I saved this for a separate post because I happen to share a lot of libertarian values, but my god I cannot stand libertarians. At least, not American libertarians. I believe in maximal personal liberty. I believe in minimal economic interference by government. I believe in minimal taxes, and I'm open to the idea that all taxation is theft. I am a gun rights absolutist and a free speech absolutist. I am not an open borders advocate, but I'll save that for another time. The short version is that even Galt's Gulch needed to have border controls to avoid being taken over by people who did not share the values on which they were building their community. But where I differ from libertarians, apart from my belief in national sovereignty and border control, is that I am a firm interventionist. And here is why. Let's start with the fact that in order for property rights and contracts to be enforced, we have to have some enforcement mechanism. Some people might suggest we have essentially anarchy and every person should be left to enforce their own contracts. To such people, I say, we cannot have a discussion unless you acknowledge what reality is like. Such a system is never going to work for the same reason communism cannot work: it only works if every single person voluntarily commits to following it. In reality, humans will always try to twist things to their own advantage. So on some level we need police, or some similar enforcement mechanism. Now, the next question is, who should get the protection of that enforcement mechanism? And while I do believe in borders, my ultimate answer is that everyone should get that enforcement mechanism to protect their personal liberty and economic liberty. Everyone that we can practically provide it for. After all, why should I care, if I am a libertarian, if my neighbor's property rights are violated by a robber? They aren't me. That isn't 'my problem.' Why should my resources go to police who are going to catch that robber and return the property? When Rand Paul was assaulted in his home, why should my tax dollars go to provide police who catch the assaulter? Yet almost all libertarians think that we should, for some reason, care. That my tax dollars should in fact go to paying to protect Rand Paul (and let me say of all the people in the US, he's lowest on the list of people I care about protecting, after how he has talked about Iran).

Throughout the past decade, I have repeatedly witnessed and confronted the disturbing alliances between radical leftist organizations and Islamist extremist groups. These partnerships, often masked as social justice activism, consistently reveal a shared hostility toward Western values, Israel, and democratic principles. Some of the more significant examples n the following responses include the following: In 2015, I faced off against radical leftists, including Daisy Khan and other individuals aligned with the mullah regime, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas, outside AIPAC in Washington, D.C. In October 2023, following the Hamas October 7 terrorist attack on Israel, I confronted radical leftist organizations, including Antifa, the Marxist Youth League, the Workers World Party, Students for Justice in Palestine, and other aligned groups. In November 2025, I documented radical leftist groups — including Antifa, the Marxist Youth League, the Workers World Party, Students for Justice in Palestine, and other co-aligned actors — as they supported the violent Marxist Maduro regime in Venezuela, the mullah regime occupying Iran, the Castro regime occupying Cuba, and Hamas Last Saturday at the “No Kings” rally in Buffalo those same groups Antifa, the Marxist Youth League, the Workers World Party, Students for Justice in Palestine, and other co-aligned actors — as they supported the violent Marxist Maduro regime in Venezuela, the mullah regime occupying Iran, the Castro regime occupying Cuba, and Hamas These repeated encounters demonstrate a clear and consistent pattern: radical leftist organizations are not merely protesting — they are actively aligning with authoritarian regimes and terrorist groups that oppose freedom, democracy, and human rights. This dangerous convergence should concern anyone who values liberty and Western civilization. It is essential that we recognize and confront these alliances before they further erode the principles that underpin our society.

After the war is over, one of the main changes in the middle east is the new alliances… one that is already kinda existing are: Israel - UAE, Israel - Azerbaijan Israel - Sumali-land in the future: Armenia - Azerbaijan - Iran - Georgia - Ukraine - Israel UAE - Saudi Arabia - Israel - Kuwait - Sumali-land although Ukraine isn’t in the middle east but i believe it will take some significant role at some point (they have one of the largest operational ground forces that are experienced in a modern drone warfare)

I said that I had more response to anti-war people today, and I thought I would try to write out my thoughts here. For those who did not see Pahlavi's speech, he said two things that were very profound, and which encapsulate a lot of my disagreement with the anti-war 'bleeding heart' types, both progressive and otherwise. First, he said that liberty is everything and it is worth dying for. He said it much better than I did. Second, he said that in addition to compassion for the victim of oppression, it is necessary to have a righteous hatred of evil. We have lost sight of the concept of a righteous hatred and enmity, lost in a puddle of 'tolerance.' We have lost sight of both of these things in the West, perhaps because, since WWII, there has been no serious threat to freedom* that we have had to face. And more and more, the gospel of irresponsibility has taken hold, the idea that no one is responsible for doing bad things, that it is society's fault, and so on. It has made it very hard for people in the West to say 'No, this person is evil. I hope they may reform, but in the meantime, they are my enemy, and not just my enemy, but someone we can and should fight.' Up until fairly recently, all civilizations, even those of the Enlightenment, have acknowledged that some people are such a danger that they must either be completely rendered harmless or they must be fought and killed. CS Lewis wrote an excellent essay called 'Why I am not a Pacifist.' And I encourage everyone to go read it regardless of your religious beliefs, because his argument is mostly non religious. It is a brilliant summary of why pacifism is a frankly dumb and unethical position. I will try to summarize one of his best points here. Suppose you see two people drowning. How do you pick between them in terms of prioritizing who to save first? Maybe just take the one that is more likely to be saved? But what if of the two people, A and B, person B was responsible for getting them lost in the water? Shouldn't you prioritize saving A?

Any retard saying the joint military operations were a mistake because there was no imminent threat is completely blind to reality. If the threat is imminent, you are already too late. That is the entire point. You take action before an expansionist regime builds a nuclear bomb, not when they are holding the global economy hostage. We had undeniable evidence they were rapidly moving toward becoming a nuclear power. If we just sit back and let them control the whole region, the destruction will be a thousand times worse. Do you really think they would not choke off the global energy supply once they had an atomic bomb? Once nobody could do regime change on them ever again? We are dealing with a regime that openly wants world domination, and you actually think they are going to show us mercy just because we did not attack them first? Send this to anyone repeating this nonsense.