.

Trump: “I don’t know what Tucker Carlson is saying. Let him go get a television network and say it so that people listen.” pic.twitter.com/l5rXVSYVfY

— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) June 16, 2025

Donald Trump’s off-hand denouncement of Tucker Carlson was funny. He’s usually funny. In response to a question about Tucker Carlson denouncing him for supporting Israel’s murder-mania in Iran, Trump said: “I don’t know what Tucker Carlson is saying. Let him go get a television network and so it so that people listen.”

As ridiculous as it seems, it appears that Donald Trump actually thinks that Fox News has more viewers than the internet, and as long as Sean Hannity and Mark Levin are backing his “eternal war for the Jews and their pile of shoes” play, he’s going to be fine in terms of his public support. This definitely goes counter his campaign strategy, which relied heavily on the internet and podcasts.

I don’t think we can calculate the numbers, but “the internet, generally” has thousands of times the views by Americans that Fox News has. Tucker Carlson specifically, who was the most popular host on Fox News before being fired (apparently for opposing the Ukraine war), got 3-4 million views a night on the network. Currently, across YouTube, Twitter, Spotify, etc., he gets 10-20 million views. (His interview with Putin, with over a quarter billion views, is the most watched interview in history, even though it was sort of really boring.) This isn’t really complicated math, and it seems like something Trump should be aware of.

Trump is now mocking Tucker for not being on tv.

“I don’t know what Tucker Carlson is saying. Let him go get a television network and say it so that people listen” he says.

Completely out of touch and ironic given the fact that podcasters won Trump the election. pic.twitter.com/XwDv80cuJu

— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) June 17, 2025

Meanwhile, the arrogant and smug faggot Jesse Waters (who is either a homosexual or a PUA, no one can tell the difference anymore), who replaced Tucker on Fox News, gets 1.5-2 million views. Half. Meaning people generally were watching Tucker, not just “Fox News prime time.” And get this: Sean Hannity, the ultimate Israel cheerleader, whose show airs in the former Tucker spot (now occupied by Watters) had an audience drop of 3.5 million to 2.5 million after Tucker was fired, because Tucker was propping up his show that much.

Then you can obviously go into the numbers of Candace Owens, Joe Rogan, Theo Von, Tim Dillon, and virtually every other top podcaster on the internet, all getting multi-million view counts, and find that all of them are extremely hostile to Trump over his support for Israel, both their genocide in Gaza and their war with Iran.

It would be hard to work out the numbers, but if we include the pro-Israel Fox News, and then stuff like Ben Shapiro and a few other neocons on the internet, and then compare it to the amount of media against this Jewish mania, you would probably find that about 85% of total views/listens of right-wing media content are anti-Israel. If you only included people under the age of 45, that number would end up being close to 100% (realistically, it would be 97-98%).

Trump later attacked Tucker on “Truth Social,” calling him a kook for questioning this “eternal war for Jews” narrative and reiterating the dumb claim that this is about Iran being 10 minutes away from launching a nuke.

Here’s something interesting: I don’t doubt that there are many millions of Americans who will support whatever Trump does – they’d support full boots on the ground war with Iran and if he called for it, war with Israel – Trump personality cultists who will just follow whatever he does. But I don’t think there is any media like that. I’m sure there is some somewhere, but for the overwhelming majority, the will support Trump (or not) based on his position on Israel (and war more broadly, but Israel is clearly the big one). The likes of Hannity and Shapiro, as we saw recently, will attack Trump if he appears to be opposing Israel, and when it comes to the (much more popular and relevant) podcast/streaming crowd, there doesn’t appear to be anyone who will support Trump going full-Israel.

It’s worth noting that OAN, which is not getting huge numbers of views but represents a kind of halfway point between Fox News and podcasts, has a show hosted by Matt Gaetz that recently had on Marjorie Taylor Green denouncing Trump for pushing for war with Iran.

The United States of America should prioritize its own people! We deserve a vote on funding and military support for Israel. It’s time to focus on OUR nation’s needs first. Let’s back Trump’s America First vision! pic.twitter.com/J89CXJaRc6

— Kate️‍🔥💕 (@katee_K1) June 17, 2025

Charlie Kirk is another kind of point between old TV media and the internet, and uh…

Trump is literally saying that “America First” is about fighting a war with Iran for Israel.

Trump is very good at self-parody, but that does not appear to be self-aware self-parody. Those appear to be the words of a man who is bought and paid for by a foreign country, and is going to act in the interests of that country while claiming without evidence that these interests somehow line up with the interests of the country he’s supposed to be running.

Tucker’s latest episode, released 12 hours ago, is an interview with Steve Bannon which appears to be focused on the Iran issue. I haven’t watched it yet, but it seems prudent to include it here.

Former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon on how the president’s enemies are working to destroy MAGA with the war on Iran.

(0:00) Will the Iran War Be the Downfall of MAGA?
(6:55) Fox News’ Pro-War Propaganda
(12:42) The Never-Trumpers Pretending to Be On Trump’s Team
(15:30)… pic.twitter.com/PdUZFiUNNZ

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) June 16, 2025

If Trump is in the process of declaring war not only on Iran, but on all of his main supporters, this is going to go… well, it’s going to go exactly how I said it would go a year ago.

Not great.

It’s, uh… it’s not looking great here, guys.

Stormy statements of former US intelligence officer about Israel’s irreparable failure; Is it time to end the threat of Israel?

Scott Ritter, former US intelligence officer: Israel’s ground entry into Gaza means more casualties and damage than Yom Kippur; Hezbollah’s missiles… pic.twitter.com/L3JKhcvaq2

— Sprinter Observer (@SprinterObserve) October 12, 2023

“Tel Aviv will be destroyed, their military headquarters will be flatted, the prime minister’s residence will be flattened, Israel will be flattened, its airfields flattened, that’s the future of Israel and there is nothing they can do to stop it.” -Scott Ritter on October 11th, 2023, explaining his view on what would happen if Israel invaded Gaza. 

I wrote a thing yesterday noting that there is an entire group of internet commentators who have been making a lot of wrong predictions since the start of the Ukraine war. It is a group of people, and I said I wouldn’t name them, then I did name Scott Ritter and Pepe Escobar.

I said “people probably associate me with these people,” and it is very obvious why: in theory, I agree with them about every geopolitical issue. I have read Pepe and listened to Scott significantly, and I can’t think of any single issue I have disagreed with them on. (I’m sure they are not quite as “racist” as I am, but that isn’t a geopolitical issue, and I don’t think it has ever even come up in anything I’ve read/listened to from either of them.)

If we went to the broader “movement” of these sorts of activists against the American empire, there would be varying levels of disagreement, perhaps. I completely disagree with John Mearshiemer’s views on China, and I’ve read every book that mentions China (frankly, his books do not really mention China very much) and tried to listen to most of his lectures on the topic. Although in general I agree with his worldview, on China, I completely disagree, and if you want to see where I disagree, you can watch one of several debates he’s had on the issue with Jeffrey Sachs. Sachs is another person I would put in the “agree with him on everything” category, for the record. But regardless of potential agreement or disagreement, Mearshimer and Sachs, as counter examples to Ritter and Escobar, do not make constant predictions citing various “sources.” People from various governments definitely talk to John and Jeff, but they don’t ever use them as sources for claims. Again, I could name off ten other prominent or semi-prominent alternative media commentators that I read/listen to in both groups – the “source users” and the “analysts.”

This current iteration of a movement of alternative geopolitical commentators emerged after the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. (Obviously, the four mentioned, as well as several I am not mentioning, were around doing commentary before February of 2022, but I think it’s fair to say that that was the starting point of a new popular movement of alternative commentary focused on analyzing the “World War III” battle between the US empire and those states intent on maintaining sovereignty in the face of an evil empire hellbent on solidifying global control.) Since this has started, I’ve done huge amounts of reading and podcast listening, and I have come to be very leery of anyone who talks about “my sources are telling me…” I don’t know anything about the nature of these sources, but they appear to be consistently wrong. Certainly, I recognize that “anonymous inside sources” is something that has been used in journalism for a long time with a varying, but certainly not great track record. Obviously during the Trump era, “insider sources say” has become a way for the New York Times to just make things up. That was also the case in the lead-up to the Iraq war. (As a side, to Ritter’s great credit, when he was working as a UN weapons inspector he was one of the loudest voices calling out the WMD scam. Though he knew that from inspecting, not from “his sources.”)

I don’t want to accuse Ritter or any of this crowd of consistently wrong “my sources are telling me…” people of lying. What is clear is that within this movement of anti-empire commentators, “my sources are telling me…” tends to almost always mean that whatever comes next is going to be wrong. It is possible that Ritter and the others are being fed disinformation from actual sources that are lying to them to make the anti-empire movement look silly. But at some point, if your sources have been wrong this many times, you really have a responsibility to stop publishing things from these sources, whoever they are, because it is unethical.

Some people were upset that I pointed out Ritter being wrong. And I understand the sentiment, because – one more time – I agree with him on all of the issues. And it isn’t nice to look like you’re attacking people who are “on your own team.” Further, no one is right all the time. I have often stated “I’m right about everything,” and apparently some people don’t understand that there is a bit of self-deprecating humor there. I have been wrong, like everyone is, but I’m a whole lot more right than most people, and part of that is that as a rule, I don’t make “predictions.” I don’t claim to have “insider sources” and I’m not a wizard, so all I can do is look at the available information, put it together, and come up with options for the most likely possible outcomes. And someone could make a list of the things I’ve laid out and I’m 100% certain I can stand up to any other commentator and be shown to have a much better track record than virtually anyone. I actually can’t think of anyone with a better track record. Sometimes people will point out where I’ve been wrong, for example in suggesting Trump would likely end the Ukraine war in order to focus on Israel (which might still happen, I guess, though I didn’t expect him to escalate like he has, so I was definitely wrong on that) and I say “okay, well point to anyone else in this political analysis game who is right more often than me” and I’ve yet to be given a single name. (I think everyone is aware that many very prominent commentators have made careers off of copying my material while I’m locked in this censorship dungeon.)

But talking about myself is a digression. I simply wanted to explain what I view as the ethical way to comment on politics, which is to do your best to analyze based on data and theories about the way various actors act, and then say “this is what seems most likely.” I will very often insert caveats in my analyses. For example, I said that Trump would go to war with Iran in some form, that this was virtually a certainty, but then also added that the only way I can see this not happening is if Bibi is removed from power. I made that analysis based on the data and the way the actors involved behave. That is: “Trump is clearly beholden to Israel, but in terms of his view of himself and his legacy, he would prefer not to have a war with Iran. Bibi is obsessed with dragging the US into a war Iran but has lost huge amounts of popularity in Israel and in the diaspora due primarily to his failure to ‘win’ the Gaza war and/or get the hostages back. The US is committed to joining any way Israel starts, meaning Bibi is able to dictate whether or not Trump is forced to go to war with Iran, but if Bibi were removed from power, it’s very possible that whoever replaced him would be significantly less extreme and therefore would not drag the US into a war with Iran.”

That’s the analysis I did probably 14 months ago, as soon as it became clear Trump was going to win (which I was also right about and won significant money betting on), and I think the analysis has held up pretty well. We saw the Bibi-Trump rift spill into the public, then we saw Bibi move to start the war, to force Iran to strike back and cause the US to enter the war. At time of writing, the US hasn’t entered the war, but all it would take would be for the Israelis to blow up some random US military installation in Iraq and say Iran did it and all of the sudden, the US is joining Israel in the bombing, and moving even more troops to the region. I think trying to analyze how the war will play out is very difficult, so (and this is another thing I do, which is responsible), I don’t really want to speculate too strongly.

Briefly: We have already passed the point of no return with Israel attacking Iran’s oil fields. So, there will be some kind of “regime change,” and that might be impossible from the air. However, I would note that what Israel’s war in Gaza has shown is that the American people and Westerners in general will tolerate infinite slaughter of civilian populations, which is something that wouldn’t have been tolerated by anyone 20 years ago (also remember Colon [sic] Powell had to go to the UN and explain that they had an actual reason for attacking Iraq; though it was a scam, there was an actual process, whereas now everything is just “gahhhhhahahahahahaha, die, die, die!”). Because of the “100% tolerance for mass civilian slaughter because we don’t have a choice because Jews are the chosen ones and Hitler put their shoes in a pile” attitude of the West in the current year, a lot of damage is possible from the air. Iran is a big country, but the US has a lot of bombs. Meanwhile, it is difficult to imagine a full-on Iraq style US invasion, but this model of using social media to recruit Sunni jihadis from all over the world and then enabling their entry to the country, and arming them to the teeth, worked pretty well in Syria. There is still an army of terrorists in Syria and parts of Iraq that they can just roll over to Iran. Further, Azerbaijan will allow terrorists from the various Stans to fly into Baku and cross into Iran. Remember, during the Syrian war, Turkey was just letting these people come on commercial flights and then helping them across the border.

Then, of course, there are also the minority ethnic groups in Iran, which include the Kurds, who are another separate US-backed terrorist already armed to the teeth. Only 60% of the country is Persian. I don’t know the ins and outs of how well these various groups get along, but it’s been pretty well demonstrated that any time there is a war in the Middle East, more or less every ethnic minority has groups that will accept weapons from the US.

So while I wouldn’t say US “boots on the ground” is impossible, and it could even be inevitable depending on how prepared Iran is for the post-state phase of the war, it is certainly unlikely in the short term.

The wildcard, which I think is interesting, is that the Iranians have been expecting a US invasion for 20 years. They are a relatively high IQ population, and so they’ve set up groups of militias which are designed to act without direction from a central government. And of course, we’ve seen that the drones can do a lot of damage, and one would expect that China and Russia would be providing support in terms of drones. What is unlikely and borders on impossible (though is not technically impossible) is that Russia will send troops like they did to Syria. Probably, any deal that Trump might or might not make with the Russians to end the Ukraine war would include an agreement that they not send troops to Iran. And I don’t think they would do it anyway after what happened in Syria (a debacle that apparently happened in part due to ridiculous mismanagement of the Syrian warlords by the Iranians).

So, that’s how I analyze things. (See what I did there? I gave an analysis of a current event while demonstrating the methodology of the analysis at the same time. See that? It was exceedingly clever. It’s not quite noon, but I think I might just pour myself a drink in honor of my own cleverness.)

Needless to say, Iran is not going to destroy Israel, as was claimed by Scott Ritter.

And I suppose we should go back to Scott Ritter. I feel a little bit bad about this, because I don’t have anything personal against the guy and I don’t like to be viewed as “attacking” others on the woke right (unless I know or strongly suspect they’re working with the Jews/feds, which unfortunately includes most of the internet right-wing). It’s especially sad given that there are so many others online doing the same “my sources are telling me…” thing, and Scott actually was raided by the FBI for like, supporting Russia or whatever, and also hit with some trumped-up jailbait swindles that actually got him thrown in prison. No wonder he joined up with Russia, where tourism advertisements say “Come to Russia, where jailbait is sort of a legal gray area, but we’re not actually going to prosecute you unless you’re a pervert.”

But Scott is probably the most popular, so I’ve gone ahead and run the transcripts of a bunch of his podcast interviews through an AI, and here’s an abridged list of predictions he’s made (it was too hard to figure out how to note which ones included “my sources are telling me…” and which ones he just said without any claim of a basis).

🚨 Highly Abridged List of Scott Ritter’s Wrong Predictions (2021–2024) 🚨

🌍 Russia-Ukraine War

• Feb 2022: “Russia will take Kyiv in 72 hours.”
• March 2022: “Odessa will fall within a week.”
• April 2022: “Ukraine’s military will collapse by summer.”
• Sept 2022: “Ukraine’s Kharkiv counteroffensive is a trap—Russia will encircle them!”
• Nov 2022: “Kherson will never be retaken by Ukraine.”
• June 2023: “Ukraine’s counteroffensive will cause their military to collapse.”
• Dec 2023: “Russia will win the war by early 2024.”

️ NATO & Nuclear Threats

• 2022: “NATO will fracture over Ukraine aid.” (Finland and Sweden joined after he said this)
• 2023: “Poland will leave NATO due to Ukraine tensions.”
• 2024: “The U.S. will cut all military aid to Ukraine by mid-2024.”

🇮🇱 Israel-Iran & Middle East

• Oct 2023: “Israel won’t invade Gaza—they don’t have the capability.”
• April 2024: “If Israel strikes Iran, Iran will destroy Israeli military bases and decapitate its leadership.”
• June 2024: “Iran’s air defenses will shut down Israeli airstrikes.”

🇨🇳 China

• 2023: “China will invade Taiwan by 2024.”

🤡 Bonus: Miscellaneous Nonsense

• 2022: “The West will abandon Ukraine by winter.”
• 2023: “Russia will nuke Kyiv if NATO sends tanks.”
• 2024: “Ukraine’s government will flee to Lviv by summer.”

In the spirit of fairness, I went through the things he was right about, and it was even worse. Every time he was right, it was either late (ten wrong timelines on the liberation of Bakmut), exaggerated (Iran responding to Israeli attack), or just coincidental (just like Alex Jones, he makes so many predictions, some of them are eventually bound to be right just by the nature of statistics).

Why We Shouldn’t be Goofy and Ridiculous

There is some question about whether it could actually be good for Ritter and his compatriots to just go around making all these wild predictions, as it builds up momentum. What’s more, he keeps getting invited onto RT and is actually a paid contributor to RT, so at first glance, that implies “The Kremlin” likes what he’s doing. But “The Kremlin” doesn’t really run RT, Margarita Simonyan does, and her instinct is towards Buzzfeed type clickbait-mongering. Frankly, though RT does some great stuff, I don’t think there is enough oversight when it comes to some of the silly people they bring on. So no, I don’t think that Ritter being on RT necessarily means his “my sources are telling me…” bit is viewed positively by the Russian state. I think they just like pro-Russian Westerners, and many of us (like myself) are a bit too hot, and Ritter has the credential of having been the UN weapons inspector who tried to stop the Iraq war.

To be clear, I am not against “cheerleading.” I think we should cheerlead Russia, Palestine, all of the people fighting against the global gay Jewish-American empire. I am one such cheerleader. I always support anyone fighting against these people. Remember my Niger banners? Real ones remember.

Click to enlarge (these were kind of funny, though the context is lost to time.)

But I wasn’t saying “my sources are telling me Niger is going to invade New York and tear down that feminist statue on Wall Street.”

What the “my sources are telling me…” predictor crowd does is give people hopium dopamine hits. We all like imagining things like Tel Aviv being bombed into oblivion. But I like imagining fighting the White Walkers with Jon Snow as well. Fantasy is fun and it has its place, but that place is not in geopolitical commentary, and it is especially not alongside people like John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs who are doing broad-spectrum adult analysis of these situations and actually helping people understand how the system works. Yet, on virtually every single podcast that John and Jeff appear on, you’ve also got Scott (and, increasingly, Pepe Escobar) saying this really silly stuff, and it is just obvious that valuable informations and serious voices are being tainted by unseriousness.

There are ways to be sensationalistic without promoting disinformation. I did it for a long time. I used facts and serious analysis and wrapped it around outrageous vulgarity and mex lulz. I get that this model doesn’t really work in most contexts. But it was obviously effective, as I am the most banned person ever. Point being: you can find other ways to draw attention to yourself and create hype and interest that don’t totally discredit you and everyone around you. I think this is what the comedy podcasters are doing. I listen to this fat Irish slob, I think his name is Finn O’Shaughnessy, and he does an excellent job of creating hype and dopamine while keeping it real.

Fake predictions are a cheap way to gain clicks, it discredits legitimate criticism of US/NATO/Israel, and it makes everyone dumber. I am against it.

I understand things are tough out there and Scott Ritter needs to get paid. I really am not doing this out of mean-spiritedness, but rather a genuine concern for the alternative media ecosystem and something that I see as kind of a big problem. People actually believe this stuff and it must be totally demoralizing.

PS

I also think this “Axis of Resistance” thing is really gay. These countries should be called “Brick Squad” or “Council of Doom” or something else cool like that.

PPS

Let’s just hope Scott Ritter doesn’t drop a diss track on me.

It’s important to remember that a lot of these people are full of shit.

A lot of people on the internet, who are probably at least vaguely associated with me in people’s minds, were making some very kooky claims about how Iran was going to be able to destroy Israel. I don’t want to name any names. But most of you probably know the names.

Israel is now bombing Iranian oil fields, which pretty much means a point of no return, and Iran is definitely not responding by destroying Tel Aviv. Scott Ritter. That isn’t happening, is it? Pepe Escobar. Instead, it looks very much like the entirety of the Iranian military was so deeply riddled with Mossad that all of their defenses were taken off line before Israel even started bombing, and their little drone show was a joke. That’s what it looks like, Scott.

It’s not just Scott Ritter. I’m not trying to single him out. Though if I were to single someone out as saying the most outrageous possible things about the alleged capacity of Iran, it would definitely probably be Scott Ritter.

I am going to repeat what I said: Israel could always destroy the “regime” in Iran. They could always destroy their oil fields. That was always completely within their capacity. Saying it wasn’t was ridiculous and based on totally nothing. What the issue is, I think and have said from the beginning, is that ever since the US invasion of Iraq, when the government was decapitated in like five minutes, Iran has tried to set up a situation where they can fight a long war after the decapitation of the government. Whether they can actually do that, or whether that whole program is also run by the Mossad, I have no idea. But that was always the only possible option for Iran in the case of this war that started this week: to accept the decapitation of the government and to go guerrilla and try to set the whole Middle East on fire and deplete the US military in a decades long conflict where they don’t have a government but they have organized militias which are capable of keeping the drones flying.

I’ve also said that after a violent decapitation of the Iranian government, setting up a “democracy” in Iran is going to go about as well as it did in Afghanistan. So the US is going to have to occupy Tehran and keep bases there and try to prop up some puppet government that everyone is constantly droning and suicide bombing.

You’re also going to of course have the ISIS model of US-backed terrorists invading Iran, but at the same time, Iran has their own foreign groups that will come in. And probably, presumably (one would have to presume), Russia and China will also be sending aid.

But no, the Iranian regime, which literally has no air defense at all apparently (they had Russian stuff but I guess their Mossad agents took it all off line) cannot survive weeks or even days of continued Israeli bombing. But of course, that in no way ends the war. The Iraq war lasted ten years after the government was decapitated, and only ended when the US agreed to basically hand the country over to Iran.

So, the US will have to go in. Like I said they would. Like I bet a bunch of money they would.

Why am I even typing this? Just go back and read the shit I wrote in hundreds of articles before the election.

It’s not a confusing situation. You do not have to be an “analyst” to see how this is going to go.

My question is whether Trump will end the Ukraine war so he can focus on the Middle East. That is one thing I predicted was likely and I still think it seems likely. Of course, Trump hasn’t committed anything to the Israelis at time of writing. He keeps saying he wants to negotiate with whoever is still alive. But Israel is going to make sure there is no one alive to negotiate with, which means that the US is obligated to go fight this war.

That was always the problem. Israel had the ability to start a war that the US had no choice in whether or not they joined, which meant that Bibi Netanyahu was in charge of US war policy. And, as expected, he exercised that ability.

Now we’ve got the thing.

I do think it’s going to take some time before things get really hot and the people who are freaking out are sort of emotional babies. But I could be wrong. Trump has already moved a lot of troops to the Middle East. Not enough, and it will take time to move more. I don’t know how much time. I’m not an expert.

I was supporting Israel because of all of the work our brave white women have done to support women sports, and how they are being destroyed by the radical trans gender movement. I was also big on Israel because of Mexicans burning American flags, and because AOC is trying to do socialism.

But then I open my digital currency game application and find a very bad red line and they say it’s Israel make the red line go like that.

Don’t get me wrong, folks. I love women’s sports and I want the death penalty for burning American flags and I hope Palatir can save our values in our country by going against the Mexicans and making them pay more taxes so we can support Israel more and more.

But I see this red line in my crypto digital app, and I think, “maybe we should just kill all of the Jews?”

It’s a conflicted issue for me, because stopping radical gender ideology and wokeness on our college campuses is so important. It’s really the most important thing for me and I think all true Americans believe we have to destroy Iran to protect our women’s progress in sports.

Back in the times of the Targarians, women didn’t even have any sports, and they were oppressed, and we worked so hard for this, and then the mullahs tried to take us back to anicient times with their woke ideogoies on our campuses.

But a 7% BTC drop and dropping?

Even JPROOF is down, and that was one of the most promising and ambitious coins in my portfolio.

I’m sorry, but although Jews are the chosen ones and their lives are the most important thing in the world, I just don’t think they are worth that much money.

So because of this, I’ve decided to officially endorse Team Iran in this championship match.

It is also better if all the Jews die so they can’t have remainders hanging around whining.

If that means we have to lose our women’s sports and go back to the times of the Game of Thrones, then so be it.

I’d love to hear the opinions of the readers so drop a like and a follow and ring my bells and let us know what team you’re supporting and if you think it’s worth it to risk our women’s sports by supporting the mullahs and their woke agenda on campuses.

But I think we can all agree that we hope both teams have fun.