I have pinned this post to the top of my blog. It is to remind people of what many of our opponents want. Alison Aires wants a tyrannical government. They want summary execution for private possession of firearms.
Scrolling through the internet, people remain really fucking stupid, are totally incapable of critical thinking, and they’re completely divorced from any sense of history.
So… Iran’s been fucking with us since I was born, has funded, trained, and enabled some of the most heinous assholes of the last several decades, destabilized an entire region of the Earth, and generally been total pricks.
Previous administrations going back to Jimmy Carter have had problems with the Iranians being total pricks who routinely do evil shit. Each of them did a little something, or nothing, or went full quisling sucked up and bribed them, but mostly they kicked the can down the road to be someone else’s problem for political expediency. Because due to the situation at those times there’d be no overthrowing the fanatics without getting into a protracted ground war that would result in lots of American casualties.
But today, due to a cascading series of current events, the situation has evolved and the American president most likely to say Fuck It YOLO, was presented the opportunity to dog walk this regime without invading. That hadn’t really been an option before.
This was all caused because one of Iran’s many proxy bands of terrorist dickheads flew their waxy terrorist wings too close to the sun and got their dicks blown off by pagers. As that escalated Iran decided to launch a shit ton of missiles which weren’t nearly as impressive as everyone was scared they would be, so then they lost a whole bunch of their leading boss assholes, and the whole world saw that Iranian air defenses were wishful thinking when some B2s buttfucked their impenetrable super bunker.
So then the populace of Iran got really uppity, because they’re sick of these religious fanatic death cultists too. Their asshole government then provided a demonstration of why we’re never ever giving up the 2nd Amendment here.
Except the FAFO president told them not to massacre all those people, and he was sick of their shit. This is the same guy who has made a rather impressive list of military operations that get in, fuck shit up, and then get out fast with minimal American casualties. This man is not George Bush. He does not have a Colin “You Break It You Buy It” Powell. Trump apparently does not seem to give a fuck about “nation building”, which works out because the American people do not want another twenty years of bullshit like Afghanistan or Iraq.
When given the opportunity to kill a ton of bad people, allowing the Iranian people to do the rest, and this opportunity has never come along before, of course Trump is going to go for it. And despite the screaming from the schizophrenic podcaster crowd of the griftosphere, most conservative Americans are very much of the attitude fuck Iran.
(of course libs are gonna lib, so get ready for a bunch of rainbow dipshits to march with Iranian flags next week)
Correia is an excellent writer and can be very persuasive. When confronted with someone with extraordinary persuasion skills I am immediately on guard. Is it reality they are explaining with exceptional clarity or are they selling a fiction?
After spending a fair about of time thinking about it, I’m inclined to believe Correia is correct as far as he goes. These clowns deserve every ton of high explosive persuasion they get.
I do have some concerns about what things are going to look like a year from now. Are the Iranian people going to be able to clean up the mess after the bombs and missiles stop raining? Will they try and then get machine gunned into hamburger as the military takes control? Will China see this as the most opportune time for “reunification”?
There are always tradeoffs and risk in whatever path chosen. I see the military action as morally justified. I don’t think it really should have been our responsibility to do it, but Israel couldn’t really do it on its own and no one else was stepping up to help them.
As is usual when violence is the correct course of action it is not a good thing. It is merely the least bad option available. I hope the U.S. made the correct tradeoffs.
I do not have nearly the context and intel that people who study the Mid-East professionally do. I also do not have any contacts with recent intel in the area. It finally occurred to me that there is a public proxy of sorts that could give us a better-informed take on the situation.
As I cannot recall hearing condemation of the U.S. and Israel strikes by Iranian neighbors, I asked Grok this question:
Which, if any other than Iran, Middle East countries have spoken out against the U.S./Israel strikes against Iran?
This is the response:
Most Middle Eastern countries (particularly Gulf/Arab states) have not spoken out against the U.S./Israeli strikes on Iran. Instead, many have condemned Iran’s retaliatory attacks on their territories or U.S. interests there, often issuing joint statements emphasizing sovereignty violations and their right to self-defense.
Key examples from reports:
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, and Oman (Gulf states plus Jordan) condemned Iran’s strikes on their soil or U.S. bases/assets in the region. They issued statements (sometimes joint with the U.S.) denouncing Iran’s actions as “reckless,” “indiscriminate,” and a threat to stability.
The Arab League (representing 22 nations) called Iran’s retaliatory attacks a “blatant violation of sovereignty” of peaceful countries.
Even Syria (historically an Iranian ally) condemned Iran in statements, amid its government’s shift toward better ties with the U.S. and Gulf states.
Some limited criticism of the U.S./Israeli strikes exists:
Lebanon’s Hezbollah (an Iranian proxy) condemned the U.S.-Israeli attacks as violations of international law.
The League of Arab States expressed “deep concern” over the broader situation and urged de-escalation, but this appears more balanced/general rather than direct condemnation of the initial strikes.
One report mentions a joint statement from 21 Arab and Muslim countries (led by Egypt) condemning Israel’s airstrikes on Iran and calling for de-escalation/nuclear disarmament without selectivity—but this contrasts with the broader pattern of Gulf states aligning against Iran’s retaliation.
Overall, no major Middle Eastern governments (beyond Iran itself) have prominently or consistently spoken out against the U.S./Israeli strikes. The dominant regional response has been silence on the initial strikes or criticism of Iran’s subsequent actions, with some Gulf frustration directed at the U.S. for perceived prioritization of Israel’s defense over theirs during the escalation.
Countries like Turkey, Iraq, Egypt, and others have not been prominently reported as condemning the U.S./Israeli actions in available sources—many stayed silent on the initial strikes or focused on condemning Iran’s follow-up attacks. Russia and China (non-Middle Eastern) have condemned the U.S./Israeli strikes.
This reminds “the dog that didn’t bark” clue from the Sherlock Holmes story, Silver Blaze. This tells me either these other countries are getting pressure from U.S./Israel to be supportive or be quiet, or they actually support the attacking of Iran. My guess is they support it or at least have mixed feelings about and are not actively opposed.
HAPPENING NOW! Israel bombed the building hosting the voting for the Iranian leadership succession AS THEY WERE VOTING! I guess that means they won’t be having any leadership for a while.
Who is the wise person who thought of all meeting in one place?
If there were wise people in the group, they would not have a theocratic death cult for the leadership of a country. But the death cult getting put to death is appropriate conclusive end to situation. Will it be the end? Perhaps not. But it is going to make it more difficult to find hard line leadership. After all, how many levels of decapitation does it take before no one wants to be the head?
“White people have never built their own houses, farmed their own farms, worked manual labor in the history of the United States. So when all the workers are deported and there's no one else here to fulfill that role, because… pic.twitter.com/pYjV3imZCk
How can she believe this? Is it something she was taught in school? Is it something her communist handlers told her to say?
If I knew how to contact this person, I would invite her to visit the farm I grew up on. If she were to show up, I would then introduce her to all the neighbors. Then she would visit a bunch of my classmates who were or are loggers and/or worked in the local mills. Then the construction workers and contractors who build the homes and commercial buildings. What she would find is that 99.5% of the manual labor in Clearwater County is done by white people.
But, of course, she would not visit. And if she did visit, it would be unlikely to change her mind. For some people facts and evidence are independent of their belief system. Almost for certain, she is one of those people. She is living a delusion that she finds comfortable. As Heinlein said in a different context, “Delusions are often functional.” But reality will someday have the last word.
Iranian ballistic missile strikes have been responded to with intense missile defence operations by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, which have employed their own air defence systems to protect U.S. bases and other targets from Iranian strikes, making them direct participants in the war effort. The possibility of Gulf states deploying their air forces, which include some of the region’s most sophisticated fighter types, to launch retaliatory strikes on Iran, has been speculated by analysts. Alongside the United States, Israel, and the five aforementioned Gulf states, the United Kingdom has also announced its participation in the war effort, with Defence Secretary John Healey referring to the Iranian government as “abhorrent,” in line with the broader consensus in the Western world regarding the need for attacks to ensure its destruction. Royal Air Force Eurofighters which were pre-positioned in Qatar in January are reported to have been scrambled to support air defence efforts.audi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
The Qatari Defence Ministry said in a statement on Monday that the air force downed two SU-24 aircraft while seven ballistic missiles and five drones fired by Iran were also intercepted.
British F-35s shot down drones over Jordan, marking the first time that one of the Royal Air Force’s stealth fighter jets has destroyed a target in combat, the UK defense ministry said on Tuesday.
…
British bases have also been hit in this conflict, in which the UK is not offensively involved.
Via Copilot:
Iran has retaliated not only against the U.S. and Israel but also against multiple Gulf nations, drawing them into active defensive combat roles. According to CNBC, Iran has launched strikes against several Gulf states as part of its response.
Countries now engaged in defensive or counter‑strike operations include:
Saudi Arabia — responding to Iranian missile and drone attacks.
United Arab Emirates — participating in defensive actions and regional coordination.
Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar — involved in defensive measures, airspace control, and regional security operations.
While some of these states frame their involvement as defensive only, the practical effect is active participation in the conflict.
Several European nations have mobilized forces in response to the widening conflict, particularly to protect Cyprus and maintain regional stability.
France — engaged in defensive operations and regional force mobilization.
Greece — participating in protective deployments around Cyprus.
United Kingdom — operating from its sovereign bases at Akrotiri and Dhekelia, which have become strategically important staging points.
These countries are not leading offensive strikes on Iran but are actively involved in combat‑adjacent operations and regional defense.
Although politically complex, both Iraq and the Kurdistan Region appear on the list of belligerents aligned against Iran in the current conflict. Their involvement includes defensive actions, airspace control, and responses to Iranian‑aligned militias operating within their borders.
Jordan is participating in defensive operations, including intercepting Iranian projectiles and coordinating with U.S. and Gulf partners to maintain airspace security.
Via Grok:
Iran’s retaliation—via ballistic missiles, drones, and other projectiles—has targeted U.S. bases, Israeli territory, and sites in neighboring states. This has pulled several countries into active combat, primarily through defensive actions like intercepting incoming threats, but some have escalated to direct engagements:
Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait — These Gulf states host U.S. military bases and have actively used their air defense systems (including Patriot and THAAD) to intercept Iranian missiles and drones aimed at those installations and their own territory. Strikes have hit civilian and energy infrastructure in some cases (e.g., airports, ports, and high-rises), prompting strong condemnations and defensive operations. Reports indicate these nations are now direct participants in the war effort, with speculation about potential offensive contributions from their advanced air forces.
United Kingdom — Announced participation, with RAF Eurofighters (pre-positioned in Qatar) scrambled for air defense support against Iranian threats.
Jordan — Intercepted Iranian projectiles targeting its airspace or U.S. interests.
Qatar — Notably shot down Iranian Su-24 bombers, marking direct air-to-air combat.
Other nations like France, Greece, and Oman appear in defensive roles or have been affected, but their involvement is more limited or supportive.
The involvement of so many Middle Eastern countries being against Iran (note that I’m not saying they are pro American or Israel) makes me believe we will soon see more support from European politicians. Many people are easily driven by which way the wind is blowing. With the primary direction of the wind against Iran, more people will join in to be on “the winning side.”
But I have family in Iran. My dad is there right now. And I’m not celebrating yet. Here’s why.
Iran built the most layered contingency plan on Earth for this exact moment. Four levels of succession for every key position. Pre-authorized military strikes. Regional commanders who don’t need orders from Tehran to act.
As you read this, there is already a new Supreme Leader. We just don’t know who.
This isn’t Maduro. The government didn’t get overthrown. The system absorbed the hit. That’s what it was designed to do.
Every credible intel assessment says the same thing: a post-Khamenei Iran is more likely to get harder, not softer. More IRGC. More dangerous. Potentially worse for the Iranian people than Khamenei himself.
Yes, with a death cult in control of Iran and knowing they are in an existential fight they are unlikely to give up easily. But that is not all there is to this story.
With posts like this indicating internal support for crushing the Iranian theocracy, three Gulf states preparing for combat against Iran, and verbal support from France, Germany, and the U.K. it would seem that Iran will be inclined to fold more quickly than some had anticipated. If true it will also narrow the opportunity window and reduce U.S. military munitions drain. This is important if we are to have credible support for Taiwan against action by China.
The sponsor of terrorist activities for many decades considers itself the role model for the Islamic world? And that is ignoring the whole theocracy thing, the treatment of women, death to Jews, taxing of non-believers, death to protesters, mistreatment of women, and forced sexual transitions (or death) to homosexuals.
If they really are considered a role model in the Islamic world then that does not bode well for a civil relationship between the non-Islamic world and Islam. That makes certain decisions much easier.
“Don’t tread on me” doesn’t mean much when the thing doing the treading is an AI in a robot with a gun. There was a time when conservatives wouldn’t dream of ceding this kind of power to the government, but clearly the era of small, controllable government is no longer of concern to them.
I’m not convinced this is entirely true. As long as individuals have access to AIs and guns the match up is probably not all that much more one-sided that the situation is now. Imagine a small AI drone trained to target one (or a dozen) person or a particular license plate. Image recognition is very good these days you know. It could fly at 30 or 40 MPH and scan thousands of people and/or cars before returning to base to recharge or deliver an IED to the intended target. Give them some communication capability to signal their teammates when they find their target. Release dozens of them to search the area operations of the tyrant who turned the AI enabled robot loose on their political enemies. Defense against this sort of thing is a tough problem to solve.
And since the primary purpose of government is supposed to be the protection of individual rights the military is going to need AI to do its job against foreign enemies which will have AI enabled weapons. The question, of course, is how to keep Skynet from getting more than a smile on its face?
We live in interesting times.
And, although I do not consider myself a “conservative” I do always advocate for a smaller government. But the military should never be abolished as opposed to 95% of the rest of our federal government which should fade away into nothingness.
Americans have always known that ultimately, no matter who you are, now matter where you are, no one is coming to save you. You must possess the means to save yourself, or at least to fight back, to make yourself expensive and dangerous to kill, so you can save the next guy.
This is the reason, the real reason, why Americans love guns.
We let you pretend it was because we were fat stupid belligerent rednecks who like power fantasies, because that lie seemed to make you happy, and it’s not nice to take away the comforting delusions of toddlers and crazy people.
But now that delusion is hurting you, and, contemptuous as you have been of us, you are fellow human beings, fellow civilized humans beings, and we don’t want to see you die, so we have to tell you the truth.
We love guns because they are not only the tool of liberty, they are symbol of our value, not as tools or slaves of regime, but as independent, free human beings of inherent worth.
In America, when I walk past a police officer on the street, he has a badge and a gun. But I have a gun, too. Right there under my shirt. And my works just like his.
And that changes everything. Because now I am not the only one dependent on the rule of law. He is dependent upon the rule of law, too. Because if the rule of law is the only thing that prevents him from killing me under color of authority, then the rule of law is the only thing that prevents me from killing him in the act of resistance.
The deterrents exist on both sides, and we all have to play nice. And mostly, we do. Because those deterrents make sure we really, really want to.
They’re not playing nice any more on your side of the big blue wobbly thing. They have guns. All you have is a mouth and a keyboard.
How that working out for you?
An armed society is a polite society. That’s not just a saying. That’s not just fiction.
The Bill of Rights is worded as guarantees, not as grants. But enforcing those guarantees is the tricky part.
I have also learned, the hard way, that unless you can defend a contract it is worthless.
They are essentially the same thing. The Bill of Rights is a contract. If you do not have the power to enforce it then any infringement is possible, or more realistically, a certainty. Keeping and bearing arms is our ultimate long-term enforcement tool of the Bill of Rights.
In a groundbreaking revelation, scientists have uncovered evidence suggesting the existence of a Type II Civilization, a theoretical stage of civilization on the Kardashev Scale. This discovery could redefine our understanding of advanced extraterrestrial life and energy consumption on a cosmic scale. The implications of such a civilization being discovered are profound, extending into scientific, philosophical, and societal realms.
…
The discovery of a Type II Civilization was made possible through the use of advanced technological methods, including remote sensing technologies and sophisticated data analysis techniques. These tools allowed scientists to detect unusual patterns of energy consumption and structural formations that align with theoretical predictions of a Type II Civilization’s presence. By analyzing data from telescopes and other observational instruments, researchers were able to identify anomalies that could not be explained by natural phenomena or known technological processes.
Key findings in the discovery include significant energy fluctuations and formations that suggest the existence of large-scale structures capable of capturing stellar energy. These observations have led scientists to believe that they may have found the first evidence of a civilization that has reached the Type II stage on the Kardashev Scale. The implications of these findings are profound, as they open new avenues for research and exploration in the field of astrophysics and beyond.
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. I think we need more evidence to accept the conclusion that a Type II Civilization has been found.
And it would be better, within practical limits, to avoid giving away our presence just in case it is a civilization of extraordinary technological achievement.
Hilarious to see them still beating this drum when we have just seen the broadest carry rights expansion in US history. After Bruen, the antigun holdouts like New York, California, and New Jersey were forced to issue permits to the broader public for the first time. At the same time, lots of formerly shall-issue states have adopted constitutional carry.
A study from Stanford University of four decades of data found that states that adopted more liberal gun carry laws, and therefore more civilian gun carrying, saw an increase in violent crime of from 13% to 15%. Numerous studies of states that have adopted broad “stand your ground” laws (meaning that people when confronted with a perceived threat in public had no duty to retreat) and that also have liberal gun carry policies have seen significantly higher rates of gun killings. A study of intimate partner violence found that such violence was three times more likely when guns were present. In short, more guns lead to more crime.
So if there was ever a way to “stress test” whether an expanded right to carry leads to more violence, this was it. The result? We are now experiencing the lowest national homicide rate in modern US history, and it’s still dropping.
The predictions of people like Spitzer and his gun control group allies were totally wrong. They should be discredited.
The highlighted area of the quote is Moros quoting Robert Spitzer. Spitzer, almost for certain, conflates “gun killings” with crime. I remember the time after the Boston Marathon bombing when the anti-gun crowd was doing a protest of gun ownership, and they read a long list of people killed with guns. One of the deceased they were using as evidence of “guns bad, ban guns” was one of the terrorist bombers killed by the police when the terrorist was cornered made his last stand. They cannot distinguish between justified and unjustified homicide and/or they deliberate equate them to increase the numbers.
The Communist Manifesto turns 178 today. Read it if you haven’t. Know what it says. Understand its appeal. Then look at what happened every single time someone tried to implement it. Ideas have consequences. These ideas had 100 million of them.
When someone tells you that guns are dangerous and that you should not have them, tell them how many millions of people have been murdered by the dangerous ideas in The Communist Manifesto. Then inform them of your opinion of gun control.
Rep. Greg Stanton, D-Arizona, said that the tools “allow police officers and security personnel to de-escalate dangerous situations without resorting to deadly force.” He noted the bill has been endorsed by a number of law enforcement groups.
Those arguments don’t persuade gun control advocates, who say the bill would create a new market for people to buy powerful weapons without typical safeguards, such as a background check, or even to transform the devices into weapons that could kill.
“What it’s about is not law enforcement. It’s creating consumer markets for average, everyday people to go and buy these kinds of weapons,” said Kris Brown, president of the gun control group Brady.
State laws, not federal laws, regulate police weapons procurement, Brown pointed out. Gun control advocates are also concerned that recategorizing an entire group of weapons gives manufacturers such as Axon a blank check to create new types of weapons that would be exempt from the safeguards that usually apply to guns, such as background checks and serial numbers.
In case it wasn’t clear from the last 60 years of conflict with anti-gun people, it is not just guns they do not want you to have. They do not want you to have any defensive tools. Not knives, not tasers. These people are evil.
A number of calendar events could play a role in the timing of an attack. The Winter Olympics — traditionally a moment of global unity — conclude on Sunday; some European officials said they believed no strike would occur before then. Meanwhile, Ramadan began Wednesday; some officials from US allies in the Middle East — which have lobbied against an attack, fearing regional destabilization — said an attack during the Muslim holy month would convey American disrespect.
“… convey American disrespect”? I would have thought exploding 100 tons of bombs on their infrastructure would be considered “disrespectful” during any month.
And don’t forget this nation was forged by showing up in the camp of the British in middle of the night on Christmas and butchering them. I would say holiday attacks are part of our culture.
Last Monday, I saw this flock of wild turkeys out the bedroom window of my underground bunker in Idaho:
Turkeys are not native, but they have become quite common at the lower elevations and now at my elevation. These turkeys are about 3,130 feet above sea level.
Perhaps, the most surreal conversation I had was not hearing a Chavista president singing capitalism’s praise, or friends who have been out of the country for eight years finally looking for a flight to Caracas; but a European diplomat who, after a long pause, told me: “At least for now, we’ve got to admit that Trump got this one right.”
CNN (AKA Clinton News Network and Communist News Network) saying “Trump got this one right?”
Wow! I wonder how many responses they got from their main body of readers demanding Pozzebon’s head on a platter. That had to have really hurt.
While I reluctantly acknowledge it was probably (let’s see how things are a year from now) the right thing to do, I’m uncomfortable with the U.S. being the world’s policeman. There is also the whole, other than might makes right, lack of authorization to use violence to affect the internal affairs of another country. Then there is the issue that while success is good, failures can really, really bad. This turned out well but a future attempt at a similar action (my bet is Iran would be the next target) could result in a catastrophe such as, or even worse than, what happened with Operation Eagle Claw in April of 1980.
