Christian Zionism
Christian Zionism, a prevalent belief among American Evangelical Christians, asserts that the modern state of Israel was bestowed upon the Jewish people by divine mandate, reserving the land exclusively for them. It is also held that the establishment of the state of Israel will herald the culmination of the end times and that Israel stands as a steadfast ally to Christians. However, this perspective is flawed from theological, historical, and political standpoints. The theological argument can be refuted by the historical context in which Jewish Pharisees played a role in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and collaborated with the Romans in the persecution of early Christians. The fundamental Christian belief is that Jesus Christ sacrificed himself for the sins of all people, irrespective of their ethnic background, emphasizing faith in Christ's teachings as the pathway to salvation. Contrary to Christian beliefs, mainstream religious Judaism does not recognize Jesus Christ as divine and regards him as a false Messiah, illustrating a stark theological divide. Christian Zionism, or Dispensationalism, is a relatively modern concept, emerging only within the last two centuries, in contrast to longstanding Christian doctrines that have endured for over a millennium. It is essential to delve deeper into this discourse, examining both theological and political dimensions for a comprehensive understanding.
Let's begin by exploring the Old Testament, which serves as the foundation for many Christian Zionists' arguments. They point to God's covenant with Abraham in Genesis 12, 15, and 17, where the land of Israel is promised to him and his descendants, contending that this pledge extends to present-day Israel. Nevertheless, despite the presence of significant religious factions, Israel is officially a secular state, a fact that can be perplexing for both Christian Zionists and non-Zionists. It is important to note that Jewish identity encompasses an ethnic dimension and does not necessarily hinge on religious adherence. Israeli citizenship is primarily determined by Jewish lineage rather than religious affiliation. Even if Israel were a theocratic state, the Christian perspective on Israel and the notion of the chosen people underwent a transformation with the advent of Jesus Christ.
In the Bible, it’s stated:
“Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."
— Galatians 3:16
This is further reinforced in Galatians 3:28, emphasizing the unity in Christ transcending distinctions of ethnicity and social status. These passages underscore that God's covenant with Abraham finds fulfillment in Christ. Additionally, Jesus' dialogue with Roman governor Pontius Pilate in John 18:36, "My Kingdom is not of this world," delineates that God's realm transcends earthly boundaries and is open to all, irrespective of race or gender, who embrace salvation through Christ.
Reflecting on the Old Testament era, a time when the Jews were regarded as the chosen people of God who received the land of Israel, it is evident that divine retribution was incurred when they deviated from God's teachings, as evidenced in passages such as Psalm 78:10-11, Psalm 78:59-62, 2 Kings 17:7-8, and Jeremiah 32:30. Notably, certain religious Jewish factions, such as the ultra-Orthodox Neturei Karta, do not endorse Israel's current state, asserting that the holy land's restoration should await the arrival of the Messiah. They critique Zionist aspirations, cautioning against the sin of pride in seeking to establish a state without divine intervention. Figures like Chief Rabbi Yehuda Gerami in Iran and various reform Jewish groups globally, including the Jews Against Zionism organization and the American Council for Judaism, also express critical perspectives on Israel.
Historically, deep-seated mutual mistrust between Jews and Christians has persisted for centuries. Christians have held Jews accountable for the crucifixion of Christ, while Jews have viewed Christians and other Gentiles as idolatrous. Notably, Jewish religious leaders played a role in Jesus' crucifixion and the persecution of early Christians, while Christians engaged in persecution during the Crusades and the Inquisition. While contemporary times have witnessed improved dialogue and understanding between Jewish and Christian communities, these dynamics extend beyond the Jewish-Christian relationship to interactions with other religious groups like Muslims and Hindus, each with their historical conflicts. The Israeli government's treatment of Arab Muslims and Arab Christians alike underscores the complexity of these interfaith and political dynamics.
In political spheres, numerous Christian Zionists espouse the belief that Israel and its populace serve as steadfast allies for Christians both regionally and globally. The Israeli government strategically leverages this alliance, equating groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to terrorist entities such as Al Qaeda and ISIS. While there is a degree of truth in Israel's support for Christians, exemplified during the Lebanon Civil War when Israel backed certain Christian paramilitary groups and shared common adversaries with Christian nations like Hungary and Serbia, notably targeting figures like George Soros whom they perceive as threats to national stability through NGOs and Color revolutions. However, this narrative is inherently simplistic.
During the Lebanon Civil War, Israel's support for Christian factions like the Lebanese Forces and Phalange stemmed from their opposition to Palestinian rebel groups like the PLO rather than any inherent religious solidarity with Christians. The primary military force backed by Israel, the South Lebanon Army, comprised individuals from various religious backgrounds rather than solely Christians. Not all Christian groups aligned themselves with Israel; for instance, the Marada Movement initially allied with the Christian Phalange and Lebanese Forces under Syrian backing. When Israel intervened, the Phalange and LF shifted their allegiances, leading to the Marada Movement's brutal suppression in 1978 over suspicions of collusion with Syria. Groups like the Front of Patriotic Christians (PFC), part of the Lebanese National Movement, actively opposed Israel. Secular factions incorporating Christians, such as the Syrian Social Nationalists Party within the Lebanese National Movement, viewed Israel as an aggressor inciting religious discord in the nation. The Lebanese Amal party, while anti-Zionist, advocated for Muslim-Christian unity, with one of its founders, Grégoire Haddad, holding a leadership position within the Greek Catholic Archeparchy of the Catholic Church. Additionally, Palestinian Christians aligned themselves with anti-Zionist movements. The Armenian Revolutionary Federation sought neutrality but faced attacks from the LF for their nonalignment.
When it comes to countries like Hungary and Serbia, which are allied with Israel, this alignment is primarily based on political convenience and a common foe in George Soros. However, one does not necessarily have to ally with Israel to oppose Soros and other liberal globalists. Russia, Belarus, Nicaragua, China, Iran, Syria, and Hamas in Gaza are continually targeted by Soros and his associates through attempted Color Revolutions and NGO-backed groups funded by Soros and other major corporations.
Now, let's delve into the negative actions that Israel has taken against Christians in Palestine and the surrounding region. Initially, Israel fails to differentiate between Arab Muslims and Arab Christians, leading to the displacement of both groups by the Israeli government and settlers. Both Arab Christians and Muslims see their religious sites vandalized and face attacks from Jewish extremists. More recently, since the start of the Israel-Gaza War, both groups have witnessed their places of worship bombed by Israeli planes and missiles. For instance, the Greek Orthodox Gaza Center was targeted, as well as the infamous airstrikes on the Church of Saint Porphyrius, one of the oldest churches globally, resulting in the deaths of 19 individuals. Additionally, the destruction of the al-Amin Muhammad Mosque and the planned demolition of the Al Aqsa Mosque have exacerbated tensions and contributed to renewed conflict. Unlike Arab Muslims in Gaza, Gazan Christians are at risk of extinction due to the ongoing conflict, recent invasion, and bombardment of the area. Furthermore, controversial remarks by Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu suggesting the use of nuclear weapons on Gaza pose a grave threat to Gazan Christians and the general population.
While Israel and Christian Zionists often assert that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, along with their supporter Iran, are akin to ISIS, a closer examination reveals this argument to be unsubstantiated. Hamas and Hezbollah, though religiously oriented groups, have actively opposed ISIS, particularly in regions such as Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. In contrast, Al Qaeda and ISIS target individuals who do not adhere to their sect of Wahabi Sunni Islam and seek to destroy their places of worship. The actions of Hamas, such as safeguarding churches in Gaza and advocating for the rights of Christians, challenge comparisons to ISIS. These complexities raise questions about the validity of equating Hamas with ISIS and underscore the intricate political and religious dynamics at play in the region.
This entire narrative quickly unravels, especially when examining Hezbollah. As early as the 1980s, during the Lebanon Civil War, Hezbollah declared its objectives to expel the Americans, French, and their allies from Lebanon, end any colonialist presence in the land, bring the Phalanges to justice for crimes against Muslims and Christians, and allow the people to choose their desired form of government. Furthermore, Hezbollah's March 8th alliance includes a diverse range of Christian, secular, Sunni, and Druze political parties, showcasing a broad coalition. Additionally, Hezbollah has defended secular Syria under Assad from Islamic extremist groups like ISIS and Al-Nusra Front, and has also fought against ISIS in Iraq. Iran, an Islamic Theocracy, not only supports Hezbollah and Hamas but also allows Churches and Synagogues to operate within its borders, a level of religious tolerance that contrasts starkly with US allies like Saudi Arabia, where churches are not permitted.
I am not suggesting that Hamas or Hezbollah have not committed deplorable acts. I do not condone Hamas attacks on civilians, even if Israel engages in similar actions. While these groups prioritize Muslim interests, it may be possible to find incidents where Christians were mistreated. However, equating these groups with ISIS and Al Qaeda, which systematically target and expel individuals who do not adhere to their specific sect of Islam, is not only spreading misinformation but also being dishonest.
The notion that Israel serves as a protector of Christians is laughable, especially when considering the role played by Israel, its Neo-Conservative allies in the US, and Zionist lobbyist organizations like AIPAC in pushing for the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses of weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al-Qaeda. Following the invasion, the US supported color revolutions and funded militant groups in Syria, contributing to ongoing conflict and instability. In contrast, countries like Iran and Russia, along with Hezbollah and the Syrian government, have worked to address the chaos created by US interventions and their allies.
Israel's negative impact extends beyond Arab Christians to Christians in the United States, as billions of dollars in government funding are directed to Israel annually instead of addressing domestic issues like drug epidemics, unemployment, border security, healthcare, family benefits, and infrastructure projects. Additionally, the idea that Hamas is comparable to ISIS raises questions about why Europe or America should accept Gaza refugees, particularly if Israel's claims were accurate.
The recent attacks supported by the US and EU will likely provoke retaliatory terrorist actions in both regions. Furthermore, Israel's involvement in conflicts like Iraq, based on misinformation about weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al-Qaeda, has caused significant loss of life among Christian Americans and contributed to refugee crises in Europe and America. Israel's influence has also manipulated Christian theology in the US for its own benefit.
Israel's alliance with the US government and NATO, entities that do not prioritize Christian and religious conservatism and ultimately seek to undermine such values, further underscores the detrimental impact of this relationship. While Hamas may not be an ideal ally for Christians, Israel's actions demonstrate that it is not a friend to Christians. American Christians would be better served by rejecting Christian Zionism and aligning with teachings that prioritize protection of Christian interests globally.
Against The Bin Laden Radical Liberals
Like everything a radical liberal touches, they end up poisoning it. The most recent example of this was on TikTok, when a bunch of American pro-Palestinian progressives (many of whom are not Arab or Muslim) started praising Osama bin Laden’s letter to America on why his organization, Al-Qaeda, committed the 9/11 terrorist attacks. These videos went viral and gained millions of views before TikTok took them down, and mainstream media, both left and right, condemned them. Along with the center-left Guardian that published Bin Laden’s letter removed from their website. This played right into the hands of Zionists and Neoconservatives like American Senator Marco Rubio, who said supporting the Palestinian cause is no different than supporting Al-Qaeda or ISIS, offering these videos as proof of this accusation.
This is not the first time that radical liberals have offered sympathy for Al-Qaeda or pretended they are a legitimate resistance. Right after the 9/11 attacks, Native American activist Ward Churchill defended the horrific 9/11 attacks and stated that people in the World Trade Center were no different than the Nazis. In 2020, self-declared Libertarian Socialist YouTuber Vaush, stated that Al-Qaeda was a legitimate rebel organization to fight US and Israeli imperialism. It is no surprise that some, especially in the wake of Israel’s brutal bombing campaign of Gaza that the US has supported militarily, which has killed thousands of people, would have come to sympathize with Bin Laden’s letter since he cites American support for Israel in their attacks against Palestinians and Lebanon during Israel's invasion of the country, along with the sanctioning of Iraq that caused millions of Iraqis to starve. I sincerely doubt these radical liberals read the entire letter because they would have been very offended by Bin Laden’s anti-homosexual remarks, anti-secularism, and Sunni Supremacy, ideas that go against the progressive worldview in its entirety.
Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and for that matter, its split-off groups like ISIS, are not legitimately or sincerely anti-Zionists or anti-imperialists and, in fact, have been used to destabilize and fight many anti-Zionist countries like Iraq, Syria, the USSR, Libya, Iran, modern-day Russia, Lebanon, Yemen, and even inside the Gaza Strip. Countries that have provided moral, economic, and military support to Palestinians or its allies like Syria and Iran, have even fought Israel or have been attacked by Israel. Al-Qaeda has its origins in the Soviet-Afghan War (1979 to 1989) where Bin Laden and many other members who formed Al-Qaeda like Ayman al-Zawahiri would receive training and support from the American CIA, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan to fight off the Soviets, with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan providing religious training where the group got its radical Sunni ideology that saw Shia Muslims as infidels and all other religions as evil that needed to be destroyed.
After the defeat of the Soviet Union in 1989 in Afghanistan, their communist-backed government in the country collapsed in early 1992. bin Laden and other members of the Afghanistan Sunni Mujahideen officially formed Al-Qaeda in 1988 and started to set up cells and groups throughout the Muslim world. However, many Arab and Muslim nations like Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Iran saw these groups as threats due to their Sunni Supremacy ideology and being backed by American and Saudi intelligence. Chechen rebels in Russia linked to Al-Qaeda would try to destabilize the country through mass bombings and massacres throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, which Russia would suppress. When 9/11 happened in 2001, Syria, Libya, Iraq, and Iran, as well as anti-Zionist groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, officially condemned the attack and for a brief time thought they had found a common cause with the US in fighting radical Islamic extremism. However, this was an attack that some in the United States ruling class wanted to happen so they could justify regime change in the Middle East. The neo-conservative think tank Project for a New American Century was the main group behind this push. This think tank included government officials like John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Elliot Abrams, and others. It also included neoliberal intellectual giants like William Kristol who founded the think tank, and Francis Fukuyama, who were all pushing for war with Iraq, Iran, and other Middle East countries before 9/11 happened.
Many of these individuals like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld became part of President George W. Bush’s administration and pushed for invading Iraq, making false accusations of weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al-Qaeda, none of which was true. These claims were also pushed by the Israeli government even though they knew it was false. When Saddam Hussein was overthrown in 2003, Al-Qaeda, which once had little to no presence, started to fill in the vacuum with this branch eventually becoming known as the Islamic State or ISIS. They not only attacked US soldiers but also other anti-invasion and anti-Zionist groups like the Mahdi Army and Kata’ib Hezbollah, as well as killing many civilians and religious groups that didn’t belong to their sect of Sunni Islam, causing a sectarian civil war to break out. Eventually, through combined efforts of the US, Iran, Kurdish groups, Shia, and Sunni rebel groups, they were able to suppress Al-Qaeda in Iraq or the Islamic State, at least for now, but ISIS would get their chance again in the Arab Spring in 2011.
The Arab Spring was a series of protests that broke out throughout the Middle East, many of which were backed by the US through organizations like the National Democratic Institute, the Republican International Institute, and the National Endowment for Democracy. Support also came from countries such as Turkey, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel. Countries affected by the Arab Spring, such as Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Libya, were known for their anti-Zionist and pro-Iran positions. These nations saw the emergence of rebel groups with links to Al-Qaeda or shared ideologies, leading to ethno-religious civil unrest and creating opportunities for groups like ISIS to exploit the situation. Amid these events, Israel's actions in the region raised questions, as they targeted the Syrian government and its allies like Hezbollah and Iran, rather than the Al-Nusra group (Al-Qaeda in Syria) at their border. Former Israeli Chief of Military Intelligence, Amos Yadlin, emphasized that Hezbollah and Iran posed a more significant threat to Israel than radical Sunni Islamists, suggesting that the real enemy might not be Israel, based on the actions of certain Sunni elements controlling the border on the Golan Heights.
For being such anti-Zionists, Al-Qaeda often attacks the enemies of Zionism and US imperialism. Surprisingly, ISIS has targeted Hamas and other Palestinian rebels more frequently than they have attacked Israel, with the Islamic State even apologizing to Israel for firing at them on the border. Additionally, ISIS and Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham recently criticized Hamas as an Iranian proxy, despite claiming to support the Palestinian cause. This highlights ISIS's actions in destabilizing Palestinian allies and raises questions about their true motives. It is evident that despite facing attacks from the US and its allies, these groups inadvertently serve Israel's interests due to their sectarian nature, indicating their lack of sincere anti-Zionist beliefs. Al-Qaeda, known for its ruthless acts globally, has targeted numerous American civilians and individuals worldwide, displaying a sociopathic nature and strict adherence to their sect of Islam. Bin Laden and his followers have unwittingly furthered the agendas of globalists and Israel through their actions.
Those on TikTok who endorsed Bin Laden's letter were either misinformed about Al-Qaeda's history or, at worst, actively promoted the American-Israeli narrative equating support for the Palestinian cause with backing Al-Qaeda. Some individuals may have deliberately sought to undermine the cause while feigning support. It is worth noting that proponents of a similar narrative, such as Vaush, who endorsed President Biden in 2020 and supported US foreign policies in Syria, Ukraine, and Hong Kong, were promoted by the YouTube algorithm. While it is possible that this trend was artificially generated, radical liberals continue to fall for such narratives, revealing their detachment from realities on the ground and the detrimental impact on the causes they claim to support.
If Gaza Falls
Despite Hamas and its allies inflicting significant casualties on the IDF, the Israeli army continues to advance in northern Gaza. There is a looming possibility that Gaza could completely fall to Israel if a ceasefire is not reached or if the US does not pressure Israel to halt its relentless bombing campaign, which is gradually turning global opinion against them. Alternatively, if Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies do not launch an incursion into Israel. However, even if Gaza is captured by Israel, it does not signify the destruction of Hamas or other factions in Gaza, such as PIJ, PFLP, DFLP, PLFP-GC, and others.
For starters, it cannot be understated that all these are guerrilla organizations that specialize in hit-and-run tactics. They have decentralized leadership and operate in cells, making it difficult to disrupt their operations. They will continue to function even if the organization's leader is deceased or imprisoned. Additionally, some guerrillas do not wear uniforms, making it challenging to identify them, and those who do will likely discard them if Gaza falls, further complicating identification before attacks. The militants utilize numerous tunnel systems and safe houses, making it challenging to locate and eliminate them all. Even if Israel captures Gaza, militants could be concealed in these tunnel systems and receive supplies through them, possibly extending outside the strip to countries like Egypt and Lebanon. History shows that successful guerrilla organizations can still carry out attacks in areas they do not control, as seen with the Vietcong in the Vietnam War and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Israel's only advantage is that the Gaza Strip is significantly smaller than the territories the Americans dealt with in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
It also cannot be overstated that Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank harbor animosity towards Israel. Many openly support militant factions due to the loss of their land and lives at the hands of Israeli settlers and the government. Even if Hamas and other factions are hindered by the capture of Gaza, they will still have substantial support from Palestinians, potentially leading to lone wolf attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians without direct orders or training from militant groups. The ongoing radicalization of Palestinians due to Israeli bombardment and military actions, along with land seizures by Israeli settlers, fuels this sentiment. Israel could address this by either continuing its ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip or offering concessions to Palestinians, such as autonomy, to reduce the need for protection from Hamas or other factions.
Even if the entire Gaza Strip is cleared of all Palestinian militants, it does not signify the end of the conflict. Firstly, many of these factions are known to operate in the West Bank and possibly in the Golan Heights, posing ongoing challenges for the IDF in those regions. However, the primary concern lies in the fact that Hamas and other groups conduct operations in countries where Israel lacks jurisdiction, such as Lebanon, Syria, Qatar, and Iran, and potentially in other nations. With Hamas leadership based in Qatar, dismantling these factions becomes significantly more complex. If Israel were to consider invading these countries to eliminate these groups, it would likely provoke responses from Hamas's allies in those regions, including Hezbollah, the Assad government, the Qatari monarchy, and potentially major powers like Iran, Turkey, and even Russia. This scenario has historical precedence, as seen when the PLO was initially forced out of Palestine and sought refuge in neighboring countries like Jordan, Lebanon, and Tunisia before eventually returning to the West Bank in the 1990s. Unlike the PLO's reception in these nations, the official governments actively embrace these groups, with factions like PFLP-GC and As-Sa’iqa actively supporting the Syrian government in its civil war. Moreover, significant Palestinian populations reside in these countries, and the broader Arab community often sympathizes with their cause, facilitating the replenishment of militant ranks. Even if Gaza falls, both sides will face a protracted and challenging path ahead.
The European Rights Alliance With Israel Isn’t Good
It is not an understatement to say that the people of Europe are weary of mass immigration, particularly from the Arab and African regions, notably the Muslim population. This sentiment was evident in the recent elections in Italy, the Netherlands, Slovakia, and Switzerland, where right-wing anti-immigrant parties secured victories throughout 2023. Some of these parties, notably in Slovakia, have halted arms shipments to Ukraine in an attempt to mend relations with Russia, alleviate the economic repercussions of the conflict, and address the issue of mass migration from Ukraine. The backlash against mass migration stems from increased job market competition, rising housing costs, cultural clashes between immigrants and the local populace, and concerns regarding Islamic extremism and crime within migrant communities. These issues have sparked race riots in Dublin, Ireland, and Crepol, France, where ethnic Irish and French individuals protested against stabbing attacks by Muslim migrants, believed to be racially and religiously motivated, with children among the victims.
The people of Europe have legitimate grievances against their liberal leaders who advocate for immigrants for cheap labor and votes. These leaders have propagated falsehoods about diversity being a strength and multiculturalism enriching the country, despite the ongoing segregation and animosity between communities. Interestingly, many of the newly empowered right-wing and anti-immigrant parties support a nation that played a significant role in the mass migration crisis of the 2010s, stemming from the Arab Spring – none other than Israel.
Israel actively supported rebel groups and encouraged the United States and NATO to intervene in conflicts in Syria, Libya, Iraq, and other nations. All three of these countries were combating Islamic extremism, and in the case of Libya, they were also preventing immigrants from reaching Europe. However, due to their hostility towards Israel concerning the treatment of Palestinians, Israel aimed to eliminate them with the assistance of the United States and Gulf states. This intervention began with the invasion of Iraq in 2003, followed by actions in Syria and Libya during the Arab Spring in 2011. As a result, these countries were destabilized, leading to civil wars, the overthrow of the original governments in Iraq and Libya, mass migration to Europe and, to a lesser extent, America, and the emergence of Islamic terrorism and extremist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
Many of these right-wing parties have been elected or are gaining popularity in polls, such as the Dutch Party of Freedom, the French National Rally, the German AFD, Brothers of Italy, Fidesz in Hungary, among others. They have openly acknowledged that the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya and the US and European intervention in Iraq and Syria were errors that caused more harm than good, serving neo-liberal interests more than anything else. Despite this, they still side with Israel in the recent conflict with Gaza, even after members of the ruling Likud Party in Israel have called on Europe to accept Gaza refugees, partly holding responsibility for the aforementioned conflicts. While it is true that Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Islamic militant organizations have committed atrocities, they are not the groups orchestrating attacks in Europe; instead, that responsibility lies with ISIS and Al Qaeda, groups that Hamas and Hezbollah have opposed and which Israel and its allies have supported at times. Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah have intentions to expand into Europe or promote Islamization there, nor do their state sponsors in Lebanon, Syria, or Iran. Syria and Lebanon seek the return of their people who have migrated to Europe and America, viewing it as an economic brain drain and a loss of human capital in their nations. They also aim to prosecute certain terrorists for crimes committed in their respective countries.
One of the primary reasons for the recent attacks by Hamas and its allies against Israel was the illegal immigration from Israel to Palestine, where Israelis settled in the West Bank and claimed the land for themselves, displacing the local Arab population, whether Christian, Muslim, or other, with the support of the Israeli government. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have conducted cross-border raids into the West Bank to target individuals believed to be terrorists. Even if Hamas were behind attacks in Europe, it does not negate the fact that the IDF once provided funding to the group in an attempt to divide the Palestinian struggle for independence.
It is not to suggest that Israel bears sole responsibility for the mass migration to European countries and America. The neoliberal ideology, promoting the global expansion of liberalism and capitalism through war, free trade, and the belief that people are entirely malleable, plays a significant role in the migration crisis. Neoliberals often exploit wars as a pretext to bring in immigrants from other countries. Similarly, advocating for the destruction of the state of Israel would also create a refugee crisis. However, to ignore Israel's role in mass migration over the past two decades and to unquestioningly support right-wing parties advocating for the complete expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank will only exacerbate the issues of mass migration and Islamic extremism in Europe and America. European right-wing parties, as well as their American counterparts, should pressure Israel and Palestine to reach a permanent agreement, negotiate, end sanctions, and withdraw from Syria and other war-torn Arab countries in exchange for preventing migrants from reaching Europe, continuing the fight against Islamic extremism, and stabilizing their nations. This approach would allow many migrants to return to their countries of origin, offering a viable solution to the current migration crisis in Europe.
Christopher Hitchens Was Religious
December 15, 2023, will mark the 13th year since the passing of British new atheist intellectual Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens was widely recognized during the latter part of his life for his lectures and books on atheism and his critiques of religion. Hitchens and the New Atheist movement viewed all religions as false, regressive, and authoritarian, attributing the deaths of millions to religious beliefs. However, what many New Atheists, including Hitchens himself, failed to acknowledge was that he adhered to a form of religion. While not following traditional religions such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or Hinduism, he embraced a man-made religion that gained prominence during the Enlightenment and early liberal revolutions - the religion of progress.
Throughout Hitchens's career, he never questioned his belief that the world was steadily improving, becoming less authoritarian, and achieving greater material wealth and progress through technological advancements and the erosion of traditional institutions like religion. The only aspect of Hitchens's faith in progress that shifted was his allegiance to different sects of progressive ideologies. Initially a Trotskyist who opposed American intervention in Vietnam, by the 1990s, while still identifying with Marxism, Hitchens began to view America and capitalism as the driving forces of progress. He perceived events like the Gulf War, NATO's bombing of Serbia, and support for Kosovo/KLA as efforts to combat religious "fascists" and introduce progress and liberalism to the region. Hitchens also developed a fondness for neo-conservative figure and architect of the War on Terror, Paul Wolfowitz, whom he regarded as highly intelligent.
The transition from being a Trotskyist to a neo-liberal War Hawk is not difficult to comprehend in Christopher Hitchens's case. Trotskyists historically criticized the Soviet Union and its allies, viewing it as a degenerated workers' state. Some Trotskyists, like Max Schumann, Martin Abern, and James Burnham, became more disparaging toward Soviet communism and its allies than American capitalism, labeling the Soviet Union as nothing more than bureaucratic collectivism, state capitalism, or red fascism. Individuals such as Burnham, Irving Kristol, and Sidney Hook, who originated from this perspective, eventually shaped what is now recognized as neo-conservatism. Hitchens followed a comparable trajectory, perceiving former Soviet allies like Iraq, Syria, and Yugoslavia as reactionary, fascist regimes, with liberal capitalism heralding progress in the region.
Certainly, Hitchens and neo-conservatives are not the sole leftists who adopted a pro-Western foreign policy stance both before and after the Cold War. Renowned feminist activist and intellectual Susan Sontag labeled the Soviet Union and its Marxist-Leninist ideology as the most significant form of Fascism to exist, endorsing US intervention in the Yugoslav Wars. Similarly, influential Frankfurt School Marxist Jurgen Habermas supported the NATO bombing of Serbia. Libertarian socialist intellectual Noam Chomsky advocated for the US to remain in Syria to support the Kurds. Slovenian Marxist philosopher Slavoj Zizek backed US military assistance to Ukraine, while Libertarian Socialist YouTuber Vaush not only approved of US policy in Syria but also endorsed sending military equipment to Ukraine. American feminist activist and organizer Mana Shooshtari backed regime change in Iran and supported the US-backed feminist color revolution in the country in 2022. These individuals, like Hitchens, presented arguments in line with a pro-intervention perspective. However, while most of them did not support the Iraq War, Hitchens did.
Hitchens viewed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the First Gulf War and the Yugoslav War, as efforts to bring progress and democracy to the region while combating "Islamo-Fascism." He believed in the entire narrative surrounding Iraq's alleged support for Al-Qaeda, possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the notion that these nations could and should embrace liberal values. Hitchens also characterized Assad's Syria as fascist and likely would have endorsed US intervention and support for the Free Syrian Army had he been alive to witness it.
Despite Hitchens claiming that his beliefs were rooted in facts and opposed to superstition and authoritarianism, it is evident that his support for neo-liberalism and the War on Terror was highly authoritarian and irrational. Despite advocating for facts and logic, Hitchens' convictions that Iraq was in league with Al-Qaeda, possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, or that liberalism would bring stability to Iraq and Afghanistan were all demonstrably incorrect. There was no evidence of a connection between Al-Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The implementations of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan led to complete instability, with sectarian civil wars erupting frequently, particularly in Iraq. Despite assertions of combating Islamic extremists in Iraq, Saddam Hussein, the deposed leader, was a secular figure. However, following his removal, actual religious extremists like Al-Qaeda infiltrated the country. Additionally, while Hitchens supported Kosovo for resisting ultra-nationalist Serbs, who were indeed responsible for ethnic cleansing, groups backed by the US and Hitchens, such as the Kosovo Liberation Army, were also involved in such atrocities. The NATO and American bombing campaigns during the Yugoslav Civil War and War on Terror resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians and left many nations devastated and economically impoverished. The authoritarian tactics of American neo-liberalism extend beyond imposing their worldview on other nations to infringing on the freedoms of its citizens, exemplified by measures like the PATRIOT Act, which introduced mass surveillance and expanded the FBI's power to spy on and harass civilians. These actions were justified in the name of progress, counterterrorism, and defending democracy. Hitchens' notion of progress leading to a better world is flawed, especially with technologies like nuclear weapons bringing humanity closer to potential destruction. Modern technology has enabled governments and corporations to conduct extensive surveillance and access individuals' personal information to a greater extent than in previous generations. There is no indication that we are any closer to achieving the utopian enlightened society envisioned by Hitchens. The decline of religion and the traditional family structure has not resulted in people becoming more enlightened or improved but rather feeling adrift and experiencing heightened levels of depression, with suicide rates reaching record highs.
Hitchens and the American neo-liberal establishment are not the first to utilize the religion of progress or similar rhetoric to justify violence and authoritarianism. Historical examples include the Jacobins in the French Revolution perpetrating violence against Catholics and perceived reactionaries, President Woodrow Wilson using similar rhetoric to justify World War I against the Germans, and the Bolsheviks and Spanish Republicans employing these ideas in their revolutions against religious and reactionary elements. Despite Hitchens' criticism of traditional religions like Christianity and Islam for their alleged authoritarianism and the deaths attributed to them, his own ideas are guilty of perpetuating similar actions. Hitchens' unwavering faith in progress is unfounded. He and other New Atheists like him have no moral high ground to critique others for their religious beliefs. Religious institutions have historically made significant contributions to charity, philosophy, art, the establishment of early universities, and scientific advancements. In contrast, what do New Atheists collectively offer in their efforts to deconstruct religion and align with neoliberalism? Unfortunately, Hitchens' ideological legacy persists even after his passing, as evidenced by individuals like YouTube streamer and commentator Destiny, who employ similar anti-religious rhetoric to justify the War in Gaza and US involvement in it. However, due to opposition from both the left and right regarding this conflict, there is hope that this rhetoric and the religion of progress will see an end.
The Death of Henry Kissinger
On November 29, 2023, former American diplomat, geopolitical strategist, Secretary of State, and National Security Adviser during the Nixon and Ford administrations, Henry Kissinger, passed away at the age of 100. To many, both on the left and right, Kissinger was viewed as a globalist responsible for the deaths of millions of people. From the bombing campaign in Cambodia during the Vietnam War to Operation Condor in Latin America, which saw US-backed coups and death squads targeting socialists, nationalists, communists, Peronists, and others in the region, Kissinger is often associated with death and destruction inflicted by America's enemies. However, leaders like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping expressed respect for Kissinger and fondly remembered him, despite his efforts to counteract their geopolitical objectives. This is because, compared to other US foreign policy experts and strategists, Kissinger was not only skilled but also willing to compromise and negotiate with major powers and regional adversaries.
Kissinger played a crucial role in normalizing relations with mainland China during the height of the Cold War, effectively driving a wedge between the Soviet Union and China and laying the groundwork for trade relations between the US and China, which contributed to China's industrialization and the end of the Cold War. He also successfully negotiated the US withdrawal from the Vietnam War and helped resolve the Yom Kippur War by engaging with all parties involved, ensuring that Israel returned the land taken from Egypt and establishing a ceasefire between both nations.
While Kissinger shared some similarities with neo-conservatives in his support for military intervention and US global dominance, what set him apart was his pragmatic approach. He was not a proponent of democracy promotion and was willing to collaborate with right-wing dictators like Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Communist regimes like Mao's China when it served US interests. Unlike neo-conservatives, Kissinger's Operation Condor, despite its brutality, was deemed a success. He resembled conservative theorist James Burnham in foreign policy but was less rigid in his anti-communism stance. Despite initially endorsing the Iraq War, Kissinger later acknowledged it as a mistake, recognizing that nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan, lacking historical democratic institutions, would not succeed.
Kissinger advocated for negotiation with major powers such as Russia and China, suggesting compromises to resolve conflicts like the war in Donbas in 2014. He proposed concessions like Ukraine not joining NATO, granting autonomy to Donetsk and Lugansk in exchange for Russia returning Crimea. Kissinger emphasized the importance of Ukraine serving as a neutral ground and bridge between Russia and the West, warning that a weakened Russia could pose security challenges for Europe. During the escalation of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine in 2022, Kissinger suggested territorial concessions to end the war before retracting his statement amid potential pressure to advocate for Ukraine's NATO membership.
In a speech to the non-profit organization World.Minds shortly before his passing, Kissinger called for increased dialogue among major powers to find common ground in the Middle East and other regions, emphasizing the need to restore normal relations and dialogue. Unlike many neo-conservatives and neoliberals, Kissinger, prior to his death and the commencement of the Israel-Gaza War in 2023, acknowledged that mass migration of culturally distinct populations to the West was a grave error.
I am not saying that Kissinger did not share a globalist vision of a liberal-run world order, but Kissinger was far more pragmatic and realistic when it comes to geopolitics. I am also not saying he was not a bad guy; he was, but foreign policy advisors and leaders in government and mainstream think tanks that have come after Kissinger have been far worse and more destructive to the United States and the world. The liberal internationalists are far more dogmatic and hawkish. Neo-conservatives like John Bolton, William Kristol, and Nikki Haley are actively beating the war drums with Iran, Russia, and China, calling for further sanctions on these countries. However, such actions only bring these countries closer together, encouraging them to trade to circumvent US sanctions and fostering greater hostility towards the United States.
William Kristol and Robert Kagan’s former think tank, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which was instrumental in advocating for the War in Iraq and other conflicts in the Middle East, along with the democratic crusade that accompanied these wars, has been deemed an utter failure. The Liberal Internationalists, such as President Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Anthony Blinken, Victoria Nuland, Hillary Clinton, Alex, and George Soros, are not much better and in some ways are worse. They bear responsibility for missteps in Libya and Syria, ineffective sanctions, and warmongering tendencies. Moreover, they amplify liberal globalism, progressivism, American style democracy to an extreme degree. They attempt to pressure non-Western countries to sanction Russia for a conflict unrelated to them, potentially causing economic harm if these countries comply with the sanctions. They seek to impose the LGBT agenda on allies and partners despite conflicting with their values and morals. They openly criticize and threaten allies and trading partners for not aligning with their demands, such as excluding Turkey and Hungary from the Democracy Summit, and removing Uganda, Gabon, Niger, and the Central African Republic from the Agoa Trade Deal due to cultural conservatism or perceived lack of democracy. They sanction businesses in the UAE and Turkey for engaging in trade with Russia.
Additionally, they have been involved in numerous attempted color revolutions in Middle Eastern allies like Bahrain and Egypt during the Arab Spring, and possibly in Turkey in 2016. These actions drive these nations further into the Russian and Chinese spheres, as these countries prioritize trade over ideological alignment. It is worth noting that China and Russia seek to expand their economic partnerships in regions like BRICS and, in the case of Russia, forgive billions of dollars in African debt and provide security assistance through Wagner against Islamic terrorists. Western institutions like the IMF have faced accusations of pushing African and other non-Western countries into debt by promoting reckless domestic policies and implementing IMF policy recommendations.
All of this not only drives US allies away and leads the US into many failed military endeavors but also brings us closer to conflict with other global powers like Russia and China, potentially sparking World War 3. Kissinger was one of the few voices of reason (as close to reason as one can find in liberal circles) within the liberal ruling class, respected by both progressive and neo-conservative factions in matters of foreign policy, and held in high regard by Russia and China. Now that Kissinger has passed away, and only ideologues remain, it may only forecast doom. Hopefully, this doom will be limited to the collapse of the liberal order and not bring harm to the American people or the rest of the world.
The Divides In The Arab World on The Israel-Gaza War
The Arab and the larger Muslim world have undoubtedly been the most critical of Israel’s recent actions in Gaza and the West Bank. Some major parties in Lebanon, like Hezbollah and Amal, with Iranian assistance, are actively engaged in combat with Israeli forces. Egypt and Jordan have explicitly stated they would go to war with Israel should Israel completely expel the Palestinians. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, has called for a total arms embargo on Israel. Turkey, Jordan, and Bahrain have recalled their ambassadors and ceased economic ties with the country, with Turkey's President Erdogan going as far as calling for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to be charged with war crimes. Iran and Qatar stand as the most prominent supporters of the Palestinian cause, with Iran supplying weapons to Palestinian militants, providing training, and mobilizing its proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen to attack Israel, backed by the United States. Qatar hosts Hamas leadership, offers financial support, and aids diplomatically by mediating between them and Israel. Most other countries at least provide Palestine with non-military aid and moral support.
Undoubtedly, the Arab and Muslim world stand united in their support for the Palestinians, but they differ in opinions on what actions should be taken and what the ultimate goal should be. The Muslim governments backing Palestine can be categorized into three factions, each led by a regional power. The first alliance is led by Saudi Arabia and comprises countries like the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Jordan, and Egypt. The second faction, led by Iran, includes countries such as Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, along with militant groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, and the Houthi in Yemen, with Palestinian groups like Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). The third and final faction, led by Turkey, includes countries like Qatar and Azerbaijan, along with militant groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS).
The Saudi Arabia faction's end goal is the establishment of a two-state solution, with Palestine being restored to the 1967 borders and a willingness to normalize relations with Israel. On the other hand, Iran and its allies advocate for a one-state solution where there is no Israel, only Palestine. Despite openly and financially supporting Hamas, which advocates for a one-state solution, Turkey and Qatar officially support a two-state solution. Why is this the case?
Some may assume that the reason why Saudi Arabia and Turkey prefer a two-state solution is that they seek to maintain ties with the United States and the EU, who are major economic and military partners of both countries. While this undoubtedly plays a role, it is not the entire story, in my opinion. Saudi Arabia and its allies still aim to be economic partners with the USA and the EU, but they have grown more skeptical of US foreign policy goals and irritated by attempts to impose cultural values on them. This distrust arguably traces back to the Iraq War and the peak of the War on Terror when Saudi Arabia, its allies, and Qatar opposed the Iraq War, fearing destabilization and the entry of Iranian proxies, a prediction that came true. The turning point can be traced to the Arab Spring and the subsequent conflicts in Syria, Egypt, and Libya. The Arab Spring, backed by the US, NATO, Israel, and Gulf Monarchies, aimed to destabilize countries close to Iran, sparking a proxy war that raised doubts about US intentions. Bahrain, closely linked to Saudi Arabia, saw US-backed interventions during its uprising, raising suspicions about US motives. Turkey and Qatar also grew wary of the US following the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, supported by the US, and a coup attempt in Turkey in 2016, believed to have US backing.
Despite supporting rebels in Syria against the pro-Iran Assad government, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and their allies became disillusioned with US objectives in the country, albeit for different reasons. Turkey was dismayed by US support for Kurdish rebels in North Syria, responsible for terrorism in Turkey and separatist attempts. Saudi Arabia and the UAE soured on US actions when it became evident that Assad would be a more stable leader than rebel groups. This shift coincided with the rise of modernizing figures in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, like Prince Mohamed Bin Salman and Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed. Allegations by former Saudi intelligence officer Saad al-Jabri suggest that Saudi Arabia and the UAE supported Russian intervention in Syria as early as 2015 to save Assad. By 2018, the UAE normalized relations with Syria, with Bahrain and Jordan following suit, and Saudi Arabia and the Arab League normalizing relations in 2023. Disagreements between the US and Saudi Arabia arose in Libya over Gaddafi's replacement and in Yemen, where the US proved an unreliable ally, initially supporting Saudi intervention but then imposing an arms embargo following the assassination of Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi in 2018. US Senator Lindsey Graham remarked that the relationship between the two countries was "more of a burden than an asset."
The 2010s and 2020s marked a time when the United States became increasingly radical in its cultural and foreign policy approaches. The US began advocating for gay marriage and feminism in various countries, pressuring them to adopt liberal democracies, as evident in Bahrain's Arab Spring, backed by the US. Despite efforts towards modernization and liberalization in the Saudi bloc, Saudi Arabia and its allies largely rejected these changes, leading to the arrest of activists, and Saudi media accusing Biden of promoting homosexuality in the country. Turkey, under Erdogan's leadership, which was becoming more conservative, also opposed these initiatives, viewing them as conflicting with Islamic values and cracking down on groups advocating for nontraditional sexualities. The failed coup attempt in Turkey in 2016 was believed by the Turkish government to have US backing, as the Turkish government was increasingly influenced by Islamic beliefs. Saudi Arabia and the UAE were also uninterested in global efforts to restrict carbon emissions and fossil fuels, with Saudi Arabia lobbying against such measures, and UAE's Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber dismissing the science behind phasing out fossil fuels at COP28 in December 2023, warning it could regress the world into a dark age.
When the Russo-Ukraine War erupted in 2022, the Saudi Arabia and Turkey Bloc decided to steer clear of American-backed conflicts, refusing to sanction Russia or sever ties with them, opting to continue trading with Russia. Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt applied for membership in Russia and China's BRICS economic union, all being accepted in 2023. When the US requested Saudi Arabia and OPEC to increase oil production due to Russian sanctions causing an oil shortage, the Saudis instead reduced oil production multiple times. The United States accused Saudi Arabia of colluding with Russia, which Saudi Arabia denied, stating it acted in its economic interest. Whether there was Russian collusion or not, Saudi Arabia was asserting its independence from America. By 2023, Saudi Arabia and Turkey showed signs of disengaging from the War on Terror and conflicts stemming from the Arab Spring. Saudi Arabia normalized relations with Iran and Syria, aided by China and Russia, and initiated talks with the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Turkey also began discussions about withdrawing from Syria and normalization.
Despite normalizing relations with Iran, Saudi Arabia did not align with the Iranian bloc or fully trust them. To maintain a good relationship with the US, potentially develop nuclear weapons, and have another ally as a safeguard against Iran, Saudi Arabia engaged in talks with the US and Israel to normalize relations before the Gaza war. Apart from maintaining good relations with the US, Saudi Arabia grew weary of conflicts, viewing them as economic burdens that perpetuate regional poverty. A two-state solution was deemed the best way to satisfy all parties, preventing a devastating war that would displace Palestinians, who share kinship with Muslims, or risk damaging holy Muslim sites. Supporting the destruction of Israel would further strain US relations. Even before the October 7th attack, Israel did not agree to a two-state solution, with factions within the ruling coalition favoring a one-state solution or continued expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestine. Saudi Arabia remained steadfast in advocating for a two-state solution. It is also likely the Turkey bloc, despite vocal opposition against the Israeli government and defense of Hamas, also sought a two-state solution for similar reasons.
Iran comes from a different persuasion. Iran is not economically connected to the United States and is heavily sanctioned by them. Iran hasn’t been an ally of the US since the fall of the US-Israeli-backed Shah, who persecuted the conservative Shia Muslim clerics who now run the country. Iranians believe that the only way to establish peace in the Middle East is through the full withdrawal of the US and the dismantling of Israel, which they see as completely hostile to Islam and the local Arab population. Compromise would only prolong Muslims' and Arabs' suffering. Despite the radical solution, it’s not hard to understand how the Iranians came to this conclusion, as Israel has only expanded and Palestine has continued to shrink, with Israel being involved in virtually every Middle Eastern conflict since its inception. Not to mention the constant mistreatment and death of Palestinians, especially children, at the hands of the IDF, and Israel seeking to destroy holy sites like the Al Aqsa Mosque, never living up to Arab countries’ demands to respect Palestinian sovereignty. All of this continues to legitimize the Iranians and their allies’ claims.
The recent war in Gaza will not only prove the Iranians right, as many Palestinian civilians are killed by Israeli airstrikes, with Israel seeking to take control of Gaza, but will also grow anti-Zionist sentiments among the general Arab and Muslim population, who will push their governments to do more against Israel. The war has already caused Saudi Arabia to freeze normalization talks, and countries that already normalize relations like Jordan, Bahrain, and Egypt to either cut economic or diplomatic ties and threaten war. American influence in the region and support at home dwindling, this will be the cause of Israel's demise if it continues with this campaign. Despite Iran and its proxies being constantly compared to ISIS, Iran has built a diverse coalition ranging from Baathists like Assad in Syria, democracies like Lebanon and Iraq, Sunni Jihadists like Hamas and PIJ, communists like PFLP, secular nationalists like SSNP, and various Nasserist groups, as well as right-wing Christian groups like the Free Patriotic Movement and the Marada movements. This alliance will only continue to expand the longer Israel drags this war out. Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups on their own can’t destroy Israel, but the full force of Iran and its allies can, especially if other countries from the Saudi and Turkey bloc join them.
Hate Speech and anti-Extremist Laws
On November 27th, communist journalist Caleb Maupin reported on the arrest in the UK of Ranjeet Brar and three other members of the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) for handing out pro-Palestinian pamphlets. They were charged with inciting racial hatred, even though their pamphlets claim that Zionism itself was anti-Semitic and hurtful to the Jewish people. In the United States, George Washington University in New York, Brandeis University, and Columbia University suspended pro-Palestinian groups, with Brown University disciplining students over pro-Palestinian protests. These events and groups have been deemed extremists or hateful. In France, many pro-Palestinian protests in Paris and elsewhere have been banned for being extremists.
Many Western conservatives and nationalists have long witnessed how laws and policies have targeted them, leading to some groups being banned, individuals being arrested, others losing their jobs or being expelled from universities, and some having their social media accounts suspended. It is widely known that universities are typically progressive environments where conservative and dissident speakers often face unwelcome treatment, being either harassed off campus or having their events canceled. Some may find it puzzling that left-wing protests and groups are now being banned for expressing sympathies towards the struggles of Palestinians, who are predominantly brown, Muslim, and non-Christian. However, the warning signs were already present, as anti-free speech progressive ideology has gained traction among many ruling class circles and various factions of the Western Left.
Liberal and New Left intellectuals such as Karl Popper, Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, and other prominent figures of the mid-20th century advocated for the suppression of ideas considered reactionary, oppressive, racist, sexist, antisemitic, and anti-liberal in the case of Popper. For example, Marcuse's Repressive Tolerance and Popper's Open Society and Its Enemies influenced the laws of West Germany, where not only Nazis but also communists, conservatives, and other groups deemed illiberal were banned or suppressed. It is worth noting that many of these intellectuals' ideas were supported by liberal regimes. Marcuse, for instance, was an OSS agent and received funding from the Rockefeller Foundation for his book One-Dimensional Man. Adorno, as noted by historian Paul Gottfried, played significant roles in German education with the backing of the American State Department, and his Authoritarian Personality study was widely utilized by the US government and corporations to promote anti-fascist ideals.
As Gottfried puts it:
“Despite the anti-Communist mood in the U.S. at the outset of the Cold War, in the 1950s an Americanized and mainstreamed form of Cultural Marxism made powerful inroads here. Leaders of the Frankfurt school were sent back to Germany by the American State Department to “reeducate” the former subjects of the Third Reich and to make them “good antifascists.” Meanwhile, psychological tests were devised for private jobs, government employment, and educational institutions to determine the “f scores” of applicants (as indications of pro-fascist leanings). Equally noteworthy, Frankfurt School pioneers like Eric Fromm became popular authorities on psychological well-being and had their works distributed through Book of the Month clubs.”
— Paul Gottfried, The Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism
Adorno also participated in the CIA-funded project Congress for Cultural Freedom, which backed progressive causes against Soviet Communism. Karl Popper’s book The Open Society and Its Enemies had a significant influence on neo-conservatives and liberal internationalists, such as George Soros, who named his foundation Open Society after Popper’s work.
As many are aware, the New Left that emerged in the 1960s was a movement primarily focused on progressive social causes like civil rights, sexual liberation, abortion, migration, and environmentalism. They often accused their opponents of being racist fascists and conspiracy theorists seeking to undermine democracy. Many of these ideas were integrated into the American Democratic Party and other left-liberal parties in the West, influencing laws and policies in corporate and university sectors. These ideas and tactics were aimed at strengthening the liberal orders rather than hindering them, as some in the New Left had hoped. Over the decades, progressive ideas became culturally dominant in government, media, the corporate world, and universities.
I have previously discussed how progressivism or wokism aligns with capitalism in numerous blog posts, so I will not revisit those points here. Instead, I will focus on how progressive ideas and talking points have been used to bolster the state security apparatus and corporate censorship. As mentioned earlier in this essay, Pro-Palestine groups have been banned on campuses and individuals arrested for hate speech. There has also been shadow banning and removal of pro-Palestine and critical content on Israel. These laws and policies are employed to censor dissent and shape the narrative in line with the establishment's preferences. Pro-Israeli groups like the Anti-Defamation League and Brandeis Center support these laws. The Anti-Defamation League has a history of defaming, pressuring companies to withdraw sponsorships, and terminating individuals who oppose issues like abortion, mass migration, multiculturalism, gay marriage, and Zionism, including left-wing anti-Zionists, labeling them as hateful, anti-Semitic, and fascist.
President Biden and the Department of Education have taken action against so-called anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in schools and colleges, likely targeting critics of Zionism and third-world immigration. The US National Security Strategy Against anti-Semitism and US National Security Strategy Against Islamophobia, established this year under the Biden Administration, will also be utilized against critics identified as hateful by the establishment. Propaganda will be funded in workplaces, schools, and religious institutions to discredit critics and censor them online, as outlined in pillars one and three of the US National Security Strategy Against anti-Semitism.
The rhetoric that has emerged among Western liberal and leftist circles has also been embraced by the establishment. During the Second Iraq War, figures ranging from neo-cons like William Kristol to left-wingers like Christopher Hitchens used terms like "Islamo-Fascism" to justify the conflict. The PATRIOT Act, which allowed government surveillance, was similarly justified by both parties as necessary for the protection of liberal democracy and human rights. In 2018, during the March for Our Lives protests advocating for gun control, progressive activists, including key figures like Emma Gonzales, cited the high death rate of LGBT individuals and non-whites due to gun violence as a rationale for granting more power to the federal government to restrict civilian gun ownership.
Throughout the Covid lockdowns, Democrat politicians, corporate media, and social media platforms vilified anti-lockdown protesters and COVID vaccine skeptics as racist conspiracy theorists who denied science. This narrative overlooked the increased rates of suicide, drug overdoses, and mental illness during lockdowns, the job losses caused by restrictions, rising inflation, the collapse of small businesses, and the history of pharmaceutical companies with products that were ineffective or had severe side effects. Many protesters were banned from social media or arrested for defying lockdown measures. The left largely embraced this narrative, accusing the right of spreading the virus during the George Floyd riots.
Some may rightfully point out that aside from a few exceptions like presidential candidate Vivek Ramasamy, Republicans are no better. Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida banned Pro-Palestine student organizations, Senator Tim Scott advocated for defunding universities over "anti-Semitism," and presidential candidate Nikki Haley equated Anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, calling for social media users to disclose their real identities to combat alleged foreign bots, a move criticized for potentially targeting individuals who challenge neoliberal narratives online.
These laws and policies serve to stifle dissent on neoliberal agendas and stem from a similar source. While the right liberal establishment may not draw directly from the likes of Herbert Marcuse or Theodor Adorno, they are influenced by individuals associated with government-funded groups. Proto Neo-Conservative figures like James Burnham, Irving Kristol, and Sidney Hook, who came from the Congress for Cultural Freedom, as well as William F. Buckley Jr., founder of the conservative magazine National Review, with ties to the CIA, influenced right-wing policies. Neo-Conservatives and Buckley were known for supporting global conflicts and economic globalization while marginalizing conservatives critical of war, free market ideology, social conservatism, immigration policies, or Zionism. Figures like Russel Kirk, Scott McConnell, Joseph Sobran, Paul Gottfried, Mel Bradford, Murray Rothbard, and more recently, Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, have faced purges or smears from neo-conservatives.
As mentioned earlier, hate speech and anti-extremist laws and policies, and the entities behind them, will be wielded against those challenging neoliberal ideas and norms, regardless of political alignment. These measures were designed to target dissenters, a reality underscored by their recent application against left-leaning groups due to the conflict in Gaza, given Israel's significant ties to the US as a proxy state.
Why Will Hurds Election Campaign Failed
I know some readers may be wondering, "Who?" Let me provide a brief explanation of Will Hurd, a former CIA officer and Texas congressman who briefly ran in the Republican presidential race. He was one of the early dropouts who didn't even make it to the debate stage. Hurd ultimately endorsed Republican nominee Nikkia Haley for president. His background as a former CIA agent sheds light on his advocacy. Essentially, he aligns with the William Kristol-style neo-con ideology, supporting increased sanctions on countries like Russia and Iran, US military intervention and aid in regions such as Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, Syria, and more. His foreign policy paper titled "How to make the 21st century another American century" echoes the goals of the New American Century project, a think tank linked to pre-9/11 War on Terror strategies. Hurd also backs free markets, free trade with China, and NAFTA, along with the use of AI and automation in the workplace. On immigration, he favors mass legal migration and supports a 15-week abortion ban, gay marriage, and gun reform. Similar to Bill Kristol, Hurd is a staunch never-Trumper, branding his opponents as far-right, threats to democracy, and Russian sympathizers.
While many may disagree with his views, some of Hurd's stances are commendable. He advocates for nuclear energy as an alternative to green energy and emphasizes energy independence. His efforts to integrate AI and automation into the workforce without causing widespread job loss and unemployment appear genuine. Hurd recognizes the danger posed by Mexican cartels and suggests classifying them as terrorist organizations. Despite personal reservations about mass migration, legal or illegal, due to its impact on the labor market, cultural cohesion, crime rates, welfare systems, and brain drain in other nations, I acknowledge Hurd's transparency on the issue and its role in perpetuating liberal hegemony globally.
However, it's clear to those outside neo-conservative circles that Will Hurd's ideas, with a few exceptions, are outdated. Campaigning on a platform of youth and innovation to usher in a new American century is misguided, as these concepts have long shaped Republican policies since the Reagan era. Deregulation under Reagan, subsequent free trade agreements, and automation led to wealth concentration among a handful of corporations, outsourcing industrial jobs, deindustrialization, and a widening wealth gap. This trend, combined with heightened competition for jobs due to automation and increased migration, has alienated workers and eroded traditional workplace camaraderie. While Hurd's intention to navigate automation's impact on workers is commendable, the corporate drive for profit maximization often results in job cuts. For instance, Open AI, a company Hurd was involved with, faced legal challenges for potentially displacing artists and writers with AI-generated content. Corporations' growing influence facilitated lobbying efforts to pass laws favoring their interests, while free trade agreements and reliance on China, endorsed by Hurd, exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic's impact through trade disruptions and supply shortages, leading to issues like inflation and unemployment. Subsequent events, such as the Russo-Ukraine War, further highlighted the repercussions of US sanctions on Russian energy sources, underscoring the interconnected nature of global trade and energy markets.
The foreign wars that the United States has engaged in have not made the US or the world safer. The Middle East is now more unstable than before the War on Terror, and American hegemony has not been secured, as key allies in regions like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the UAE have become less trusting of the US and its intentions. America has faced setbacks in these wars for liberalism, such as in Afghanistan and Iraq where the Taliban regained power and Iraq moved closer to Iran's influence. The expansion of NATO has not enhanced US safety; instead, it has heightened tensions with Russia, leading to conflicts like the one with Ukraine in 2022. Sanctions on countries like Russia, Iran, Venezuela, China, and North Korea have not been effective, as these nations have found ways to bypass them through economic alliances like BRICS or self-sufficiency. These sanctions have mainly impacted civilians in those countries. Parallel institutions like BRICS were established to counter US influence and have become competitive, with sanctions driving countries to align more closely with BRICS. Looking back at American wars in the 20th century, many of these conflicts did not enhance national security. For instance, funding Sunni rebels in Afghanistan contributed to the birth of Al Qaeda. US support for dictators, security services, and rebel groups in various regions paved the way for drug cartels that now operate across borders. The Vietnam War and the bombing of Cambodia did little to benefit the US geopolitically or its citizens. In WW1, the US's actions against Germany led to economic hardship and the rise of extremist ideologies like Nazism, contributing to WW2.
These conflicts have cost thousands of American lives and trillions of taxpayer dollars that could have been spent on domestic priorities like border security, infrastructure, living standards, birth rates, healthcare, job creation, student loan debt relief, poverty reduction, crime prevention, and more. However, politicians like Hurd, the current administration, and their predecessors have prioritized tax breaks for the wealthy, deregulation, expanding surveillance powers, and foreign wars that do not benefit the average person. Elected officials who promise to address these internal issues while supporting foreign conflicts often fall short, making foreign policy the primary focus.
Hurd and his neo-conservative supporters have also misjudged the situation in other areas. Despite his progressive views on cultural issues, Hurd has overlooked the conservative shift within the Republican base on issues like gay marriage, abortion, and immigration. Conservatives seek legislation that aligns with their beliefs, rather than concessions to progressivism. Many on the right recognize that Hurd's advocacy for foreign wars aims to spread cultural progressivism and globalization, rather than prioritize American interests. Moreover, Hurd's criticism of Donald Trump, expressed at the Iowa Lincoln Dinner in July 2023, was met with hostility from the audience, derailing his election campaign. Like other neoconservatives, Hurd fails to comprehend Trump's popularity within the Republican base. Trump's appeal lies in his promises to end foreign conflicts, restore jobs, curtail mass migration, achieve economic independence, combat bureaucracy, and change America's trajectory. Although Trump may not have fulfilled all his pledges in his first term, many hold hope for his vision. In contrast, figures like Hurd, Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley represent a return to neo-liberalism, diluted conservatism, and establishment politics. Hurd epitomizes the establishment with his background in the CIA, neoconservative stance, and disdain for Trump. While Haley garnered support from business figures like Charles Koch and Reid Hoffman, Hurd's prospects remain low. Haley did not emerge as a potential nominee, Trump's significant lead indicates a desire for political change and rejection of liberal internationalism. Trump has ignited a populist revolution against the liberal system that Hurd upheld throughout his career.
The American Divide on Israel
It is no secret that America is currently the most pro-Israel country. The US has provided billions of dollars in aid to Israel and engaged in conflicts against Israeli adversaries such as Saddam's Iraq, Assad's Syria, Gaddafi's Libya, and Iran. More recently, the US has allocated billions in military assistance to Israel and opposed a recent UN proposal for a Gaza ceasefire to support Israel's offensive. Moreover, numerous lawmakers and corporate entities in the US have sought to stifle criticisms of the Zionist project and Israel's treatment of Palestinians. Unsurprisingly, the US boasts a robust Israeli lobby, notably AIPAC.
Within the ruling class, two predominant beliefs underscore the significance of Israel. One perspective emphasizes that Israel is the sole liberal nation in the Middle East and is pivotal in promoting liberalism across the region. The other viewpoint, particularly prevalent among Republicans, stems from Christian Zionism, which asserts that the modern state of Israel is a divine mandate, with the Jewish people as God's chosen ones who must be safeguarded at any cost. While it seems unlikely that US-Israel relations will shift anytime soon, there is a growing discontent surrounding Israel and US foreign policy. This dissatisfaction is not confined to the average citizen or specific political ideologies but extends to segments of the ruling class across both major political parties. Democrats and Republicans each house divergent factions concerning the Israel-Palestine issue and other foreign policy matters.
The Democratic Party and progressive factions can be categorized into two groups regarding the Israeli question. The first group, which I would refer to as the War on Terror Liberals, supports Israel. The second group consists of the Radical Progressives who advocate for Palestine. This division is reminiscent of the split between Cold War Liberals and the New Left during the Vietnam War. The War on Terror Liberals dominate the Democratic Party, with Joe Biden serving as their primary figurehead. They receive backing from mainstream media outlets such as CNN, ABC, and MSNBC, major financial institutions like Wells Fargo, Black Rock, Chase Bank, and Bank of America, as well as big tech companies like Reid Hoffman, META, Bloomberg LP, and Amazon. Additionally, the State Department, security agencies such as the CIA, NSA, FBI, and various corporate entities align with the War on Terror Liberals. As the name suggests, this faction supports the war on terror and views Israel as a crucial ally in the Middle East for promoting liberalism, countering Iran and Russia, and upholding the global liberal order. While some individuals may hold Christian Zionist beliefs, religion plays a lesser role in contemporary Democrat and progressive politics. Despite being progressive on issues like immigration and minority rights, they critique Israel's actions, such as the Gaza bombing campaign that resulted in civilian casualties. The Biden administration has even restricted visas for Israeli settlers involved in attacks on Palestinians, viewing such actions as counterproductive and detrimental to Israel's reputation globally. Similar sentiments are shared by liberal leaders like Emmanuel Macron in France and Justin Trudeau in Canada.
On the other hand, the Radical Progressives constitute the pro-Palestine faction within the Democratic Party. This group includes congresswomen like Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush, Ilhan Omar, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who, along with other Democrats, blocked aid to Israel to redirect funds to Ukraine. Members of this faction also comprise elements of the State Department, CIA, certain news media outlets, and commentary communities like Jacobin, Jimmy Dore, Democracy Now, and Bread Tube. Left-wing third parties such as the Communist Party USA, left-wing activists, NGOs like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, and some corporations like Ben & Jerry's, the Ford Foundation (which funds Democracy Now), and George and Alex Soros's Open Society Foundation are part of this faction. The Radical Progressives are more radical in their approach to progressive issues like open borders, police defunding, and transgender rights, and they diverge from the War on Terror Liberals on the Israeli question. They are generally younger and more racially diverse. While activists and third parties demonstrate genuine support for Palestine, major donors like Soros and NGOs associated with the War on Terror liberals view Israel's actions as damaging its image due to mistreatment of Palestinians and aggressive bombing campaigns. Unlike the War on Terror liberals, the Radical Progressives consider the entire Israeli project problematic, not just specific actions. However, they do not endorse Hamas or other militant groups; many, including members of Congress like the Squad, have condemned attacks by such factions. Notably, some Radical Progressives, like Ilhan Omar, support organizations like the LGBT NGO Al Qaws in Palestine, even though it faces opposition from conservative elements in Palestinian society. In Congress and among donors, support for a color revolution in Palestine exists if Hamas gains power. While these individuals are still liberal internationalists, they perceive Israel as an obstacle to this vision rather than a partner. They continue to back American military aid in conflicts such as the War in Ukraine, countering China, and advocating for regime change in Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. However, activists, third parties, Jimmy Dore, and the average voters aligned with this faction exhibit diverse opinions on these issues. Some advocate for complete American withdrawal from all conflicts. It is plausible that corporate elites like Soros and the Democratic Party aim to maintain unity within the party by supporting these individuals and their viewpoints.
The Republican Party is divided into two factions when it comes to the Israeli question: the Neo-conservatives/Zionists and the America First faction. This internal conflict mirrors the ideological struggle between Paleo and Neoconservatives from the early 1980s to the 2000s, vying for influence within the conservative movement and the Republican Party.
Historically, the Neo-conservatives and Zionists have wielded considerable power within the Republican Party. However, this dynamic began to shift with the election of former President Donald Trump in 2016, leading to increased competition within the party. Before delving into both factions, it is crucial to understand Trump's position, given his popularity among Republican voters. Trump occupies a middle ground between the two factions: while he supports Zionism and has taken actions favoring Israel, such as attacking Syria and Iran and endorsing the relocation of Israel's capital to Jerusalem in 2018, he has also advocated for troop withdrawals from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. His focus has been on addressing domestic issues like border security, outsourcing, reindustrialization, and boosting birth rates.
The Neoconservative and Zionist factions encompass mainstream news outlets like Fox News and Daily Wire, a plethora of foreign policy think tanks, and influential figures like William Kristol and the Brookings Institute, who align with both pro-Israel factions. This faction garners support from major financial firms and corporate magnates such as Charles Koch, Black Rock, Reid Hoffman, and Chase Bank. Notable politicians within this faction include Will Hurd, Mitch McConnell, Dan Crenshaw, Tom Cotton, Lindsey Graham, and Marco Rubio, with presidential candidate Nikki Haley emerging as a prominent figure. This faction espouses Christian Zionism and global liberalism, often sharing similarities with their War on Terror liberal counterparts, albeit leaning slightly more conservative and offering less criticism of Israel.
On the other hand, the America First faction comprises paleo-conservative and non-neocon publications like Chronicles, Compact Magazine, and the American Conservative, along with third parties such as the Libertarian Party and the Constitutional Party. Politicians like Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Rand Paul, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Matt Gaetz align with this faction. YouTube commentators and critics within mainstream media, including John Doyle, Mark Dice, Alex Jones, Tim Pool, Tucker Carlson, RamZy Paul, Candace Owens, Lauren Southern, Auron MacIntyre, among others, contribute to this faction. While some consider Trump as the figurehead due to his role in popularizing the movement, others argue that the right-wing technocapitalist and presidential candidate Vivek Ramasamy better embodies the group's objectives.
This faction, unlike the Radical Progressive faction, is not necessarily pro-Palestine. They tend to disapprove of Hamas for their tactics and radical Islam, as it is perceived as anti-Western. However, that does not mean there isn't sympathy for Palestinians. Articles in publications like the American Conservative and Chronicles have highlighted the suffering of Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli government, emphasizing how Israel's actions make it easier for militant groups to thrive. Some pieces have shed light on the plight of Palestinian Christians, who are dwindling in numbers due to Israeli actions such as pushing them off their land, imposing blockades around Gaza, and engaging in bombing campaigns. Former congressman Justin Amash, who is of Palestinian descent, tragically had family members killed in an Israeli airstrike on the Saint Porphyrius Orthodox Church in Gaza, illustrating the brutality of the conflict and Israel's apparent disregard for Christians. Criticisms of Israel's actions during the War on Terror, such as misinformation about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Israel's lobbying efforts in the US government, and the USS Liberty incident, have also been raised. However, this faction is primarily focused on domestic issues like border security, the fentanyl crisis, crime, living standards, cultural matters, and the economy, rather than foreign policy. They view many of the ongoing wars as promoting cultural progressivism and globalism worldwide, which they believe do not align with the interests of average Americans, a stance exemplified by the America First movement. Members of this faction, including some Republicans in Congress like Senator Lindsey Graham, have blocked military aid packages to Ukraine and Israel, advocating for redirecting funds to border security. Figures like Vivek Ramaswamy support Israel but believe that Israel should handle its own conflicts without relying on American intervention. Ramaswamy has also defended the free speech rights of pro-Palestine demonstrators on US college campuses. While there is no unified foreign policy stance, they all reject neo-conservatism, with Ramaswamy pledging not to adopt Neo-con policies if elected. Their foreign policy views range from isolationism to economic competition with China, rather than direct involvement in conflicts with Russia and Iran. They are also critical of foreign lobbying efforts. Many within the America First movement view the War on Terror and US involvement in the Russo-Ukraine conflict as mistakes, advocating for a withdrawal from the Middle East and an end to funding for both Israel and Ukraine. However, a minority within the America First factions openly support the Palestinian cause against Israel, including individuals ranging from MAGA Communists like Jackson Hinkle to RT conservatives, Ultra-Orthodox Jews like Neturei Karta organizations, some Conservatives, Third Positionists, and libertarians. These groups perceive Israel as a neoliberal proxy state that burdens American taxpayers, pushes for American involvement in wars, and does not support Christians in the Middle East. Some even endorse a one-state solution for Palestine. While this faction within a faction has gained traction, particularly online, it currently lacks significant political influence. The growth of anti-war factions on both the right and left does not signify antisemitism or illiberalism, as some in the establishment suggest. Rather, it reflects a widespread weariness among the American people, including members of the ruling class like Trump, Ramaswamy, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Elon Musk, Cardi B, and others, with the endless wars that have claimed thousands of lives and squandered billions of dollars on conflicts that do not serve the interests of Americans. The resources poured into these wars could be allocated to addressing pressing issues at home, which continue to escalate as conflicts persist. Even Conservative Protestants, who have traditionally been staunch Zionists, are increasingly skeptical, influenced by religious YouTube commentators like Redeemed Zoomer who view Christian Zionism as heretical. The aversion to foreign wars is also evident in dwindling recruitment numbers for the military, as many are fatigued by prolonged conflicts. The military, once a bastion of conservative support, has become disillusioned with goals that prioritize spreading progressivism, wokism, and globalism worldwide.
It is our job to oppose war and to stand against the liberal capitalist ruling class that exploits this great country and the world. However, we are nowhere near power as we lack organization, funding, and the numbers to enact change. Nonetheless, the growth in anti-war sentiment among the people gives me hope that this country can avoid another World War. There are two options in the next election that can work in our favor. Let me be clear that I do not believe in working within the two-party system in the long run. I still believe that Conservatives should build institutions outside the two-party system to break establishment control over the narrative.
Here are the two options:
The first option is a Trump victory with Vivek Ramaswamy and Tucker Carlson being placed in his administration. While Trump is indeed a Zionist, he is against sending money to Ukraine and has advocated for US withdrawal from Syria. With Carlson and Ramaswamy in the administration, they could potentially influence Trump's stance on Zionism and prevent Neo-cons from dominating his administration, as seen in his previous term. This could effectively end or at least minimize US involvement in the Middle East and the Israel-Palestine conflict, hopefully avoiding or delaying a third world war.
The second option is Joe Biden winning again due to Trump being incarcerated or prevented from running due to the J6 protests, with neo-cons regaining control of the party. While this may seem contradictory to the first option, it could present opportunities if played strategically. If Trump is imprisoned and the Biden administration continues as usual, with Republicans supporting him on foreign policy. The voter base of both parties would become more disenfranchised under these circumstances, as conditions in the US worsen or remain unresolved. This could pave the way for a mass movement that transcends traditional left-right divides, sparking widespread protests against the US government and segments of the ruling class.
This movement could unite on five basic principles:
The end of US involvement in all foreign conflicts, with US troops withdrawing from all countries and exiting NATO.
The end of free trade, bringing jobs and industries back to the US, and prioritizing economic self-sufficiency over global conflicts or organizations like the UN.
The abolition or defunding of the FBI, CIA, NSA, and ATF, with agents who committed crimes like murder and torture against political dissidents being arrested and charged. Additionally, the release of all political dissidents who have not caused harm.
The end of the two-party rule in favor of a multi-party system, disbanding both the Republican and Democrat parties and their media establishments.
The breakup of all corporate monopolies to allow small businesses and cooperatives to compete, creating a fairer market where the average person can achieve the American dream.
While this may not be the ultimate goal of Conservatives, which is the establishment of a Conservative state, we are currently not in a position to achieve this. However, by dismantling the two-party system, corporate dominance, and the security state, and ending US involvement in foreign conflicts, we could have a chance to gain power as the monopoly and establishment control over the narrative would be weakened. Even achieving just one of these goals, particularly points 1 or 3, would be a significant success and could bring rapid positive change to the US, hopefully preventing World War 3.
The Odd Position of Qatar
Out of all the countries involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict and other conflicts in the Middle East over the last two decades, none has played all sides or been as pragmatic as the small country of Qatar. Qatar is a small autocratic country in the Middle East that has played a crucial role in the War on Terror and the current conflict between Israel and Hamas. On one hand, Qatar maintains strong ties with the US and helped fund rebels in Libya and Syria to overthrow the anti-Zionist Assad and Gaddafi governments. Qatar is one of the few Arab countries that have not normalized relations with Assad's Syria. The Qatari government has also spent millions of dollars funding neoconservative institutions like the Brookings Institution, leading to the resignation of the Institute's former president, John Allen, due to a federal investigation into illegal lobbying for Qatar. Even American politicians like Democrat Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey have been accused and charged with taking bribes from Qatar. Qatar also conducts significant lobbying in the EU, with four politicians being charged with illegal lobbying for Qatar, including former vice president of parliament, Eva Kaili.
On the other hand, Qatar has provided shelter to the Hamas leadership and the Taliban during the War in Afghanistan. The Qatar-backed state-funded news media, Al-Jazeera, exposed US mistreatment of civilians and suspected terrorists during the War in Iraq in 2003. Qatar supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, an ally of Hamas, and opposed a US and Saudi-backed coup in the country in 2014. Despite sometimes having different geopolitical goals than Iran and Russia, Qatar has maintained positive relations with both nations. Iran supported Qatar during the Saudi-Qatar diplomatic crisis, where Saudi Arabia accused Qatar of backing terrorism. Qatar has not joined US sanctions on Russia for the Russo-Ukraine War.
Some may find Qatar's actions odd, but there is a pragmatic reason for this approach - to maintain good relations with major powers while advancing its own interests. Qatar's support for Palestine is likely sincere, given their Arab and Muslim ties. By engaging with all sides, Qatar may occasionally upset the US, Iran, or Russia, but they make up for it in other areas. In this respect, Qatar is similar to its ally Turkey. While I respect Qatar's pragmatism in geopolitics, I am concerned about how they lobby the US and EU, especially funding neoconservative institutes like Brookings, to prevent regime change in Qatar or allied countries. I believe all foreign lobbying, whether governmental or private, should be banned or severely restricted, with the interests and well-being of the American people taking priority.
A realistic foreign policy for America in the Israel-Palestine conflict and the Middle East would involve promoting peace, diplomacy, and stability in the region. This could include supporting negotiations for a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine, encouraging dialogue between conflicting parties, and addressing root causes of conflict such as poverty, inequality, and political instability. By prioritizing diplomacy and cooperation over military intervention, the US could help build a more peaceful and prosperous Middle East for all its inhabitants.
What would a realistic American foreign policy be for the Israel-Palestine Conflict and the Middle East? For starters, the US should dismantle and ban all foreign lobbyists, whether they are from Israel, Qatar, or elsewhere, so that the US can see more clearly. Secondly, the US should strive to be energy self-sufficient and not rely on countries thousands of miles away for oil or other forms of energy. If the US cannot achieve this independently, it should first seek energy sources from neighboring countries before turning to those located thousands of miles away. This approach would ensure a more rapid and secure energy supply, minimizing the impact of shortages over extended periods.
Regarding Israel and Palestine, it is evident that both the Israeli government and Hamas, as well as other Palestinian militant factions, do not prioritize the well-being of civilians, as seen in the recent attacks and bombings. The US, being a liberal order, should refrain from supporting either side to uphold its principles of freedom, equality, and liberty and avoid further damaging its global reputation. Instead, the US should strive to facilitate moderation and dialogue between both parties, encouraging them to come to the negotiation table and acknowledge each other's independence and borders. If these efforts prove futile, the US should consider a complete withdrawal from the Middle East and allow the conflicting parties to resolve their issues independently. Following the resolution, the US could re-engage after a period of 20 years, when the conflict has faded from memory, and normalize relations with the prevailing power.
During this 20-year period, the US should focus on internal priorities such as reindustrialization, infrastructure improvement, border security, increasing birth rates, healthcare system enhancements, and addressing other domestic challenges instead of engaging in foreign wars. This strategic shift would allow the US to strengthen its internal foundations and better serve the interests of its citizens before re-engaging with global affairs.
What If Israel Collapses?
I doubt that the state of Israel will collapse in this conflict. While they may lose, collapse seems unlikely without significant factors such as the US abandoning Israel, complete isolation from the rest of the world, internal conflict, and other major events. However, considering the question of what would happen if Gaza falls, it is worth exploring the scenario of Israel falling. In both cases, the liberal American order would face challenges.
If Israel were to fall, the Palestinian state would likely be automatically recognized by most, if not all, Arab and Muslim countries. This would be followed by recognition from many African, Latin American, and Asian nations, with European and North American recognition possibly taking years to decades. Israel has been a proxy state heavily supported by the US, and its collapse would represent a significant defeat for the liberal order, as Israel was the only liberal country in the Middle East. The US would likely respond by imposing sanctions on Palestine and possibly funding rebel groups within the country. However, these efforts may not be successful, as many Arab and Muslim nations would likely support Palestine. The potential for conflict between secular socialist nationalists and Islamist nationalist factions within Palestine could arise, but reconciliation and compromise may also be possible after years of war and shared experiences.
In the event of Israel's collapse, there would likely be a return of Palestinians who had been living in other countries, as well as a mass exodus of Jews from the region fearing persecution. This could lead to another significant refugee crisis, with many Jews seeking refuge in Europe and the US.
There are two potential responses from the liberal order and the US beyond sanctions. It is important to note that the US has a significant Zionist lobby, such as AIPAC, and many in the political establishment are Zionists. There may be calls from Zionists, corporate media, and weapons manufacturers for military intervention in Palestine and potentially Iran, given Iran's support for Palestinian militants. This invasion could aim to re-establish Israel and weaken Iran. However, there are also voices within the establishment and among the American public who may advocate for the withdrawal of remaining forces from the Middle East, accepting defeat and recognizing the failure of the War on Terror.
If the Zionist faction gets its way, it will lead to an invasion of Palestine and Iran, igniting a regional conflict that would result in the deaths of thousands to millions of Arabs and Muslims. Additionally, it would lead to casualties among US troops and civilians, costing trillions of dollars. There is also the possibility of sparking a war with Russia, as it is an ally of Iran, potentially triggering World War III. If this war follows the patterns of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, where local militants engaged in guerrilla warfare or 4th generation warfare, the US would become entangled and eventually withdraw, leaving behind a tarnished reputation in the region and beyond. The US would be perceived as weaker than before, prompting countries to reconsider their alliances and become more independent from the US. This could lead to internal unrest in the US as domestic issues worsen due to the diversion of government funding towards war rather than addressing internal challenges.
On the other hand, if the US chooses to withdraw, it would still signify a defeat, but the US could preserve its global reputation and eventually normalize relations with the Middle East and Iran as time passes after the conflicts. During this period, the US could focus on resolving internal issues or directing more attention towards countering Russia or China if strategic decisions are made effectively. Embracing the defeat could provide the US with an opportunity for reflection and reevaluation of its foreign policy moving forward. This could mark the end of the Neoliberal era of foreign policy and pave the way for a more peaceful age of compromise and pragmatism. While this perspective may not be definitive, it presents a possible scenario in the event of an Israeli collapse.
Russia, China, and India on The Israel-Palestine War
There has been a lot of speculation on what the opinions of other major powers like Russia, China, and India are on the recent war in Gaza. Some, like former American UN ambassador Nikki Haley, believe Hamas initially attacked Israel on Putin’s birthday for his benefit, even though the day also marks the end of the 50th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War. Hamas’s reasoning has nothing to do with Putin or Russia, despite having better relations with Russia than the US. Some Neocon types would argue that Russia and China’s BRICS economic union is not only an anti-American group but also an anti-Israeli group, but a basic look into both of these claims easily disproves them.
Russia and China have condemned both sides in the Israel-Hamas conflict for violence. Instead of sanctioning or encouraging war, they have called for all sides to return to negotiations. In the case of India, it backed Israel in the conflict due to the Indian government also having trouble with Islamic militants and seeing their struggles as similar. Russia, China, and India supported a UN-backed resolution calling for a ceasefire, while the US rejected it. Russia and China are seeking a compromise in this conflict to satisfy both sides, not to prolong it like the US. However, if Israel collapses, I doubt Russia or China will complain much, as they are allied with Syria and Iran, with Israel constantly attacking both countries and, by default, Russian and Chinese interests. It can’t be ignored that Russia has said that Israel needs to return the Golan Heights to Syria and respect Palestinian territory, with China making similar claims.
Some will call India’s recent statements on the conflict a betrayal of the original pro-Palestine position of the country, but I think it shows multipolarity working. What do I mean by this? Having multiple centers of power made up of different civilizations and interests shows that a multipolar system is working as it should. While a unipolar world leads everyone off a cliff by going in one direction, in a multipolar world, great powers will not always see eye to eye on issues but can still maintain good relations with all, as India has done with Russia, China, Iran, and the US.
The other Global Conservative Revolt Against Liberal Hegemony
To conservatives everywhere, it has been well established that the US is the world promoter of progressivism and destroyer of traditional customs and values. It promotes the LGBT agenda, mass migration, abortion, feminism, consumerism, capitalism, and globalization throughout the world. Naturally, many countries like Russia, Hungary, Iran, China, and others have counteracted this by cracking down on NGOs and groups in their own countries who have advocated for these things. Instead, they have promoted their own traditional cultures like Russian Orthodoxy in Russia, Roman Catholicism in Hungary, Shia Islam in Iran, and Confucianism in China, as well as restricting abortion and promoting the traditional family.
No doubt all these countries to some extent export their ideas outside their borders, like Iran in Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria through Shia militias and parties, Russia through the Orthodox Church and political parties throughout Europe ranging from right-wing populists to conservative communists and social democrats, China through its Confucius schools, and Hungary’s Viktor Orban also calling for a unity of conservatives around the world against liberalism. While all of this is needed to combat the liberal order, more is required. It cannot just be confrontation on the political scene but also in culture. The US spreads cultural progressivism not just through NGOs and activist groups but also in movies, art, literature, social media, etc. The conservative world needs to build up its own cultural industry to combat liberal hegemony because right now that is the most successful way the US influences people in other countries and helps to build color revolutions in those countries. To think US media doesn’t have a thematic message or that progressive art isn’t backed by the US government or corporate class, as it was during the Cold War, is dead wrong.
Conservative countries and individuals need to support a counter-liberal culture if they want to defeat the liberal order and establish a more socially conservative and multipolar world. This culture must also be exported across the globe to counteract the liberal cultural industry. Even if a multipolar world is established and the US is defeated, it will be for nothing if liberal cultural hegemony still infects many parts of the world, as it does with some BRICS members like Brazil and South Africa, with the process starting all over again. Social conservatives and other illiberal forces (fascism, monarchism, and communism) must unite to combat a globalist liberal order, not just through political means but also through art, culture, parallel institutions, and much more. An alliance, even though it may be brief, needs to be established between traditional Christians, Muslims, non-Zionist Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and others, as well as a global alliance between conservative forces, with differences being put aside for the time being.
Some conservatives and nationalists, like conservative commentator Auron MacIntyre, have discussed the divide within the liberal ruling class on the issue of Israel and Palestine. The Biden faction, dubbed War on Terror Liberals, are seen as pro-Zionist, while radical progressives like Congresswoman AOC and Ilhan Omar are pro-Palestine. This division has become significant within the Democratic Party and the liberal population, believed to be impacting Biden's polling numbers for the upcoming Presidential election as many are unhappy with his support for or perceived lack of action regarding Israel. This has also created a rift among conservatives, with some notable pro-Zionists or neo-cons using the radical progressives as a justification to support Israel and claim that Israel is under threat from the liberal order. Despite Biden providing billions of dollars in aid to the country and supporting every Middle Eastern war the US has engaged in, which has benefited Israel. Additionally, groups like the ADL write critical articles about conservatives and nationalist dissenters of the liberal order, yet defend Israeli expansionism and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
The claim that neo-conservatives are not as much a part of the establishment as Biden or radical progressives is not made in good faith. Naturally, some may be concerned about aligning with radical progressives, as Anti-War Paleo Libertarian activist Dave Smith has pointed out. However, for any change to occur, there needs to be factions from both the left and right fighting to end aid for Israel and stop the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. If there is opposition from both sides, the pro-Israel establishment will eventually yield.
There is another reason why we should support progressive liberals who support both sides of the conflict. Not because it divides them, but because whichever side they support will ultimately harm their cause, effectively undermining themselves and their movement in the Middle East. Biden's funding of Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank, and blocking a ceasefire proposal at the United Nations, has resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. This demonstrates that the liberal establishment does not truly care about so-called "universal human rights" and how they use this concept to advance their narrative, breaking their own rules when it suits the liberal order. It also highlights how historical events like the Holocaust are used to justify Israel's actions towards Palestinians, with any criticism of Israel or Zionism often labelled as antisemitic. This dilutes these narratives and accusations as both the left and right are affected by them, while Israel continues to commit ethnic cleansing. It also exposes the hypocrisy of the liberal order, allowing Israel to participate in events like the Olympics and Eurovision, while Russia is excluded due to the conflict in Ukraine, despite Israel causing more civilian deaths in two months than Russia has in almost two years of fighting. Furthermore, Israeli officials have made nuclear threats towards Gaza, which Russia has not done towards Ukraine.
On the other hand, the radical progressives who support Palestine are also not benefiting their cause. Despite Israel's flaws, it is the only liberal democracy in the region that is tolerant of the LGBT community and promotes other progressive values. Israel's presence in the region could potentially help spread liberalism and progressivism in the long run. If Israel were to collapse, the region may not become a progressive liberal utopia but potentially a theocratic state like Iran or a Pan-Arab nationalist state like Assad's Syria, neither of which are liberal or progressive in the Western sense. These states would likely crack down on progressive NGOs, hindering any chance radical progressives had of spreading their ideas in the region. Additionally, a victory for Palestine could result in the expulsion of Israelis from the country, contradicting the narrative that radical progressives are against racism. If Israel were to be destroyed, it would weaken the liberal order and make the fight against liberalism and social progressivism closer to home.
Israel and Hamas are engaged in a life-or-death struggle where only one will prevail. If both sides genuinely desired peace, the situation could have been different, but each knew that ultimately only one could endure. They have inflicted too much harm on each other, in terms of land and lives, for forgiveness to be feasible. The progressive liberals on both sides of the conflict are not helping themselves, as their actions reveal their hypocrisy and self-destructive tendencies, failing to realize that regardless of the outcome, both are heading towards disaster. In contrast, non-interventionist conservatives and nationalists are wise in advocating that America should not interfere and should allow Israel, Palestine, and other regional powers in the Middle East to resolve their issues independently. There is no justification for the US to further involve itself or expend American lives and resources when those funds could be utilized to address domestic issues.
The New Cold War
A new Cold War has emerged, with Russia and China representing the illiberal, traditional, and multipolar world, while the United States embodies the neo-liberal, progressive, and unipolar world that has dominated since the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the previous Cold War. Similar to the prior Cold War, this conflict revolves around a clash of ideas, economies, cultures, and ways of life. Just as in past Cold Wars, there are races such as the space race, the arms race, and the competition for new technologies. However, in this new era, there is a crucial race that was absent in the last Cold War - the race to address a pressing societal issue that many major societies are currently grappling with: the declining birth rate.
Nearly every participant in this New Cold War, including China, America, Russia, the EU, Iran, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Turkey, and others, has experienced a decrease in birth rates, with many falling below replacement levels. Countries like Russia, China, Iran, Hungary, Turkey, and North Korea have taken steps to boost birth rates. In contrast, America and most of the EU, aside from Poland and Hungary, are more focused on protecting abortion rights. However, some individuals within the American elite, such as businessmen and presidential candidates like Donald Trump, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, and businessman and presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, are actively sounding the alarm on the below replacement birth rate and the societal consequences it may bring.
There are various factors contributing to low birth rates, sparking debates on their primary causes. These factors include high abortion rates, delayed marriage among women, declining marriage rates overall, women entering the workforce, high living costs, economic downturns, a culture of overwork, evolving sexual norms, birth control, gender and political divisions, and a growing societal trend towards choosing not to have children. Each of these elements, to varying degrees, contributes to a decline in birth rates or, at the very least, none of these factors have served to boost birth rates.
Low birth rates have significant economic and social implications, particularly in the long term. One major economic consequence is the labor force shortage, which can lead to economic contraction or reduced growth, as well as decreased productivity. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas:
"Lower birth rates are linked to slower economic growth and an aging population, resulting in sluggish economic expansion. Economic growth relies on increasing labor (the number of workers/hours worked) or enhancing productivity."
Without a sufficient workforce, productivity will suffer as well. In the short term, a smaller workforce will also strain social security, especially with the impending mass retirement of baby boomers, a trend accelerated by the Covid pandemic. With a smaller workforce contributing to payroll taxes, social security may struggle to support the aging population unless taxes are raised, which could potentially lead to social instability. Moreover, the government will likely need to raise taxes across the board due to reduced revenue resulting from fewer individuals paying taxes, impacting government projects. Additionally, low birth rates will lead to a smaller military force, making it more challenging to defend a large country as the military becomes stretched thin.
On the social front, low birth rates result in smaller families. According to the United States Congress Joint Economic Committee:
“Reduced fertility rates mean fewer siblings for children or no siblings at all. Sibling relationships often provide long-term stability and support to individuals."
Strong sibling relationships foster better interpersonal skills and self-control. Siblings who share strong bonds are more inclined to support each other in times of need, fostering family and community cohesion. Elderly individuals with fewer or no siblings may face challenges, as those living with adult children typically experience better mental and physical health outcomes compared to elderly adults living alone. A society with diminished family sizes and fewer connections may lead to increased social isolation and loneliness, contributing to rising rates of depression, suicide, and mental illness, which can impact the economy. Countries with higher birth rates are likely to have larger economies, stronger military forces, greater cultural cohesion, and enhanced long-term resilience compared to those with below-replacement birth rates.
There are numerous indications of a growing race to increase birth rates, suggesting that the competition may already be underway. Countries such as Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Hungary, South Korea, and America have either imposed restrictions on abortion or introduced policies aimed at encouraging more children. The Great Recession of 2008 saw a global decline in birth rates, from which some places like the United States have yet to recover. A pivotal moment signaling the onset of this race was China's shift away from its anti-natalist one-child policy in favor of promoting larger families. Hungary, for instance, introduced family incentives like tax breaks for parents and affordable housing in the early to mid-2010s. In recent years, this trend has accelerated, with nations such as Iran, Russia, Poland, China, America, and North Korea either imposing restrictions on abortion or exploring measures to boost birth rates, including incentives similar to those in Hungary. Over the past two months, prominent leaders like Russia's Vladimir Putin, China's Xi Jinping, and North Korea's Kim Jong Un have delivered speeches urging an increase in birth rates, with Kim Jong Un delivering an especially poignant address on the matter. Notable figures such as Donald Trump, Ali Khamenei, Viktor Orban, Elon Musk, Pope Francis, Giorgia Meloni, Nicolás Maduro, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and others have also emphasized the importance of raising birth rates in speeches or statements made months or years earlier.
Successes and setbacks in this endeavor have been observed thus far. Before Hungary implemented tax breaks and affordable housing initiatives for married couples to have children, the country's birth rate increased from 1.32 in 2009 to 1.56 in 2020. In Russia, the introduction of maternity benefits, payments, and vouchers worth over $10,000 for a second child led to a rise in the birth rate from 1.30 in 2006 to 1.42 in 2007, reaching a peak of 1.78 in 2015, albeit still higher than countries like Ukraine, Poland, and Belarus. Following the abolition of China's one-child policy and the introduction of benefits for having children, there was a slight increase in the birth rate in 2016. Most recently, in Texas, after the state banned abortions, there was a 3% increase in births one year later.
While incentives and abortion restrictions in various countries may have slowed the decline in birth rates, many nations have not yet succeeded in halting this downward trend. Several places, including Russia and Hungary, experienced renewed drops in birth rates due to the economic upheaval resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Various factors, such as sanctions impacting economies in countries like Iran, Russia, and North Korea, contribute to declining birth rates. Economic decline can deter married couples from having children if they cannot afford them, but conversely, economic growth does not guarantee increased birth rates, as demonstrated by countries like Japan and South Korea, which have lower birth rates despite their economic prosperity compared to North Korea, Russia, and Iran. Additionally, developed nations like the US, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France, with more lenient abortion laws and fewer cultural incentives for childbearing, are also experiencing declining birth rates. Even countries like China and Poland, which offer incentives for having children and are economically prosperous, struggle to boost birth rates above replacement levels at 2-1.
Decreasing birth rates are not solely attributed to economic decline but are also influenced by cultural factors. Secular and liberal individuals may delay or opt not to have children to focus on their careers or due to a lack of desire for parental responsibilities. In progressive circles, some feminists view marriage and childbearing as oppressive and believe overpopulation is a concern. In contrast, religious and conservative individuals tend to have more children, as religious doctrines and socially conservative or patriotic beliefs encourage marriage and child-rearing as duties to their faith or country. This trend is evident in both developed and developing nations. For example, in 2020, Israel, a developed country, had a birth rate of 2.90, the highest in the developed world, while Palestine, a developing nation, had a birth rate of 3.57. Despite declines in both places, their birth rates remain relatively high. In many developed countries, the decline in religious and social conservatism among the general populace poses a challenge. However, leaders like Viktor Orban in Hungary and Vladimir Putin in Russia recognize the importance of religion and patriotism. Orban successfully implemented this approach through initiatives, while Putin emphasized this perspective in his speech to the World Russian People's Council.
“All levels of government, our economic, social, and infrastructure policies, education and awareness-raising, and healthcare should be engaged without exception in the work of supporting families, mothers and children. All public organizations and our traditional religions should focus on strengthening families as well. Preserving and increasing the population of Russia is our goal for the coming decades and even generations ahead. This is the future of the Russian world, the millennium-old, eternal Russia.”
To Putin and Orban, economic incentives are not enough; cultural and religious incentives are also crucial. Both governments seek more cooperation with churches for these tasks and other social issues.
It cannot be ignored that many countries like Russia and China, who are now trying to increase birth rates, not too long ago had or still have high divorce and abortion rates, with China's infamous one-child policy being the most notorious example. So, even with laws that restrict divorce and abortion, it will take time to reverse these trends, especially culturally. However, with increasing media and cultural values that are religious or patriotic, along with economic incentives, this trend could be reversed, especially if the focus remains on increasing birth rates in the long run. We can already see this to some extent, as abortions in Russia decreased from 2 million in 2000 to a million in 2013 and to 400,000 in 2021.
The US birth rate has fallen by 23 percent since 2007, with a slight reversal last year, possibly due to the abortion ban in some states and the Biden administration's 2021 signing of a Child Tax Credit for people who have children above the age of 6 and under the age of 18. There is no doubt that some within the government, such as the sources I listed, and the larger ruling class see decreasing birth rates as a problem. While some call for more benefits for families, it seems that most of the ruling class, especially dominant progressive liberal elements, put most of their faith in immigration to maintain population growth, as they have since the 1960s. Liberals also rely on automation and AI and are reluctant to compromise on or limit abortion, which clearly lowers birth rates or fails to provide sufficient economic incentives for people to have more children. This is not to mention their discouragement of traditional religious morality or the encouragement of non-heterosexual norms in society, which do not help increase birth rates either. The liberals or Democrats put too much hope in immigration and automation and are unwilling to compromise on issues such as abortion. While immigration and automation may provide short-term fixes, many places the US gets immigrants from, like Latin America and India, are already experiencing decreasing birth rates. Even in places like Africa, which still have high birth rates, they will eventually decline. If these countries continue to develop or become prosperous, this will decrease immigration from these regions. If America continues to decline, especially if it enters a rapid decline, it will deter immigrants from coming, and many immigrants already in the country may leave for elsewhere. Automation and AI, while making production faster, still require people to fix them, improve them, and come up with new ideas. Fewer people mean fewer innovators, as machines and AI cannot think on their own. Nor is automation or AI advanced enough to replace the majority of jobs that people do, or at least it is very expensive. This highlights the problem of modern American liberalism, which believes in unlimited growth, progress, technology, immigration, and individual freedom, leading to the belief that these solutions are long-term when they are at best short-term or at worst exacerbate the problem. It could also be argued that some in the liberal ruling class, such as David Rockefeller, Bill Gates, and climate alarmists, still believe in the post-World War 2 narrative of the world being overpopulated and having too many children. Yet, a look at birth rates in most countries shows the opposite, and it should be clear that this theory was proven wrong when China reversed its one-child policy. Part of me thinks the overpopulation theory was a ploy by rich capitalists to emphasize work and consumption over having a family, without considering the long-term consequences. Republicans aren't much better; while some, like Trump or Ramaswamy, may speak on natalism and a pro-natalist bill might surface here or there, it is often incomplete, with the focus stopping at abortion bans or restrictions without additional incentives, eventually leading to restrictions being lifted in many states. In the long term, economic growth requires stable traditional families, which are a foundational block of society. To some extent, government laws, the economy, and culture should be used to benefit and promote this way of life. Call it communitarianism, familism, or family rights, but freedom should be secondary to family, nation, and duty, not the other way around. Most Western countries, like Canada, France, and Britain, find themselves in a similar or arguably worse position. If the US and the rest of the West want to have a chance in this new Cold War or to remain a superpower in this emerging multipolar world, the birth rate race needs to be taken seriously. Otherwise, America may cease to be a major power before this century ends.
Hezbollah More Than Just a Paramilitary Organization
Hezbollah, or the Party of God, formed during the height of the Lebanon Civil War and the Israeli invasion of the country in 1985, albeit some would argue it existed way before under different names. The group split from the Shia Amal movement and received its training and support from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC), which played a pivotal role in fighting against Israel and their Lebanese allies like the Phalange and South Lebanon Army. Together with Amal, PFLP-GC, and a coalition of groups that made up the Lebanese National Resistance Front or Jammoul, through guerrilla warfare successfully defeated Israeli forces in 2000, with the Israeli military withdrawing and the South Lebanon Army collapsing shortly afterward. Making Hezbollah one of the few groups to claim victory over Israel in a war. Hezbollah would not just beat Israel once but twice when Israel launched its second invasion of Lebanon in 2006 in hopes of removing Hezbollah from the border but failed again and left after a month of fighting. While some say the war was inconclusive, many in the Israeli government at the time considered it a defeat, with Hezbollah being praised throughout Lebanon and the Arab World. Hezbollah has played an important role in the Syrian and Iraqi Civil War from the 2010s to the present day, helping to defeat ISIS and has been a thorn in the side of US troops in the region. Currently, Hezbollah is playing a major role in the recent Israel-Hamas War of 2023 by attacking Israel from the north and helping wage a two-front war with the help of Amal, SSNP, and some Palestinian militant groups based in Lebanon.
Hezbollah, as a non-government military force, has a very successful track record, arguably being one of the best non-government military forces in the modern world. However, there is a lot more to Hezbollah than its military wing. It is a religious organization, a political party in a major party coalition, the March 8th Alliance, and an economic force in Lebanon by owning its own banks, grocery stores, hospitals, schools, news media, and social services that help its members and their allies, based on Islamic principles. Hezbollah is bigger than just a group in Lebanon; it's a way of life. Jihad to Hezbollah is not just a militant struggle against the enemies of Shia Islam; it's also a personal struggle against sin that goes throughout an individual's entire life. Hezbollah is not just a successful example of a non-government military group but a successful party, a successful builder of political coalitions, and parallel institutions.
The official government in Lebanon, ever since the Civil War, has been extremely weak, with Hezbollah and its allies doing most of the fighting against Israel in both wars and fighting Sunni extremists from Syria when they try to infiltrate the country. Lebanon is also extremely weak due to war and sanctions from the US and allies who are trying to dismantle Hezbollah's influence in the country. The country is also very religiously diverse, with Sunni, Maronite Christians, Greek/Armenian Orthodox Christians, Shia, and Druze all making Lebanon their home, with sectarian tensions still being present. During the early days, Hezbollah was solely a religiously motivated militant group and oftentimes got into sectarian fights with its predecessor Amal and others, as many groups on all sides did at this time. However, as the organization matured, they realized they could not exist just as a militant group, and they would have to be more pragmatic if they wanted to rule Lebanon. During the Civil War, the group was for a Shia theocracy due to years of a Maronite-dominated government that did not represent Shia interests, who were largely poor in the country. But they realized that ethnic religious sectarianism was what caused the Civil War. If they wanted to defeat Israel and stabilize Lebanon, they would have been willing to break bread with others but at the same time keep to their religious faith and principles. Even as early as 1985, Hezbollah's earliest statement of objectives was to:
"Subject the Phalanges to a just power and bring them to justice for what they committed against Muslims and Christians."
Hezbollah fought against their predecessor group, Amal, after they split from them during the Wars of Camps and Brothers over differences on the Palestinian Liberation Organization question. Hezbollah took a pro-PLO position and a more religious stance, while Amal was anti-PLO and took a more secular approach. However, both groups made peace by 1990 to unite against Israel. They extended an olive branch to secular groups like SSNP, Baath parties, the Communist Party, and various Nasserist organizations to combat Israel. Hezbollah realized the benefits of coalition-building when they successfully defeated Israel in 2000 after the Civil War concluded in 1990 and the Israel War in 2000. Hezbollah understood that this coalition-building strategy would also need to apply to electoral politics. To maintain its support base, Hezbollah had to identify the needs of its Shia supporters.
In 2005, Hezbollah helped form the March 8th alliance, a coalition of left and right, Christian, Muslim, and Druze parties with the goal of maintaining a pro-Syrian/Arab position, anti-Zionism, economic independence from the West, socially conservative religious unity on social issues, and hopes of uniting religions in the country. Parties in the March 8th alliance include the Amal Movement, Marada Movement, Free Patriotic Movement, Syrian Social Nationalist Party, various Pan-Arab groups, and others. Despite having been adversaries during the Civil War, common interests brought these groups together. With Iran's assistance, Hezbollah expanded into the social services sector as the Lebanese government lacked the resources to support the population. Hezbollah provides medical care, infrastructure maintenance, new media outlets, places of worship, schools, food, and other necessities. It creates job opportunities through its banking, educational, and agricultural sectors and educates its members on their faith and political objectives. Initially, these services were exclusive to Muslim members of Hezbollah, but after the Mar Mikhael Agreement between Hezbollah and the Christian Free Patriotic Movement in 2006, Hezbollah began offering social services to allied Christians. These services have helped maintain Hezbollah's support throughout its electoral history, even during challenging economic times such as in 2019, as Hezbollah and its allies remain a significant force in the country today.
I bring up these points not to endorse Hezbollah as an organization that can do no wrong. Undoubtedly, they have many flaws and issues. However, Hezbollah serves as a clear example that it is possible to build a coalition with different ideological and religious sects, find common ground, and sustain it for many years while adhering to your principles. It is also possible to establish parallel institutions that can coexist with the state, assist your support base, and expand your influence. Hezbollah is not the only organization employing this strategy. Hamas follows a similar approach in political coalition-building and providing social services. Non-militant fascist organizations like Causapound in Italy also offer social services, as did the Italian Communist Party before them. Even the Founding Fathers, to some extent, had a similar approach before and during the American Revolution.
Excluding the militant aspect, I do not believe violent revolution is feasible or desirable in the US. I unequivocally condemn discussions of violent insurgency or Civil War rhetoric. However, I do believe that American Conservatives should study Hezbollah's parallel institutions as a means to combat liberal hegemony in this country. Establishing institutions that cater to people's basic needs and influence culture will play a crucial role in shaping public opinion, especially as liberal dominance diminishes and economic challenges worsen. I suggest that these institutions be established well before an official party is formed. The entity that establishes the most successful parallel institutions first will shape the future culture and government of America.
Illegal Immigration Was The Cause of The Hamas-Israel War
The recent war in Israel and Palestine has furthered the debate in the US regarding illegal immigration and weak border security. Tennessee Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn released a statement on her government webpage discussing this issue. She drew parallels between the Hamas attack on October 7th and a Customs and Border Protection encounter where 169 terrorists were intercepted at the border while attempting to enter the country. Senator Blackburn expressed concerns about Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad potentially infiltrating the border to carry out attacks within the states.
The final paragraph reads:
“We must secure our country before it is too late. Israel – which arguably has the most prestigious intelligence apparatus in the world – did not see the October 7th invasion coming. Yet we’ve had three years to see what’s coming, and the administration has done nothing to stop it. We also have to examine the threat posed by foreign nationals in our country who may seek to do the Jewish community harm. To ensure the U.S. does not experience an atrocity akin to what took place in Israel, the Biden administration must reverse their disastrous immigration policies and take seriously the threat posed by anti-Israel extremists already here.”
While I agree that the border should be secured to halt illegal immigration, her arguments are extremely weak. While a high number of terrorists is concerning, the biggest security threat from Mexico is the cartels. Cartels are far larger and more militarily capable than any terrorist cell at the borders. Many of these groups possess military-grade weapons, with many members being former soldiers of the Mexican military, including special forces. They have armored vehicles, rocket launchers, tanks, submarines, IEDs, and more. Many of these groups are already present on the US side of the border, with numerous members crossing the Mexican border, both illegally and legally, more frequently than any foreign terrorist. Additionally, billions of drugs pass through the border regularly, causing the deaths of thousands of Americans each year. Senator Blackburn, at least in this post, seems to be solely concerned about the Jewish community in America, rather than all Americans who are economically and territorially displaced by mass migration, leading to many cities being overrun by criminals, some of whom have connections to Mexican cartels and other foreign crime syndicates.
It is no surprise that Senator Blackburn is a Zionist who supports sending military aid to Israel, like most US politicians. However, she was correct to mention the Israel-Hamas War as a way to address the issues of illegal immigration and weak borders, although not for the reasons she highlighted. Surprisingly, illegal immigration is one of the factors behind why Palestinian militants continue to attack Israel. I am referring to the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. These Israelis, with the assistance of the Israeli government, unlawfully enter the West Bank (which is under Palestinian Authority control), establish towns, and expel or even harm the local Palestinian population in the process, destroying their homes, businesses, and places of worship. The Israelis attempted a similar approach in Gaza before being ousted by Hamas and other militants during the Second Intifada, leading to the Israeli government initiating the Gaza disengagement plan shortly after. It could be argued that Hamas and other militant groups would not have gained as much popularity in Palestine today if the Israeli government had ceased its settlement activities. At one point, Hamas was even willing to accept the 1967 borders. However, achieving this goal becomes more challenging as many within the Israeli government resist relinquishing the one-state solution. The recent conflict serves as evidence of the repercussions of illegal immigration and is arguably one of the worst outcomes of illegal immigration, resulting in war.
The Constitution and The US Strikes on Yemen’s Houthi Rebels
I cannot say I’m surprised that the US and the UK finally decided to attack the Houthi Rebels after weeks of attacks on Israeli-owned ships and their allies in hopes of pressuring Israel to halt its war on Gaza. Despite the US-led coalition to counter the Houthi assaults mainly comprising the US and the UK, with other members sending only a few individuals, many coalition members like France, Italy, and Spain withdrew from the coalition before any significant action was taken. While this marks the first airstrike or attack on Yemen by the United States, it is not the initial involvement in the recent Middle East conflict, as the US has previously targeted Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and Syria. Thus far, these actions have not led to de-escalation as the US had hoped; instead, they have escalated the conflict, with Iraqi militias continuing to target US bases and the Houthis vowing to persist in attacking Israeli and US ships as long as the Gaza War continues.
Despite some praise for the Biden administration from the mainstream media and other establishment organizations, the American public and members of Congress from both parties were deeply displeased with this attack, viewing it as dragging America into another war. The lack of information or the opportunity to vote on the matter was seen as a direct violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. This is not the first instance of such actions; the Biden administration did not consult Congress before striking Syria or Iraq in recent months. Similarly, Trump did not seek Congressional approval when he conducted an airstrike targeting Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, nor did Obama when he bombed Libya. This disregard for Constitutional requirements has been a recurring issue, as far back as President Lyndon B Johnson's initiation of war against North Vietnam without Congressional approval. The Constitution is often selectively enforced by the ruling class, invoked when it serves their interests (such as on issues like abortion, gay marriage, immigration, and corporate interests) and disregarded when it does not benefit them (as seen in cases of government surveillance and engaging in wars without Congressional approval), often under the guise of protecting human rights and liberal democracy.
Some individuals, particularly staunch conservative constitutionalists, may argue about the cultural and religious context in which the Constitution was originally written and followed. While acknowledging the importance of this context, it is crucial to recognize that it was not explicitly incorporated into the Constitution itself, thereby not obligating adherence to it or pretending to do so. As the cultural-religious morality of the era has gradually waned, it has been supplanted in the 20th century by a liberal ideology seeking to advance its economic and political interests globally.
The essence of the issue with the bombing of the Houthi rebels lies in the potential escalation towards a war that the US cannot emerge victorious from, one that does not serve the best interests of the average American. Particularly when domestic issues like failing infrastructure, drug overdoses, outsourcing, government debt, declining education, crime, mass illegal migration, and intensifying political and cultural divides remain unresolved. Engaging in a conflict with Houthi rebels and Iran primarily benefits Israel, which, in turn, neglects human rights concerns when it comes to Palestinians, let alone the interests of the average American, as they receive funds from the US government that could otherwise address internal problems and enhance the lives of average Americans.
I am not suggesting that we should discard or disregard the importance of a constitution. Rather, I propose that we develop a new constitution that prioritizes nationalist and familial interests over globalist agendas or vague interpretations of human rights that can be manipulated to suit different ends. This transformation can only materialize if conservatives disengage from their current stance and remove the liberal oligarchy from power.
The recent attacks by the Yemeni Houthi rebels have exposed further weaknesses in American hegemony and globalization. These attacks not only demonstrate the resistance of many regions to globalism and its influences like Zionism but also highlight the lackluster nature of the American-led coalition assembled to counter the Houthi threat. Most countries participating in Operation Prosperity Guardian, with the exception of the US and UK, have only contributed a handful of individuals. Close allies in the region such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Turkey, and other nations reliant on the Red Sea for trade, such as France, Spain, and Italy, have opted out of joining the coalition. Arab and Muslim nations have called for de-escalation and criticized the recent US/UK airstrikes in Yemen. This is not the sole weakness in globalism that has surfaced recently. An ongoing vulnerability in globalism, particularly in its economic facet, has been evident in recent years. Responses to events like the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russo-Ukraine War have led to supply shortages of essentials like oil and raw materials, resulting in price hikes, inflation, and a slowdown in production and the global economy.
The Houthi attacks on shipping and the subsequent US response mirror previous events, with oil prices on the rise again, shortages reoccurring due to these attacks, and shipping companies adjusting their routes, prolonging voyages to their destinations.
The significance of Middle Eastern oil to the US and many other parts of the world cannot be overstated, given its abundance and the low-cost labor required for its extraction. Nevertheless, the US possesses oil reserves within its borders and in neighboring countries like Venezuela and Guyana. By fostering domestic oil production, the nation can create jobs and attain energy security and independence not reliant on Middle Eastern oil. Should domestic oil supplies be insufficient, alternative sources can be tapped, such as neighboring countries, nuclear power plants, reopening coal mines, and developing clean energy solutions to bridge the gap.
Even if America genuinely requires Middle Eastern oil, it is now evident that the most effective approach to securing this resource is by refraining from taking sides in regional conflicts and advocating for peace from all parties involved. Regrettably, the United States has pursued a different course, perpetuating its ideological conflict with Iran and its allies while staunchly supporting the Israeli regime. This stance has exacerbated economic challenges, with US crude and Brent crude prices climbing to $76 and $80 per barrel post-US airstrikes in Yemen, with further escalation anticipated.
The US foreign policy and military backing of Israel have not only led to energy shortages but have historical precedence. During the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), comprising numerous Arab and Muslim nations, imposed an embargo on the US due to its military aid to Israel, resulting in one of the most severe oil shortages, with prices soaring by 300 percent and necessitating oil rationing. The Iranian revolution, which ousted the US-backed Shah, and the ensuing Iran-Iraq War also had similar repercussions. To avert future shortages, America must enhance energy efficiency, relinquish free trade, and abandon its ideological foreign policies that have engendered problems. Swift implementation of these changes is imperative.
An American Foreign Policy For The New Multipolar World
A new world is beginning to emerge as American Neoliberalism undergoes its decline, making way for a multipolar world. This new world will not be dominated by a single superpower imposing its customs and ideology but will feature multiple superpowers, each with its unique customs, traditions, and ideologies. While this world will indeed be more competitive, it will also be more balanced, with major powers having their spheres of influence and distinct cultures and systems. With the United States having been the sole superpower and hegemon since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, many wonder whether America's decline will signal the official establishment of a multipolar world, much like how the Soviet Union's collapse marked the onset of American unipolarity.
The potential for American collapse is undeniable, given the nation's recent endeavors to contain Russia, China, and Iran, squandering billions or even trillions of dollars in the process to no avail. As many regions outside North America and much of Europe align with these countries, engaging in trade, economic pacts like BRICS and SCO, and military partnerships, tensions persist domestically. Democrats in various US states aim to prevent former President Donald Trump from participating in the upcoming presidential race, while Republicans in states such as Texas, and beyond, like Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green, advocate for secession. The American populace is increasingly divided along party lines, leading to open conflicts on the streets. Issues like crime, racial tensions, declining family and community cohesion, failing infrastructure, drug epidemics, decreasing living standards, inadequate education, low birth rates, uncontrolled immigration, and escalating government and private debt all continue to escalate, casting doubt on liberal democracy and the American societal construct. Failure to address these challenges may further widen political, racial, cultural, and economic divides, potentially fracturing the United States and ending the American project.
While a collapse of Neoliberalism could prove beneficial in the long run, a complete collapse of America would not benefit anyone, leaving the nation's populace spiritually and economically devastated akin to post-Soviet Union circumstances. Moreover, such a collapse would disrupt multipolarity, which requires multiple powers to maintain equilibrium, with the collapse of one power creating vacuums and upsetting the balance. Neoliberalism, which has plagued America, would likely be the perpetrator of its demise, self-destructing and dragging the nation down with it. To avert this scenario and break free from the grip of Neoliberalism, a comprehensive overhaul of foreign policy is imperative.
One primary foreign policy shift necessitates the cessation of free trade and the repatriation of major industries to the state to achieve energy self-sufficiency. This can be achieved through tariffs, subsidies for local industries encompassing agriculture, technology, and manufacturing, and the nationalization of energy and other significant industries to foster domestic industry growth and loyalty. This approach would create numerous jobs lost to globalization, ensuring economic self-sufficiency to mitigate supply shortages seen throughout the 2020s. Items that cannot be produced domestically or regionally can be sourced globally. To finance this transformative endeavor, revenue from tariffs and reduced military expenditure can be reallocated. During this period of industrial revitalization, spanning 5 to 20 years, the US should abstain from foreign conflicts and concentrate on its internal affairs.
If the US wants to halt mass migration from Latin America, it needs to do more than just build a wall and enforce strict immigration policies. Ceasing the sanctioning of countries like Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, which has triggered mass exodus from these nations, is crucial. This approach would lead to a decrease in illegal migration and the gradual repatriation of many migrants. Additionally, the US should back governments like Nayib Bukele's in El Salvador against cartels or the Narco Aristocrats, and encourage other Latin American nations to do the same. By dismantling these corrupt organizations, these countries can prosper, prompting many of their citizens residing in America to return home. Through rigorous immigration regulations, lifting sanctions, and endorsing strong anti-crime administrations, the US can thwart the infiltration of cartels into its borders, stem the brain drain from Latin America, and curb mass migration to the United States.
Regarding the conflicts in Ukraine, Israel-Palestine, and proxy states such as Taiwan and South Korea, the US should cease all military support, withdraw its military forces, and have them return home. All foreign lobbying groups like AIPAC should be prohibited, and foreign NGOs must register as such, with subversive foreign NGOs facing a ban. Sanctions on countries like China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran should be lifted, and the military alliance NATO should be dissolved. This action would resolve current hostilities with these nations, averting the prospect of World War 3. The US would revert to the Washington-era doctrine of engaging in trade at its discretion, steering clear of military alliances or conflicts largely unrelated to its interests. The only countries and international bodies posing a threat to the US are those seeking to reimpose neo-liberalism, like Canada if this ideology persists post-US abandonment. If countries like Canada remain under the influence of neo-liberalism, a temporary military coalition with Russia and China may be warranted, but once the threat is neutralized, the alliance should dissolve, and all parties should part ways amicably. America, Russia, China, and other UN members should advocate for replacing the UN Declaration of Human Rights and other liberal doctrines with a doctrine grounded in multipolarity and respect for diverse cultural, religious, and ideological beliefs.
The US has conducted numerous airstrikes in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen targeting predominantly Shia anti-Zionist militant groups that have been attacking US bases and ships due to their support of Israel in its conflict with Gaza. Despite these airstrikes resulting in the deaths of dozens of militants and causing material damage, these groups have not been dissuaded and continue to target US bases and ships.
Why is this the case? These groups, whether it's the Houthi in Yemen, Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq, or the Islamic Resistance in Iraq and Syria, are deeply driven by Shia Islam to the extent that many of them do not fear death. They view the conflict with the US and Israel as a holy war or Jihad against nations they perceive as antagonistic to Islam and Muslims in general, seeking to colonize their land and impose cultural and economic values like liberal secularism, usury, economic globalization, and gay marriage, which conflict with their faith. Naturally, the Shia militants align themselves with the Palestinian cause. Additionally, it's crucial to acknowledge that all these groups have been embroiled in conflicts for at least a decade, ranging from combating other militant factions like ISIS to resisting full-scale invasions from regional powers such as Saudi Arabia in the case of the Houthi, or the American invasion of Iraq, which were significantly bloodier than several US airstrikes. Moreover, some of these groups, particularly the Islamic Resistance, Popular Mobilization Forces, and Hezbollah, have been previously targeted by the United States. Under both the Trump and Biden administrations, Iranian proxy militias and the IRGC have been subject to US airstrikes, notably the 2020 strike in Iraq that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani and Popular Mobilization Forces deputy chairman Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Subsequently, these groups launched attacks on US bases shortly thereafter, exemplified by the 2020 Camp Taji attack that resulted in the deaths of two American soldiers and one UK soldier, indicating their increased vengefulness rather than deterrence.
These organizations have endured various conflicts, such as ISIS being marginalized and Saudi Arabia engaging in negotiations with the Houthis. The belief that some airstrikes will deter these groups underscores how disconnected the US is and its failure to learn from past experiences. Airstrikes and bombing campaigns did not dissuade the Vietcong in Vietnam or the Taliban in Afghanistan; in fact, these actions intensified their radicalization and aggression, motivating them and the local populace to continue targeting the United States and its allies until they withdrew. The US will not break these deeply religious and disciplined militants.
The only viable approach for the US to halt these attacks is to compel Israel to withdraw from Gaza and cease all hostilities. Given that the US allocates billions of dollars annually to Israel, the American government wields influence over Israeli policies. Moreover, the conflict in Gaza has reached a stalemate, with Israel unable to secure the release of hostages through force, and 80 percent of Hamas' tunnel system remaining intact. Additionally, US troops must depart from Syria and Iraq, aligning with the desires of local governments and populations. These demands are not solely advocated by the militants and the Middle Eastern populace but also resonate with the American public, weary of squandering resources and lives that could be utilized to address domestic issues. Recent reports indicate the US engaging in discussions with the Iraqi government regarding military withdrawal and efforts to persuade Israel to mitigate its military actions in Gaza, suggesting a potential shift in US policy. Only time will reveal if the US government has genuinely absorbed any lessons.