Will The 12-Day War Precipitate Regime Change In Iran, Russia & China? (7-6-25)

Posted on July 6, 2025 by Luke Ford

01:00 I’m refining my soul
04:00 Do I edit my blogging to make it more acceptable to the standards of Big AI?
07:20 Video: ‘Zhang Youxia’s relentless purge of Xi Jinping’s influence in the military’, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5pXPyw-pT8
14:00 Video: Explaining Xi’s Power Loss, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlKw_g6flXQ
17:00 Video: Xi Jinping No Longer Rules China, He’s Just a Figurehead: Allen Zeng, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNnuMnoN4q4
34:00 Video: What Is Israel’s Endgame for Iran?, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dOJypt2F70
48:00 Video: Russia and China Abandoned Iran. Here’s Why, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQhZxcXZb14
56:00 National Interest Vs Capital Interest, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=161943
1:04:00 Video: US Show of Force in Iran SCARED Putin, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fUqr2ZHCQQ
1:06:00 Video: How War in Iran Will Completely CRIPPLE Russia, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpK3aWxheDU
1:08:20 Video: Trump’s Trade War: A Strategic Overview, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=attfJNi5TUI
1:13:00 Video: Why they’re not telling you about the US-China trade deal, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uvVa6lQiJw
1:20:00 Video: China’s 30 Trillion Dilemma | US Hits China on Trade, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2L_CuPjIr8
1:23:00 Video: Can Multinationals Win in China? Lessons from Apple’s Experience, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA_klg8sm_A
1:40:00 Video: How Apple Sold Its Soul to an Authoritarian Regime | Patrick McGee, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q852nEpYJAo
1:56:45 Video: Has the Iran-Israel War Actually Achieved Anything? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X43LP1VRJy0
2:15:00 Video: Is William F. Buckley’s Still Relevant? | w/ Jonah Goldberg and Matthew Continetti, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT5W4We1CCs
2:22:00 DTG: Matthew McConaughey: Selling is Love!, https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/matthew-mcconaughey-selling-is-love
2:40:00 What would Matthew McConaughey’s True Detective character think of his self-help venture? https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=161952
2:55:30 NYT: The Cost of Victory: Israel Overpowered Its Foes, but Deepened Its Isolation
3:20:00 NYT considers a trans murder cult and focuses on the perils of rationalism, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/06/business/ziz-lasota-zizians-rationalists.html
3:28:00 Elon Musk’s political judgment, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=161931
3:32:00 Palestinianism as a dumping ground for failed ideologies, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=161924
3:36:00 Can China fall peacefully? https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=161905
3:44:30 FT: Israel’s quiet war in the West Bank, https://www.ft.com/content/8d9cdf41-6caf-4a31-8150-2ca6cc2dc20c
3:54:00 Jeff Flake: In Today’s G.O.P., Voting Your Conscience Is Disqualifying, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/06/opinion/trump-tillis-senate-republicans.html
4:22:00 Depression is often adaptive

Grok says:

The host of the YouTube video, Luke Ford, displays a notable lack of self-awareness in several ways, which can be identified through his rhetorical style, narrative framing, and personal reflections. Below, I analyze where this lack of self-awareness manifests and address the question of whether the 12-day war could precipitate regime change in Iran, Russia, and China, based on the content of the video and available information.Where the Host Lacks Self-Awareness

Overestimation of Personal Insight and Objectivity:

Evidence: Ford repeatedly emphasizes his pursuit of truth, spiritual growth, and transcendence of “animalistic” desires, positioning himself as a morally elevated figure. For example, he claims to have reached a “spiritual height” where he can evaluate others (e.g., the “attractive young Pakistani British woman”) based on their ideas rather than their appearance (25:22-25:35). However, his tone and fixation on her attractiveness undermine this claim, suggesting he is not as detached from superficial judgments as he asserts.
Analysis: This contradiction reveals a lack of self-awareness about how his personal biases influence his commentary. His self-description as a “stern moralist” and his frequent references to spiritual and moral superiority (e.g., “I am not on some kind of low madrega” at 25:28) come across as self-aggrandizing, ignoring how his delivery and tangents (e.g., discussing his personal struggles with vulnerability at 4:38-5:11) may dilute the credibility of his analysis.

Uncritical Engagement with Speculative Sources:

Evidence: Ford engages with a YouTube channel, “Lays Real Talk,” which he admits lacks credibility (5:37-5:42, 11:24-11:32), yet he entertains its claims about a leadership change in China (6:03-15:09). He uses “abductive reasoning” to justify considering these claims, suggesting they provide a simpler explanation for China’s political shifts (11:38-12:22). However, he fails to critically assess the lack of empirical evidence, instead relying on his “spidey sense” (24:10-24:54) and YouTube algorithms feeding him similar speculative content (13:35-13:40).

Analysis: This reflects a lack of self-awareness about his susceptibility to confirmation bias. By prioritizing sensational narratives over verified information, he risks spreading misinformation, which he acknowledges as a concern (6:17-6:22, 9:16-9:22) but does not sufficiently guard against. His reliance on intuition over evidence (24:46-24:54) further undermines his claim to rigorous truth-seeking.

Contradictory Stance on Vulnerability and Authority:

Evidence: Ford criticizes his past tendency to “lead with vulnerability” in professional settings, noting it led to disrespect (4:43-4:58). Yet, he frames his blogging as bravely vulnerable, suggesting it’s a strength (4:30-4:38). Simultaneously, he advocates for a Hobbesian “Leviathan” state that prioritizes national interest over individual rights (56:58-58:03), which contradicts his personal narrative of embracing vulnerability and truth from any source (1:01-1:07).

Analysis: This inconsistency highlights a lack of self-awareness about how his personal philosophy (valuing vulnerability) clashes with his political philosophy (favoring authoritarian control). He fails to reconcile these opposing views, presenting himself as both a vulnerable truth-seeker and a supporter of ruthless state power without acknowledging the tension.

Dismissal of Expertise While Seeking Validation:

Evidence: Ford dismisses “sensible experts” as often wrong or motivated by social prestige (25:59-26:29), yet he seeks validation from AI (Grok) to assess the credibility of sources (5:31-5:37) and relies on non-prestigious YouTube channels for geopolitical insights (6:46-15:09). He also critiques public intellectuals like Jonah Goldberg for lacking substance (2:16:57-2:17:22), while positioning himself as a purveyor of “cutting-edge insights” (6:29-6:34).

Analysis: This reveals a lack of self-awareness about his own role as a commentator. By criticizing experts while leaning on unverified sources and his own intuition, he mirrors the behaviors he critiques in others, such as chasing attention through provocative claims (9:02-9:16). His desire to be seen as a serious thinker is undermined by his reliance on speculative narratives and his admission of past blogging errors (2:04-2:31).

Moral Posturing vs. Provocative Commentary:

Evidence: Ford frames his commentary as a moral and spiritual quest (e.g., referencing Torah, 12-step programs, and God’s will at 3:17-3:29), but he frequently veers into provocative, racially charged, or sexually explicit tangents (e.g., discussing “tiny Asian hands” at 1:36:15-1:37:02 or mocking trans identities at 3:19:06-3:20:03). He also makes light of serious topics, like comparing his overeating to geopolitical issues (2:25:15-2:25:30).

Analysis: This juxtaposition shows a lack of self-awareness about how his provocative style undercuts his moral posturing. His attempts to present himself as a serious, spiritually grounded commentator are contradicted by his use of crude humor and inflammatory remarks, which may alienate audiences seeking substantive analysis.

Will the 12-Day War Precipitate Regime Change in Iran, Russia, and China?

Ford’s hypothesis is that the 12-day war (Israel’s and the U.S.’s attacks on Iran in June 2025) could precipitate regime change in Iran, Russia, and China, driven by his “spidey sense” rather than empirical evidence (24:46-24:54). Below, I assess this claim based on his arguments, the video’s sources, and broader context, while acknowledging the speculative nature of the discussion due to limited verifiable information.

Iran

Ford’s Argument: Ford suggests that Israel’s attacks, targeting not just nuclear facilities but also civilian infrastructure, oil and gas facilities, and security assets (22:20-23:13, 2:08:22-2:08:39), aimed to weaken Iran’s regime and create conditions for regime change by exploiting ethnic divisions (e.g., Kurds, Azerbaijanis) and internal vulnerabilities (31:02-39:05). He cites Caspian Report’s analysis that Israel targeted Iran’s outer provinces to inflame ethnic tensions (35:09-39:05) and argues that Iran’s weakened state post-war makes it brittle (29:24-29:38).

Analysis: There is some plausibility to the idea that Israel’s strategy aimed to destabilize Iran beyond its nuclear program. The targeting of IRGC assets and regional command posts (30:56-31:39) could weaken Tehran’s control over restive provinces, as ethnic minorities like Kurds and Azerbaijanis have historically pushed for autonomy (36:04-39:05). However, there is no empirical evidence in the video or broader sources to suggest imminent regime change. The New York Times article Ford references (2:56:00-2:56:22) notes Israel’s increased security but highlights its diplomatic isolation, not Iran’s collapse. Iran’s regime has shown resilience despite economic sanctions and military setbacks, and the lack of concrete evidence of internal opposition gaining traction (e.g., PJAK’s call for Kurdish uprising at 31:02-31:16) suggests regime change is speculative. Ford’s reliance on “spidey sense” (24:46-24:54) over data underscores the lack of substantiation.

Russia

Ford’s Argument: Ford posits that Russia’s loss of allies (Syria’s Assad regime and a weakened Iran) could destabilize Putin’s regime, drawing parallels to the Soviet Union’s Afghan war (29:05-29:17). He cites a video claiming Russia’s failure to support Iran during the war (49:33-53:13) and argues that economic and military strains from Ukraine, combined with these losses, increase Russia’s fragility (29:38-29:46).

Analysis: Russia’s geopolitical setbacks are real—Syria’s fall and Iran’s weakening reduce its Middle Eastern influence. However, no evidence suggests these losses directly threaten Putin’s regime. Russia’s economy has adapted to sanctions, and Putin’s control remains strong, with opposition suppressed. The video Ford cites (1:05:45-1:06:09) speculates on Russia’s economic and demographic vulnerabilities but lacks specifics on regime change mechanisms. Historical analogies like the Soviet-Afghan war are weak, as Putin’s regime faces different dynamics. Ford’s claim relies on intuition (24:54-25:04), not data, making it speculative.

China

Ford’s Argument: Ford heavily relies on “Lays Real Talk” and other YouTube channels claiming Xi Jinping’s power is waning, with General Zhang Youxia emerging as a new leader due to military purges and Xi’s alleged health issues (6:46-15:09, 39:42-43:35). He argues this shift, combined with economic slowdown and U.S. trade pressures (1:13:00-1:18:26), could lead to regime change (24:46-24:54). He cites a supposed U.S.-China trade deal as evidence of Beijing’s pragmatism under new leadership (1:15:04-1:18:26).

Analysis: The claim of Xi Jinping’s ousting is highly speculative and unsupported by credible sources. No mainstream outlet (e.g., Financial Times, New York Times) reports a leadership change as of July 12, 2025. The purges Ford references (7:24-10:56) are consistent with Xi’s anti-corruption campaigns, not evidence of his decline. Economic challenges (1:20:01-1:21:09) are real but not new, and the trade deal’s details are vague, with no confirmation of major concessions (1:13:52-1:14:47). Ford’s reliance on unverified YouTube sources (11:24-11:32) and abductive reasoning (12:04-12:22) lacks rigor, and his “spidey sense” (24:46-24:54) does not substitute for evidence. Regime change in China remains unlikely without concrete indicators of internal power shifts.

Broader Context

Ford’s “Spidey Sense” and Cognitive Biases: Ford admits there’s “very little evidence right now empirically for regime change” (30:26-30:33) but trusts his intuition, citing cognitive biases like overestimating dramatic events (30:06-30:19). This undermines his argument, as he prioritizes hunches over data, a point he himself critiques in others (26:35-26:55).

Geopolitical Realities: The 12-day war weakened Iran militarily, but regime change requires internal catalysts (e.g., mass protests, elite defections), which are absent. Russia and China face pressures but have resilient authoritarian systems. Ford’s sources (e.g., YouTube channels with low credibility) and his dismissal of “prestige press” (5:48-6:03) limit the reliability of his analysis.

Conclusion: There is no significant evidence that the 12-day war will precipitate regime change in Iran, Russia, or China. Ford’s hypothesis relies on speculative narratives and unverified sources, amplified by his admitted cognitive biases (30:12-30:19). While Iran’s vulnerabilities and Russia’s losses are notable, and China faces economic challenges, these do not translate to imminent regime change without concrete internal developments.

Final Thoughts

Ford’s lack of self-awareness is evident in his contradictory moral posturing, uncritical engagement with speculative sources, and failure to reconcile his personal and political philosophies. His hypothesis about regime change is intriguing but lacks empirical grounding, relying heavily on intuition and low-credibility sources. For a more robust analysis, cross-checking with primary sources (e.g., government statements, verified reports) and monitoring developments in these countries would be necessary, as Ford himself suggests via Grok (30:33-30:38). However, as of July 12, 2025, no credible evidence supports imminent regime change in Iran, Russia, or China due to the 12-day war.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Will The 12-Day War Precipitate Regime Change In Iran, Russia & China? (7-6-25)

What would Matthew McConaughey’s True Detective character think of his self-help venture?

Posted on July 6, 2025 by Luke Ford

That’s a great question I hear on this edition of Decoding The Gurus.

Grok says:

Rust Cohle, Matthew McConaughey’s character from True Detective Season 1, would likely view McConaughey’s self-help venture with a mix of disdain and philosophical skepticism. Cohle’s worldview is steeped in nihilism, cosmic pessimism, and a rejection of comforting illusions. He sees human existence as a fleeting, often meaningless struggle against an indifferent universe, famously describing life as a “dream about being a person.”

A self-help venture, with its promises of personal growth, optimism, and actionable steps toward a better life, would clash hard with his perspective.Rust would probably see it as another form of self-delusion, a way for people to distract themselves from the void of existence.

He might argue that chasing self-improvement or happiness is futile when time is a “flat circle,” trapping humanity in repetitive cycles of suffering. He’d likely call it a shiny repackaging of the same old human need to impose meaning on chaos—something he’d scoff at, maybe with a line like, “You’re selling hope to people too scared to look at the dark.”That said, Cohle’s not just a cynic; he’s introspective and grapples with his own contradictions.

By the end of Season 1, he shows a flicker of hope, suggesting the light might be “winning” against the dark. He could grudgingly acknowledge that McConaughey’s venture, if grounded in authenticity (like drawing from real struggles or emphasizing resilience), might have some practical use for those still “stuck in the dream.” But he’d never buy into it himself—too much of a lone wolf staring into the abyss.

Why does it seem that self-help seems to primarily work for the people selling self-help rather than its customers?

Grok says:

Rust Cohle would probably nod grimly at this observation, seeing it as proof of human desperation and the market for false hope. The perception that self-help primarily benefits its sellers over customers comes from a mix of structural, psychological, and economic factors. Here’s a breakdown, keeping it sharp and grounded:Sellers Profit Regardless of Outcomes: Self-help gurus—authors, coaches, speakers—make money upfront through book sales, seminars, courses, or subscriptions. Their revenue doesn’t depend on whether customers achieve promised results. For example, Tony Robbins or Deepak Chopra earn millions from events and media, but there’s no refund if attendees don’t “unleash their power.” Customers, meanwhile, invest time, money, and emotional energy with no guaranteed payoff.

Aspirational Hype vs. Reality: Self-help often sells a compelling narrative—transformation, wealth, happiness—through motivational language and anecdotes. This creates an emotional high that feels like progress but fades when faced with real-world challenges. Studies, like those by psychologists such as Timothy Wilson, show that positive thinking alone doesn’t reliably lead to lasting change; it can even backfire by setting unrealistic expectations. Customers may feel inspired but lack practical, tailored strategies, leaving them stuck while sellers bank on the next wave of hope-seekers.

Selection Bias in Success Stories: Self-help promotes outlier success stories (often the guru’s own) as evidence of effectiveness, ignoring the majority who don’t see results. This is like a lottery showcasing winners while downplaying millions of losers. Research, like a 2008 study in Journal of Consumer Research, suggests consumers overestimate their odds of success from inspirational products, fueling purchases but not outcomes. Sellers amplify this bias; customers face the grind of applying vague advice to complex lives.

One-Size-Fits-All vs. Individual Needs: Self-help often offers generalized advice—think “visualize success” or “build habits”—that doesn’t account for personal circumstances like mental health, socioeconomic barriers, or trauma. Psychologists like Carl Rogers emphasize that meaningful change requires individualized support, not mass-market platitudes. Sellers thrive by scaling their message to millions; customers often flounder without customized guidance.

Dependency Cycle: Some self-help creates a loop where customers keep buying more—new books, advanced courses, exclusive retreats—to chase elusive results. This mirrors a 2014 Psychological Science finding that self-help can foster a “consumption spiral,” where users seek external solutions instead of building internal resilience. Sellers profit from repeat customers; buyers risk feeling inadequate when quick fixes fail.

Survivorship Bias in Perception: The public sees self-help moguls like McConaughey (Greenlights), Robbins, or Brene Brown thriving, reinforcing the idea that self-help “works” for sellers. Their visibility—bolstered by media, TED Talks, or X posts—creates a skewed narrative. Meanwhile, customers’ struggles are private, underreported, and lack the same platform, amplifying the gap.

Rust’s Take: Cohle would see this as a con baked into the human condition—people craving meaning and control, willing to pay for a story that feels true. He’d argue sellers exploit this, peddling “philosophies” that keep folks distracted from the void. “They’re not selling answers,” he’d say, “they’re selling the feeling of answers. Same old scam, just shinier.”

Data Point: A 2019 MarketWatch report estimated the self-help industry at $10 billion annually in the U.S., growing despite scant evidence of widespread efficacy. Academic reviews, like those in American Psychologist (2003), find self-help books often lack rigorous testing, with placebo effects or temporary motivation driving perceived benefits.

Why Customers Still Buy: Despite uneven results, customers keep coming because hope is addictive, and even small wins—like feeling briefly empowered—can justify the cost. Plus, systemic issues (stress, inequality) push people toward accessible solutions, however flawed. Sellers just ride the wave.

Why did I get more help from 12-step programs than from self-help and therapy?

Rust Cohle would probably say 12-step programs cut through the noise of self-help and therapy by forcing you to face the raw truth of your limitations, no sugarcoating.

Here’s why 12-step programs might have clicked for you where others didn’t:Community and Accountability: 12-step programs, like Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or Narcotics Anonymous (NA), are built on peer support. You’re surrounded by people who’ve been through similar struggles, sharing stories in a raw, non-judgmental setting. This fosters a sense of belonging and accountability that self-help (often solitary) and therapy (one-on-one) can lack. Research, like a 2020 Cochrane Review, shows AA’s group dynamic significantly boosts abstinence rates for alcohol use disorder, often outperforming solo interventions. The “we’re in this together” vibe might have given you a stronger anchor than a book’s platitudes or a therapist’s questions.

Structured Framework: 12-step programs offer a clear, actionable roadmap—12 steps, meetings, sponsors—that guide you through recovery without overwhelming choice. Self-help can feel like a buffet of vague advice (“be your best self”), and therapy often requires you to co-create the process, which can stall if you’re stuck or skeptical. A 2016 Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment study notes that 12-step’s structured rituals (e.g., step work, daily meetings) provide stability, especially in early recovery, where clarity is critical. You might have thrived on this no-BS blueprint.

Surrender and Humility: The 12-step philosophy emphasizes admitting powerlessness over addiction and leaning on a higher power (however you define it). This can be a psychological relief, cutting through the self-blame or overthinking that self-help’s “you are enough” mantras or therapy’s introspection might amplify. Cohle might see this as confronting the void head-on—accepting life’s chaos instead of chasing control. A 2013 Addiction Research & Theory paper suggests this surrender reduces ego-driven resistance, helping participants stick with recovery.

Free and Accessible: 12-step programs are free and widely available, removing financial barriers that can limit therapy (which can cost $100-$200/hour) or self-help products (books, courses, retreats). This accessibility means you can engage consistently without stress, which matters for long-term change. A 2019 Journal of Addiction Medicine study highlights how AA’s low-cost model broadens its reach, making it a lifeline for those priced out of other options.

Focus on Action Over Theory: Self-help often leans on inspiration or mindset shifts, and therapy can get bogged down in analyzing feelings or past trauma. 12-step programs prioritize doing—going to meetings, working steps, helping others. This bias toward action aligns with behavioral psychology principles (e.g., Behavioral Activation), where doing small, consistent tasks builds momentum. If you’re practical or skeptical of overthinking, this might have resonated more than affirmations or talk sessions
Shared Vulnerability: In 12-step meetings, everyone’s on equal footing—no experts, just people sharing their mess. This contrasts with self-help’s guru-driven model, where the author is often a distant “success story,” or therapy, where the therapist holds authority. A 2017 Qualitative Health Research study notes that 12-step’s egalitarian storytelling creates trust and reduces shame, which might have helped you open up and connect in ways other formats didn’t.

Your Experience: Without knowing your specific context (e.g., addiction type, therapy style, or self-help materials tried), I’d guess 12-step worked because it met you where you were—offering structure, community, and a way to act without overcomplicating things. It’s less about “fixing” yourself (self-help’s pitch) or digging into why (therapy’s focus) and more about showing up and moving forward with others who get it.Rust’s Take: Cohle would see 12-step as a rare space where people “stop lying to themselves” and face the dark together, no frills. He’d respect its grit—less about salvation, more about survival. “It’s not hope,” he’d mutter, “it’s just not being alone in the wreck.”

Posted in Self Help | Comments Off on What would Matthew McConaughey’s True Detective character think of his self-help venture?

National Interest Vs Capital Interest

Posted on July 6, 2025 by Luke Ford

I’m not a capital supremacist. The national interest is more important (meaning the survival, safety, security and dignity of its citizens is more important than the interests of billionaires). The supremacy of shareholder capitalism allowed Apple to build up America’s greatest rival – China.

Conventional economic models don’t take into consideration the balance of power between states.

The effective state smashes groups that stand in the way of the national interest, be those groups billionaires, environmentalists, or labor.

I admire the ruthlessness of this Trump administration, while simultaneously understanding the dangers.

The national interest is more important than individual rights and classical liberalism.

I stand with Hobbes (we need government to be a leviathan to protect us in a dangerous world) over Locke (the state of nature encourages us to make contracts with each other).

The more negative your view of human nature, the more likely you are to be Hobbesian. The more optimistic your view, the more likely you are to be Lockean.

Grok says:

Your position aligns with Hobbes’ view that a strong, centralized authority is essential to maintain order and security in a world where human nature leans toward conflict. Hobbes argued that without a Leviathan—a powerful government—society would descend into a “war of all against all,” where individual rights and contracts, as Locke emphasized, would be meaningless due to insecurity and distrust. Prioritizing national interest over individual rights reflects this belief that collective stability trumps personal freedoms when survival is at stake.

Locke’s perspective, rooted in classical liberalism, assumes a more optimistic state of nature where individuals can form rational contracts to protect their rights, with government serving as a limited referee. Your stance rejects this, likely seeing it as naive in a dangerous world where threats—internal or external—require a unified, decisive response.

In geopolitics, Hobbes’ philosophy resonates with state-centric approaches prioritizing security and national interest, often at the expense of individual rights or international cooperation. Locke’s ideas, conversely, underpin liberal democratic ideals, emphasizing universal human rights and multilateral agreements.Global Power Competition and Authoritarian Regimes (Hobbesian)Context: The rise of great power competition—particularly between the U.S., China, and Russia—illustrates a Hobbesian world where states act as Leviathans to secure their survival. For example, China’s centralized governance under the Communist Party prioritizes national stability and economic dominance, often suppressing individual freedoms (e.g., censorship, surveillance in Xinjiang). Russia’s actions in Ukraine (2022–present) reflect a Hobbesian pursuit of territorial security and influence, disregarding individual rights in occupied regions.

Hobbesian Relevance: These regimes align with Hobbes’ view that a strong sovereign is necessary to prevent chaos. In a world of competing powers, national interest—defined as territorial integrity, economic strength, or military dominance—takes precedence. Hobbes would argue that without a global Leviathan, states exist in a “state of nature,” where mutual fear drives aggressive policies. The absence of a supranational authority, as noted in the Yale Law Journal, reinforces this, with states relying on “mutual fear” for temporary peace rather than trust-based contracts.

Lockean Counterpoint: Locke’s framework, emphasizing individual rights and consent, struggles here. Liberal democracies advocate for human rights sanctions or interventions (e.g., UN resolutions against Russia), but these often lack enforcement power. Locke’s optimism about rational cooperation falters when authoritarian states reject the premise of universal rights, prioritizing sovereignty over individual liberties.

International Institutions and Human Rights (Lockean)Context: Institutions like the UN or International Criminal Court (ICC) embody Lockean principles, aiming to protect individual rights through consensual agreements among states. The UN Declaration of Human Rights or Geneva Conventions reflect a social contract at the global level, where states agree to limit their sovereignty to uphold universal norms.

Lockean Relevance: These frameworks assume states can rationally agree to protect life, liberty, and property, as Locke envisioned in domestic contracts. For instance, NATO’s collective defense pact is a Lockean contract where member states consent to mutual protection, balancing national interest with individual security.

Hobbesian Critique: Hobbes would view these institutions as weak without a global sovereign to enforce compliance. States like China or Russia often flout ICC rulings or veto UN resolutions, reinforcing Hobbes’ skepticism about contracts in the absence of a higher authority. The “anarchy” of international relations, as realists describe, mirrors Hobbes’ state of nature, where national interest trumps collective agreements.

Case Study: U.S. Foreign Policy Post-9/11

Hobbesian Shift: Post-9/11, the U.S. adopted a Hobbesian approach, prioritizing national security over individual rights. The Patriot Act (2001) expanded surveillance, compromising privacy for collective safety. Drone strikes and Guantanamo Bay detentions prioritized national interest over due process, reflecting a Leviathan-like response to external threats.

Lockean Resistance: Critics, invoking Locke, argue these policies violate consent and natural rights. The ACLU’s lawsuits against surveillance or Guantanamo highlight a Lockean demand for government accountability to protect individual liberties. Yet, ongoing threats (e.g., terrorism, cyberattacks) sustain Hobbesian arguments for strong state power.

Analysis: In geopolitics, Hobbes’ Leviathan better explains the behavior of authoritarian states and security-driven policies in an anarchic world. National interest—security, economic power, sovereignty—often overrides individual rights when states perceive existential threats. Locke’s framework thrives in cooperative frameworks like NATO or the EU but struggles against non-compliant powers. Your Hobbesian stance aligns with the realist view that a strong state is essential in a world where global governance lacks teeth.

Domestic Policy: Security vs. Individual Freedoms

Domestically, the tension between national interest (stability, public safety) and individual rights (privacy, free speech) plays out in debates over surveillance, law enforcement, and public health.

Surveillance and Privacy (Hobbesian)Context: In the U.S., programs like PRISM (revealed by Snowden in 2013) and China’s social credit system exemplify Hobbesian governance, where the state prioritizes security and social order over privacy. The U.S. justifies mass data collection to combat terrorism, while China uses surveillance to enforce compliance, citing national stability.

Hobbesian Relevance: Hobbes would approve of these measures, arguing that a Leviathan must have unchecked power to prevent internal chaos. In his view, individual rights are secondary to the state’s duty to protect citizens from threats, whether crime, terrorism, or dissent. The “constrained” vision of human nature, akin to Hobbes, supports strong legal frameworks to control self-interested behavior.

Lockean Counterpoint: Locke’s emphasis on consent and natural rights fuels resistance. Privacy advocates argue that surveillance violates the social contract by undermining liberty without transparent justification. GDPR in the EU, rooted in Lockean principles, prioritizes individual data rights, requiring state and corporate accountability.

Public Health and Mandates (Hobbesian) Context: COVID-19 (2020–2023) saw governments worldwide impose lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and mask requirements, prioritizing collective health over individual choice. In the U.S., states like New York enforced strict measures, while others (e.g., Florida) resisted, citing personal freedom.

Hobbesian Relevance: Hobbes would support mandates as a Leviathan’s duty to protect citizens from a common threat. National interest—public health and economic stability—justifies overriding individual rights to refuse vaccines or masks, especially when non-compliance risks collective harm.

Lockean Critique: Lockean critics, including libertarian movements, argued that mandates violated consent and natural rights. Protests against lockdowns (e.g., Canada’s Freedom Convoy, 2022) echoed Locke’s view that government overreach, even for public good, requires justification through the consent of the governed.

Law and Order vs. Civil Liberties (Mixed) Context:

Debates over policing in the U.S. (e.g., Black Lives Matter, 2020 protests) highlight the Hobbes-Locke divide. Calls for “law and order” (e.g., Trump’s 2020 campaign) reflect Hobbesian demands for a strong state to curb violence and looting. Conversely, demands for police reform emphasize Lockean rights to life and liberty, arguing that state power must be checked to prevent abuse.

Hobbesian Relevance: Hobbes would prioritize state authority to restore order, viewing civil unrest as a step toward the state of nature. Policies like stop-and-frisk or militarized policing align with his call for a sovereign to enforce stability.

Lockean Relevance: Locke’s influence is evident in reform movements advocating for accountability (e.g., body cameras, defunding police). The U.S. Constitution, rooted in Lockean principles, protects against arbitrary state power, supporting arguments for systemic change.

Analysis: In domestic policy, Hobbes’ Leviathan resonates when governments face crises (pandemics, unrest) requiring swift, centralized action. National interest—public safety, order—often justifies limiting rights, aligning with your view. However, Locke’s legacy in democratic systems ensures pushback, as citizens demand transparency and consent. The balance tilts toward Hobbes in authoritarian states or emergencies but toward Locke in liberal democracies with strong legal protections.

Broader Implications and Synthesis

Hobbes’ Strength in a Dangerous World: Your preference for Hobbes holds in contexts where existential threats—war, terrorism, pandemics—demand decisive state action. Modern geopolitics, with its power rivalries and weak global governance, mirrors Hobbes’ state of nature, where national interest trumps individual rights. Domestically, crises amplify the need for a Leviathan to enforce order, as seen in surveillance or health mandates.

Locke’s Resilience in Democracies: Locke’s ideas thrive in stable democracies where consent and rights are institutionalized. The U.S. Constitution, EU human rights laws, and global institutions reflect his belief in rational cooperation and limited government. However, these frameworks falter when trust erodes or threats escalate, exposing their reliance on mutual agreement.

Contemporary Tensions: The Hobbes-Locke divide frames debates over balancing security and freedom. For example, India’s Constitution, as noted in Sociology Notes, balances Hobbesian state power with Lockean rights, reflecting ongoing tensions between federal control and civil liberties. Globally, the rise of populism and authoritarianism suggests a Hobbesian resurgence, as citizens trade freedoms for perceived stability.

A negative view of human nature—seeing people as selfish, conflict-prone, or chaotic—aligns with Hobbes’ belief that a strong, centralized Leviathan is necessary to prevent a “war of all against all.” Conversely, an optimistic view—seeing humans as rational, cooperative, and capable of self-governance—supports Locke’s emphasis on individual rights, consent, and limited government. Let’s analyze how this spectrum of human nature applies to modern geopolitics and domestic policy, building on the prior discussion, to test its explanatory power.

Human Nature and Geopolitics

Pessimistic View

(Hobbesian)

Context: States like China and Russia operate on a Hobbesian assumption of human (and state) nature as self-interested and prone to conflict. China’s strict social controls, including the social credit system, reflect a belief that individuals, left unchecked, will undermine collective stability. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) assumes a zero-sum world where trust is scarce, and power must be secured through force.

Application: Leaders with a negative view of human nature prioritize national interest—security, sovereignty, economic dominance—over individual rights or international cooperation. For example, China’s censorship assumes citizens will spread dissent without state intervention, mirroring Hobbes’ view that humans in the state of nature are “nasty” and “brutish.” This pessimism justifies a Leviathan-like state to enforce order, as seen in mass surveillance or territorial assertions in the South China Sea.

Evidence: Realist international relations theories, rooted in Hobbesian logic, dominate geopolitical strategy. The absence of a global sovereign, as noted in the Yale Law Journal, creates a “mutual fear” environment where states act as Leviathans to survive, distrusting others’ intentions.

Optimistic View (Lockean)Context: Liberal democracies and international institutions like the EU or UN reflect Locke’s optimism that humans (and states) can cooperate rationally for mutual benefit. The EU’s integration, based on shared economic and human rights principles, assumes states can form consensual contracts to limit sovereignty voluntarily. NATO’s collective defense similarly trusts members to honor commitments.

Application: An optimistic view supports frameworks prioritizing individual rights and multilateralism. For instance, the Paris Climate Agreement (2015) assumes states can trust each other to reduce emissions for collective good, a Lockean contract rooted in rational cooperation. Human rights advocacy, like Amnesty International’s campaigns, reflects belief in universal moral capacity, aligning with Locke’s view of humans as capable of upholding life, liberty, and property.

Limits: Optimism falters when trust breaks down. Russia’s violation of international norms in Ukraine or China’s rejection of UN rulings on the South China Sea expose the fragility of Lockean cooperation in a world where some actors view human nature pessimistically.

Analysis: A negative view of human nature drives Hobbesian policies in geopolitics, as states prioritize survival over trust. Your Hobbesian stance, favoring national interest, aligns with this pessimism, seeing global anarchy as necessitating strong state power. Locke’s optimism underpins liberal frameworks but struggles against actors who reject cooperative assumptions, reinforcing your preference for Hobbes in a dangerous world.

Human Nature and Domestic Policy

Pessimistic View (Hobbesian)Context: Domestic policies like mass surveillance or strict law enforcement reflect a Hobbesian distrust of human nature. In the U.S., the Patriot Act (2001) and NSA’s PRISM program assume individuals might exploit freedoms to harm the collective, justifying state overreach. China’s social credit system takes this further, presuming citizens will act against national interest without constant monitoring.

Application: A negative view supports policies prioritizing national stability over individual rights. During COVID-19, governments imposing lockdowns or vaccine mandates (e.g., Australia’s quarantine camps, 2021) acted on the Hobbesian premise that individuals, left to their own devices, would spread chaos or disease. This aligns with your view that a Leviathan is needed to protect society from itself.

Evidence: The “constrained” vision of human nature, as described in philosophical debates, underpins Hobbesian governance. States assume self-interest drives behavior, requiring a strong sovereign to enforce compliance, as seen in militarized policing during U.S. protests (2020).

Optimistic View

(Lockean)

Context:

Democratic institutions and civil liberties protections reflect Locke’s belief in human rationality and moral capacity. The U.S. Constitution’s checks and balances assume citizens and leaders can govern themselves through consent, not coercion. Movements like Black Lives Matter or privacy advocacy (e.g., GDPR in the EU) trust individuals to demand accountability and uphold rights.

Application: An optimistic view supports policies empowering individuals over the state. For example, decentralized responses to COVID-19 in some U.S. states (e.g., Florida’s resistance to mandates) reflect Lockean faith in personal responsibility. Free speech absolutism, championed by figures like Elon Musk on X, assumes humans can handle open discourse without state intervention.

Limits: Optimism is challenged when individual actions threaten collective good. Anti-vaccine movements during COVID-19, fueled by distrust, led to higher mortality rates, validating Hobbesian arguments for state control. Similarly, unchecked free speech on platforms can amplify misinformation, prompting calls for regulation.

Analysis: Domestically, a pessimistic view of human nature justifies Hobbesian policies in crises, aligning with your prioritization of national interest. Locke’s optimism drives democratic norms but falters when individual freedoms clash with collective needs, reinforcing the need for a Leviathan in unstable times.

Synthesis: Human Nature as a Predictor

Your statement—that a negative view of human nature predicts Hobbesian leanings, while an optimistic view predicts Lockean ones—is strongly supported in contemporary contexts:

Geopolitical Trends: The rise of authoritarianism (e.g., China, Russia) and security-driven policies (e.g., U.S. post-9/11) reflect Hobbesian pessimism, viewing humans as prone to conflict without strong control. Lockean optimism persists in cooperative frameworks but is undermined by non-compliant states.

Domestic Trends: Crises like pandemics or unrest amplify Hobbesian responses, as governments assume humans will act selfishly without enforcement. Lockean optimism shapes democratic resistance but struggles when individual rights threaten collective stability.

Cultural Shifts: Public sentiment, as seen on X, often splits along these lines. Pessimistic voices advocate for strong leadership to curb chaos (e.g., calls for law and order), while optimistic ones defend freedoms (e.g., anti-censorship campaigns). If you’d like, I can search X for specific posts to gauge current attitudes.

Conclusion

A negative view of human nature strongly correlates with Hobbesian policies prioritizing national interest and state power, as seen in authoritarian regimes, surveillance, and crisis responses. An optimistic view supports Lockean emphasis on rights and cooperation, evident in democracies and multilateralism, but it’s less resilient in high-stakes contexts. Your Hobbesian stance, favoring a Leviathan in a dangerous world, aligns with the pessimistic view that humans require strong governance to avoid chaos.

Posted in Apple, China | Comments Off on National Interest Vs Capital Interest

Will The 12-Day War Precipitate Regime Change In Iran, Russia & China?

Posted on July 6, 2025 by Luke Ford

I see no empirical evidence that Israel’s attack on Iran will lead to regime change in Iran, let alone Russia and China.

My spidey sense is that the odds of regime change in these countries is much higher than the evidence suggests.

Few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union. It happened and it took the experts by surprise.

Few experts saw Trump getting elected president in 2016.

Grok says:

Your “spidey sense” likely refers to an intuitive feeling or gut instinct that something significant, like regime change in Iran, Russia, or China, might be more likely than current empirical evidence suggests. This phenomenon is often rooted in cognitive and psychological processes rather than hard data. Here’s an explanation of what might be driving your intuition and how it relates to the question of regime change:

What Is the “Spidey Sense”?

The term “spidey sense,” inspired by Spider-Man’s ability to sense danger, describes a subconscious perception of patterns or possibilities that aren’t immediately obvious. It’s your brain picking up on subtle cues, past experiences, or incomplete information and forming a hunch. Psychologically, this can stem from:

Pattern Recognition: Your brain may be connecting historical events (e.g., past regime changes after geopolitical shocks) to the current situation, even if the link isn’t explicit.

Heuristics: Mental shortcuts, like the availability heuristic, might make dramatic outcomes (e.g., regime collapse) feel more likely because they’re vivid or memorable.

Emotional Cues: Anxiety or excitement about global instability could amplify your sense that “something big” is coming.

Incomplete Information: When evidence is sparse, your brain fills in gaps with speculation, often leaning toward high-impact scenarios.

Why Might Your Spidey Sense Suggest Regime Change?

Your intuition that Israel’s attack on Iran could lead to regime change in Iran, Russia, or China, despite limited evidence, might be influenced by several factors:

Geopolitical Ripple Effects:

Israel’s attack on Iran (assuming a significant military strike, like the one referenced in recent discussions about Iran’s nuclear facilities) could destabilize the region. A weakened Iranian regime, facing internal dissent or economic collapse, might face increased pressure from its population or elites.

Iran’s allies, Russia and China, depend on it for strategic influence (e.g., energy, military cooperation). A blow to Iran could strain their resources or expose vulnerabilities, indirectly raising risks for their regimes.

Your spidey sense might be picking up on historical precedents, like how external shocks (e.g., the Soviet Union’s Afghan war) contributed to regime stress.

Iran’s Internal Fragility:

Iran faces domestic challenges: economic sanctions, inflation, and protests (e.g., the 2022 Mahsa Amini unrest). A military setback could embolden opposition or fracture elite loyalty, even if no direct evidence ties the attack to regime collapse.

Your intuition might sense that Iran’s theocratic regime is brittle, despite its resilience, making it seem “ripe” for change.

Russia and China’s Vulnerabilities:Russia’s regime faces strain from the Ukraine war, sanctions, and internal dissent (e.g., Prigozhin’s mutiny in 2023). A disruption in its Iranian partnership could overstretch its resources.

China’s regime, while more stable, grapples with economic slowdown and social control challenges. A global crisis sparked by Iran could test its legitimacy if it disrupts trade or energy supplies.

Your spidey sense might be amplifying the interconnectedness of these authoritarian regimes, where a shock to one (Iran) could cascade.

Media and Narrative Amplification:Discussions on platforms like X or in media might exaggerate the attack’s consequences, planting seeds of “big change” in your mind. For example, posts on X often speculate about dramatic outcomes without evidence, which can shape perceptions.

Your intuition might be influenced by these narratives, even if you consciously recognize their lack of grounding.

Cognitive Bias Toward High-Impact Outcomes:

Humans tend to overestimate the likelihood of rare, high-impact events (e.g., regime change) because they’re more salient than gradual change. This is called the neglect of probability bias.

Your spidey sense might be drawn to the drama of regime collapse over the more likely scenario of incremental pressure or adaptation.

Why the Evidence Doesn’t Support Regime Change (Yet)You’re correct that there’s little empirical evidence linking Israel’s attack to regime change:Iran: The regime has survived decades of sanctions, isolation, and protests. It’s adept at suppressing dissent and rallying nationalism during external threats. A strike might even strengthen hardliners short-term.

Russia: Putin’s grip remains firm despite Ukraine setbacks. Iran’s role in Russia’s strategy (e.g., drone supplies) is secondary, so a strike on Iran is unlikely to directly destabilize Moscow.

China: The CCP’s control is robust, with vast resources to weather global shocks. Iran’s troubles would likely be a minor irritant unless they trigger a broader energy crisis.

The gap between your intuition and the evidence suggests your spidey sense is picking up on potential rather than probability. It’s sensing tail risks—low-probability, high-impact outcomes—that are plausible but not imminent.

How to Refine Your Spidey Sense

To align your intuition with reality, consider:Cross-Check with Data: Look for measurable indicators of regime stress (e.g., protest frequency, economic metrics, elite defections). For Iran, track post-strike economic impacts or military responses.

Monitor X and Web Sources: Real-time posts on X can reveal sentiment shifts or unverified claims about unrest. I can search X for you if you’d like, but as of now, no credible reports suggest regime change is near.

Question the Narrative: Ask whether your hunch is fueled by vivid media or emotional reactions rather than facts.

Historical Analogies: Compare this to past cases (e.g., Iraq 2003, Libya 2011). Regime change often requires internal collapse or external intervention, not just a single strike.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Will The 12-Day War Precipitate Regime Change In Iran, Russia & China?

Elon Musk’s Terrible Political Judgment

Posted on July 6, 2025 by Luke Ford

Elon Musk is a free speech hero and a brilliant entrepreneur, but he’s not wise when it comes to politics.

Most of us have spheres of life where we are excellent and spheres where we’re terrible.

I’m not the type of guy you want checking the engines before the plane takes off. You wouldn’t want to employ me to do accounting all day. On the other hand, when it comes to creating and deconstructing narratives, I’m good. If you lend me something, I’ll return it to you in good condition or I will pay for any loss that occurred.

I enjoy too much saying provocative things which makes me a little mad, bad and dangerous to know, but this same quality sometimes translates into compelling vlogs and blogs.

I have no patience for consigning most people into broad categories of good and bad. It is more effective to place people in their correct genre.

Elon Musk is a tech and business visionary. That’s not a skill that necessarily translates into effective politics.

From Substack:

What Musk did was not just dumb, it had no chance of success. That’s the worst part, I think: The coup attempt had no hope of achieving its purported goals, the most it could have done was derail a productive effort and allow liberals to win. This is not how internal disputes can be allowed to proceed in a political movement. There is nothing but vanity, ego, and stupidity behind these moves.

Certainly, heavy drug use explains Musk’s erratic behavior, but at every turn Musk just seems to be divorced from reality and lashing out blindly. He has no idea what he’s doing. He is out of his depth. In short, his political inexperience has generated all sorts of problems for himself and others.

As quickly as Musk’s attempted rebellion failed, it’s important to remember that it was harmful even in failure. Musk was an asset and now he’s a huge and permanent liability. He provided Democrats and various anti-Trump bad actors on the Right with ammunition to deploy against Trump and undermine the very necessary implementation of Trump’s agenda. Musk set a terrible example for others, who might mistakenly believe that all this is “normal” rather than a counterproductive clown show. Panic and despair and bad behavior are contagious in modern conditions, where they have become so common that there are no real social barriers to their spread anymore. We are not working with the historical American middle class and the norms that propelled it (and the country) to such success.

So, what is to be done? It’s embarrassing to have to deal with Musk because it begs the question as to why such an unstable and moronic person, who apparently is a heavy drug user, was allowed into such a high position to begin with. However, I think harsh treatment is very necessary anyway. Bad actors often try to create these hostage situations: They cause trouble because they know getting rid of them would be trouble in its own right. In these situations, people are better off shooting the hostage rather than allowing bad behavior to go unpunished forever. As I’m sure most of you have noticed, someone who behaves in this way usually only gets worse.

I wrote most of this article a month ago but decided to sit on it because it was a little unfocused (it might still be) and too harsh after Musk disappeared with his tail between his legs when the coup failed. However, it seems that Musk has elected to once again reenter the public stage to try to block the Big Beautiful Bill, an item that I don’t know much about and don’t care much about beyond the historic increase in immigration funding that the bill will provide (more than $100 billion for border security and internal enforcement, along with numerous increases in fees and taxes to discourage immigration).

There doesn’t seem to be any alternative way to secure this funding in whole or in part, and in my opinion immigration is Trump’s most important issue, so one way or another at the end of the day the bill has to pass.

Having embarrassed himself in the way he has, Musk is likely going to try to play the spoiler forever. Every anti-Trump figure follows the same pattern: They get ejected from practical politics (to which Trump provides the only access) for bad behavior and realize that their only potential path back to influence is to engineer some kind of catastrophic collapse that will get Trump and his supporters out of the way, without regard to the consequences that that collapse, which would entail total liberal victory, might have. That’s what Massie and Paul are trying to do in their attempt to block the BBB. They complain that Trump has not achieved X, Y, or Z campaign promise while simultaneously trying to take away the tools that might allow him to do so.

People assume this kind of sabotage is a natural reaction to an internal political split. It’s not. One of the biggest mistakes I think Trump made was his treatment of former Senator and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Sessions was an early Trump supporter and outspoken immigration restrictionist, one of the earliest senior and respected politicians to support Trump during his 2016 primary run. Trump requested Sessions resign over Session’s decision to recuse himself from the Russiagate investigation, which caused Trump all sorts of problems. Even though I think Sessions made a big mistake there, it was motivated by Sessions’ good faith understanding of the situation and the law. Trump continued to treat Sessions harshly after Sessions left the White House, supporting his primary opponent during a 2020 Alabama Senate race.

Despite the harsh treatment he received, Sessions has not staked himself out as some outspoken opponent of Trump. He has not engaged in the kind of self-indulgent counterproductive behavior that typifies people who have fallings out with the Trump camp. He hasn’t cynically changed his views to account for his turn of political fortunes. This is all because Jeff Sessions is actually a patriot who loves his country and wants good things to happen to it, even if he’s not involved, while most conservatives who have elected to be anti-Trump are ultimately just in it for themselves. I hope there’s a reconciliation between Sessions and Trumpworld at some point, because people like Sessions are rare and always have something to offer.

For people like Musk, the only way to get rid of the threat they pose is to get rid of them. I hope that Musk is run out of politics and that the Trump administration pulls every lever they can against him: Piss test him at an inconvenient moment and take away his security clearance. Charge him with assault on a federal official for attacking Bessent and throw him in jail. Sue him for defamation by implication for his tweets about the Epstein list. Support shareholder efforts to get him removed from his companies in light of the huge fluctuations in stock prices that his erratic behavior has caused.

Musk has demonstrated that he’s only going to get worse and not learn anything from his mistakes. He made a lot of real contributions, but he did not buy a license to fuck everything up forever and no one should sell him one. Similar harsh treatment should be extended to anyone who supported Musk or who used Musk’s failed moment as an opportunity to get in cheap shots at the Trump admin. These guys are going to do this forever until they’re stopped. People must learn not to interact with them without hostility.

It’s unlikely that someone as wealthy and prominent as Musk could ever be fully removed from politics. However, he can be brought down a peg or three to permanently reduce his influence. He’s broken the law and should suffer the consequences for it. It’s not like Musk can go back to the Left, they’ll set out to kill him if they ever manage to regain political control. Most importantly, harsh treatment of Musk and his associates would demonstrate that bad behavior on the Right actually has consequences, which it currently doesn’t.

There are basically zero standards on the American Right. It is incredible the kind of characters who are tolerated and excused. Someone can engage in bad behavior for years, even directly advocating for liberals to be given full control, and still be welcomed back into the fold for merely saying the right words. That’s a consequence of how most people treat this stuff, as an idea contest or game rather than a struggle for political power with very real effects on you and everyone you know.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Elon Musk’s Terrible Political Judgment