Unvax'd DisInformation-Spewing Domestic Errorist

Everyone is saying the Republican midterms meltdown was because of Iran. I said that. Every commentator is saying it. Even Vice President Vance is saying it. And they're right. But I increasingly think we're only looking at the outer layer of the onion. Iran explains the immediate rupture. It doesn't explain why the coalition was so vulnerable to rupture in the first place. War fatigue - sure. Economic frustration - sure. A generational divide - sure looks like that too. But I think the fundamental division is between Insiders and Outsiders. People who have secured entry into the existing economic and political order, and people who increasingly cannot. Start with the economy. If you have a home, substantial assets, a secure income and retirement provisions, you inhabit a very different economic reality from somebody trying to acquire those things. The first group experiences rising asset prices as increasing prosperity. The second experiences those same rising prices as the cost of joining society moving further out of reach. And our debt-based financial system reinforces this. Existing assets provide collateral for more borrowing. Financial crises threaten those assets, so enormous efforts are made to stabilise the system. Often those interventions support asset valuations. The result can be a system that becomes increasingly effective at protecting existing asset owners while becoming increasingly ineffective at producing new ones. Until you discover the median American first-time homebuyer is now 40. In the 1980s, they were in their late twenties. This looks like a generational divide because ownership overlaps so strongly with age. Boomers versus Zoomers is a useful shorthand, but it's really Insiders versus Outsiders. Now look at politics. Once you achieve political office, you enter an entirely different world. You need cooperation from other politicians, officials, donors, institutions and established interest groups to accomplish anything. And gradually the interests, assumptions and expectations of those people become your political reality. Trump himself illustrates the tension. He won in 2024 partly because voters regarded him as an outsider confronting an establishment. Yet once in power, many of his decisions reflected the pressures and priorities of established institutions and political relationships. It's not unique to Trump. You can see versions of this process across political movements, including politicians who originally built their careers attacking the establishment. AOC is one of many other examples. And just as in the asset economy, political insiders tend to protect the existing arrangements, while the barriers facing new entrants become increasingly formidable. @NickJFuentes is an extreme example: enormous online reach, an energetic base, no acceptance within established Republican institutions at all. Meanwhile, the younger right posts Anakin Skywalker memes, expressing its sense of exclusion and betrayal, and gets lectured by established commentators about being disconnected from the real world politics. Okay, but whose real world? The insiders inhabit a political and economic settlement that works reasonably well for them. The outsiders inhabit one that doesn't. The insiders see institutions worth defending. The outsiders see institutions that prevent them obtaining the lives they want. And this brings us back to Iran. For the established Republican foreign-policy class, American interventionism and support for Israel are inherited commitments. They belong to a worldview extending back through the Cold War and the founding experiences of the postwar order. The story they tell themselves is a long unbroken line of necessary military interventions going all the way back to the founding story of the modern west - WWII. For many younger Republicans, those commitments carry no legitimacy. They've inherited the costs and consequences of Iraq, Afghanistan and now Iran, without having experienced the mythos building that originally produced the consensus. This isn't necessarily caused by their economic exclusion. But it belongs to the same broader phenomenon: declining consent for arrangements inherited from previous generations. And the war's economic effects are experienced differently - sure the higher gas prices are annoying. But the money printing that will follow to smooth out any disruption will do wonders for your assets - just like with Covid - or the 2008 financial crisis - or any other bloody thing. That's no consolation prize for young households already struggling with rent, bills and the prospect of buying a home. The same war. The same economy. Two completely different experiences. The Republicans' problem is that their institutional leadership still largely reflects the interests, assumptions and worldview of an older, established electorate. But the voters Trump added to the coalition in 2024 included enormous numbers of people who wanted to overturn aspects of that settlement. Winning elections concealed the contradiction for a while - the insanity of the left kept that going for his entire first term. But once he was finally accepted as an insider and had to govern - it was rapidly exposed. And that is why I increasingly think this is much bigger than Trump, Iran or one disastrous election. The entire Western political order is struggling with an increasingly serious problem of entrants to the established system. It has become much better at protecting the people who have already secured entry than at creating the conditions that would actually allow new people to enter. A property-owning economy that cannot produce new property owners. Political institutions that increasingly struggle to accommodate the very energetic and youthful movements emerging outside them. The insiders have increasingly confused protecting their own position with protecting the system itself. They see themselves defending capitalism, democracy, conservatism, institutional stability. The young aren't necessarily demanding the destruction of the system wholesale (although they are increasingly getting there). But they are rightly demanding access to the things that once made the system worth defending in the first place. They just want access to the system the insiders have effectively closed the door on. A home, a family, economic independence. And political representation for the things they are right to care about - even if it's incompatible with the existing insider political consensus. And when the answer from those already inside is effectively that the arrangements must be preserved, even as the price of entry keeps rising, the political consequences are magnificently unsurprising. That is the deeper crisis everywhere in the Western world. You cannot indefinitely preserve a political settlement by protecting its existing beneficiaries while failing to produce the next generation of beneficiaries. They would rather burn it down than help you win. And now in America, and Britain, and indeed every other western country the right is going to have to keep losing election after election until the route for outsiders becoming insiders is only as hard as it was the 1990's boomers. Not the series of roadblocks it currently is to protect the established system.

888 Ich muss das jetzt einfach mal loswerden. Weil ich es nicht mehr ertragen kann, wie wir alle für dumm verkauft werden. Warum hat Putin die Ukraine angegriffen ? Ich sag euch, warum ICH persönlich glaube, dass es passiert ist: Wegen der aggressiven Osterweiterung der NATO. Seit Jahren. Seit JAHRZEHNTEN rückt die NATO immer weiter an Russland heran. Immer ein Stück mehr. Immer ein gebrochenes Versprechen mehr. Und wir sollen alle so tun, als wäre das völlig normal ? Als hätte das keine Konsequenzen ? Denkt doch mal an die Kuba-Krise 1962 Was erzählt man uns ? Der böse Russe wollte Raketen auf Kuba stationieren, 90 Meilen vor Florida Was man uns VERSCHWEIGT: Die Amerikaner haben ZUERST angefangen 1961 haben die USA atomare Jupiter-Mittelstreckenraketen in der TÜRKEI stationiert Direkt an der Grenze zur Sowjetunion Moskau in 10 Minuten erreichbar Erst DANN hat die Sowjetunion gesagt: Wenn ihr eure Raketen vor unsere Tür stellt, stellen wir unsere vor eure - auf Kuba Die Raketen auf Kuba waren eine ANTWORT Und wie wurde die Krise gelöst ? Mit einem Deal: Beide ziehen ihre Raketen zurück Die USA aus der Türkei, die Sowjets aus Kuba Die USA haben seit 1999 die NATO 7 Mal nach Osten erweitert. Aegis-Raketen in Polen und Rumänien, die man in 2 Minuten von Abwehr auf Angriff umrüsten kann. Und dann sollte auch noch die Ukraine dazu kommen. NATO-Truppen, NATO-Raketen direkt an der 2000 km langen Grenze zu Russland. Was glaubt ihr denn, wie Russland reagieren soll ? So wie die USA 1962 reagiert haben Das war für die Amerikaner damals eine existenzielle rote Linie - völlig zu Recht Und für Russland ist die Ukraine heute genau diese rote Linie Und dann sagen alle: "Aber die Staaten wollten doch freiwillig zur NATO" Wirklich ? Schaut euch Victoria Nuland an 30 Jahre US-Spitzendiplomatin, zuständig für Europa. Sie selbst hat 2013 gesagt, die USA haben über 5 Milliarden Dollar in die "Demokratieförderung" der Ukraine gesteckt. 2014 wurde ihr Telefonat geleakt, wo sie "Fuck the EU" sagt und bespricht, wer nach dem Maidan-Putsch in die neue ukrainische Regierung kommt. "Jazenjuk ist der Mann" - und er wurde es Das war kein freiwilliges Begehren, das war ein von Washington gekaufter Putsch Klar, könnt ihr mich jetzt wieder als Kremlhure beleidigen. Macht nur. Ich war mein halbes Leben Offizier. Ich weiß, wovon ich rede, wenn es um Raketenreichweiten und rote Linien geht. Und redet endlich über das MASSAKER IM DONBASS Seit 2014 Seit 2014 werden im Donbass Russen massakriert. Von der eigenen ukrainischen Armee und vom Asow-Bataillon Über 14.000 Tote, die meisten davon Zivilisten, Frauen, Kinder, alte Menschen, die dort seit Generationen leben. Luhansk, Donezk - 8 Jahre lang Artilleriebeschuss auf Wohngebiete, auf Schulen, auf Kindergärten. Täglicher Terror. Wo war da euer Aufschrei ? Wo war da eure Solidarität ? Kein orf-Brennpunkt, keine Lichterkette, nichts Die Menschen dort haben 2014 in einem Referendum gesagt, wir wollen nicht mehr zu Kiew gehören, und die Antwort war: Panzer und Bomben Und dann wundert ihr euch, warum Putin sagt, er muss die russische Bevölkerung dort schützen ? Was hättet ihr denn gemacht, wenn eure eigenen Leute 8 Jahre lang massakriert werden und keiner hinschaut ? Und dann die wichtigste Frage: WEM NÜTZT DIESER KRIEG EIGENTLICH ? Schaut auf die FAKTEN: Rheinmetall: Vor dem Krieg Aktie bei ca. 90 Euro. Heute über 500 Euro Rekordgewinne in Milliardenhöhe. Und wer verdient daran ? BlackRock Einer der größten Anteilseigner bei Rheinmetall, über 5% direkt, gleichzeitig bei Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman drin. Friedrich Merz war jahrelang Aufsichtsratschef von BlackRock Deutschland. Zufall ? Wir zahlen mit unseren Steuern die Waffen, Ukrainer und Russen zahlen mit ihrem Leben, und BlackRock, Rheinmetall und Leute wie Sigmar Gabriel schreiben Rekorddividenden.