Part 14? Geez, I never thought that this series would make it this far. You’d think that I’d be just a wee bit better at fleshing out my ideas by now! But hey, nobody is perfect. Here are some lingering thoughts that I’ve been sitting on for awhile now, though haven’t been able to stretch into full articles. Call me a hack…
FutureSense: Of Neocons and Mexico
The neocons are starting to realize that Trump is simply not going to give them the prolonged ground war in Iran that they so desperately want. However, Raytheon didn’t fill their campaign coffers for nothing, and missiles still need to be sold. Thus, neocons will still need to warmonger. Therefore, they’ll move onto another region.
Will it be Yemen? Nope; Much like Iran, Trump has shown that he’ll engage in targeted strikes against the Houthi’s, but will not enter another 20-year ground occupation.
The neocons can’t endorse supporting Ukraine, even if it would placate their Raytheon overlords. Why? Simple; they’ve made their beds already. Reversing course on delivering aid to Ukraine would simply be seen as being weak to much of their voter base. Similarly, they fear being labeled as a RINO. Thus, supporting the man they deemed an election-cancelling dictator is a no-go, even if it would appease the donors.
Other avenues in Eastern Europe are off the table as well. Trump has been saber-rattling for a while about leaving NATO, and there’s a serious chance that he’ll do it. Trump pulling the United States out of NATO will be bad for business, however much of the Republican Party has been clear on their NATO stance since the last election cycle. Hence, turning coat on Trump’s anti-NATO views would cost precious political capital; political capital that pointedly the neocons have very little of.
So where will the neocons look? Our southern border, and this is for several reasons. First, the neocons will do this to get back into Trump’s good graces, and present and outwardly-facing united front against the Democrats. They’ll embrace militarizing the border wholeheartedly as they jockey for Drunk Uncle Sam to buy radar systems developed by Raytheon. Gotta spend those billions allotted from the Big Beautiful Bill, amirite? The neocons signaling hard on anti-immigration rhetoric will also be a simping tactic; they want Daddy to signal boost their next campaigns…
But more than just secure the current border, the neocons will actively push for our troops to enter Mexico. They’ll want Americans to engage cartel members in combat while on Mexican soil and cheer on taking out cartel leadership. However, FutureSense predicts that they’ll avoid using the term regime change due to it’s now-negative connotation. Do not be misled though; these neocons do still want regime change in our southern neighbor, just under a different name.
The neocons will carefully advertise this second Mexican-American War as a means of ensuring peace and domestic tranquility at home. Expect them to ramp up anti-immigrant rhetoric, while also advocating for extended nation-building south of the border. Will they actually give a shit about helping non-narcos in Mexico? Fuck no. But a lengthy nation-building (that nobody asked for) does mean that more munitions will need to be bought.
Gavin Newsom enters the chat and says “Well, let’s stress test this.” Game on, motherfucker; it would be far too easy to cross-reference the list of Congressional Republicans who openly support military action against Mexico and check to see if they’ve taken donations from the Military Industrial Complex. Gavin Newsom then snidely chuckles with a fake rasp in his voice as he says “Well, Frankly, I appreciate that” as he leaves the chat.
So long, Guy-Who-Wont-Be-President…
Updated Political Dictionary
I’ve taken the liberty of penning a dictionary filled with definitions of modern political terms. However, modern language is ever-changing and evolving, thus I must add a new term to the dictionary.
Committing Genocide/War Crimes: Winning the war, decisively.
As used in a sentence:
Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza versus Israel is winning the war in Gaza.
Russia is committing war crimes in Ukraine versus Russia is winning the war in Ukraine.
The sentences in those two sets of examples are essentially interchangeable. I don’t give two shits if that sharpens your pitchforks, but that’s simply a true statement. Furthermore, it shows that our modern culture is one that simply cannot accept an unequal outcome without crying some sort of foul.
To be clear, are actual cases of war crimes happening in these two regions? Certainly. But the ones using those terms aren’t doing so in sincere hopes of ending these atrocities. No, their efforts to call international attention to these events is little more than a thinly-veiled attempt to stand on a soapbox.
Seriously, let’s think for a second. If Hamas or Ukraine were decisively winning their wars, would they be complaining about war crimes? Fuck no. Why? Because they’d be far too busy flexing on social media and the international stage about how cool they think they are. Don’t believe me? Enter the Wayback Machine and examine ISIS tactics circa 2014. ISIS beat the Iraqi/Syrian hodgepodge resistance, and guess who complained about war crimes on the internet? Hint; it wasn’t Al-Baghdadi.
Do I support ISIS, Hamas, or Vladimir Putin? Absolutely not. However, it is important to note the word choice that somebody is using. The words one uses tells a lot about their biases and blind spots. Upon knowing this, you’ll know exactly where to place them in your fleet of canaries.
Or you can get mad at me for telling the truth, like a good little canary…
In Critique of “Common-Sense Laws”
There’s a common talking point of I’m not anti-gun, I just believe in some common-sense gun laws followed by their main policy idea. It sounds sensible and approachable, and that’s the danger. The phrase is specifically designed to lower the cognitive defenses of those who are even slightly sympathetic to the idea. And that is why every time you hear this phrase, your Bullshit Meter ought to activate immediately. Don’t believe me? allow me to demonstrate…
I’m not against your right to vote, I just believe in some common-sense voter laws. You ought to be able to pass a literacy test prior to voting. That screeching you hear in the distance is the sound of 10,000 pitchforks being sharpened at once. Why? Simple; I’m using the liberal’s talking point against them in matters that they care about. Bonus points to anyone who caught the historical reference I made in the example sentence.
I’m not anti-abortion, I just simply believe in some common-sense trimester limits. I just think a woman ought to have a valid reason for wanting an abortion, along with a proven medical need for one. The torches have just been lit as the angry mob comes ever closer to my front-door. Despite the light given off by their collective flames, they still cannot see the hypocrisy of supporting this line of thinking when discussing guns, but opposing it when used against something they like.
I’m not anti-immigrant, I just believe in some common-sense immigration reform. We should vet the people coming here and give them an English literacy test. Unlike the previous two examples, I actually support this one. Regardless of what I support or not, this example is sure to ruffle some feathers.
Sometimes, bad logic just needs to be made fun of…
Home Page 