The 2024 Election Diaries (Part 2 of 2)
This next batch of blurbs are my responses to the responses of someone else who was responding to my original thoughts on the 2024 election. Just to provide context, you should understand that the person I’m writing to here is very much an accolade of the new New-Right (think figures like Elon Musk, Joe Rogan, Shawn Ryan, Tucker Carlson, Kash Patel, JD Vance, et al). Now, the text here is solely my own, but I still think it’s important for the reader to understand who my audience was as I was writing this.
ON THE WORLD: I was just thinking the other day how wild the foreign policy front has been for the last four years: In 2021, I woke up one morning and saw that Afghanistan had just collapsed. In 2022, I woke up one morning and saw that Russia had just invaded Ukraine. In 2023, I woke up one morning and saw that Hamas had just invaded Israel. In 2024, I woke up one morning and saw that the Syrian rebellion that was supposedly crushed a decade ago had just deposed Bashar al-Assad and taken over Syria.
ON ONE MAN: To me, the saddest thing about these last three presidential elections is that we have been living in a politics that is completely dominated by one man. The ballots in 2016, 2020, and 2024 could have just said, “Donald Trump: YES or NO.” There didn’t even need to be a second name on the ballot, because it’s always been about him.
Honestly, I think that’s the thing that people like myself are sick of more than anything else. We just want him gone so we can move on to a politics that has something substantive to offer (if that’s even possible anymore) and isn’t just the Trump show. That is why for someone like me who lives outside of the partisan bubbles — I just found this election to be boring as shit (with the exception of July and August), whereas you thought it was so engaging. Because what I saw behind all the hyperventilating from people like Elon about how “this could be our last election,” was that the Democrats and Republicans were still just following the exact same script they had been following in both 2016 and 2020. I never found those scripts compelling even back then, so I certainly don’t find them compelling now.
And sure, when those scripts first got introduced in 2016, it was intriguing because it was a complete break from the past (which came seemingly out of nowhere). But we are now eight years into this paradigm shift, and we’ve all become way too familiar with these talking points at this point. This “upending of the status quo” by Trump’s camp is no longer bold or interesting anymore (and neither is the “resistance” to it honestly). At least, not to people like me who have not found themselves enticed by what either party (or even the political camps on the outside of the parties) has had to offer in the past eight years.
WAS THIS ELECTION A REFERENDUM ON “AUTHENTICITY”? I would say, yes, it was — but with the caveat that no election is about just one thing. Not unlike wars, it’s a million separate pieces (often acting independently of one another) that for some reason we discuss as if it’s just one single subject. Everyone voted for different things and for different reasons in this election. Even people who voted for the same candidate are often voting for very different visions of what that candidate represents to them. Similar to how I said that many Republicans project their aspirations onto Trump, while many Democrats project their fears onto him (regardless of whether or not either projection is accurate). It is also similar to how any two Christians in a church (or Jews in a synagogue, or Muslims in a mosque) can simultaneously be praying to two different Gods depending on their own personal values and beliefs.
The other thorny part of this is trying to understand the line between “authenticity” and “honesty.” Trump is seen as authentic, but he is definitely not honest (whereas Kamala Harris came off as both dishonest and inauthentic in this campaign). Authenticity seems to be more of a feeling/vibe that the person gives off, but honesty is a bit more concrete. However, even that is hard to measure, because are you being “dishonest” if you say stuff that is false even though you absolutely believe it to be true? I mean, technically, if you believe it, then it’s not a lie, right? But is that the same as being honest (or is it just authentic)?
I mean, if Bush and Cheney truly believed there was WMD in Iraq, does that mean their machinations to coax us into that war were honest? If Democrats truly believe that Republicans are an existential threat to democracy, does that make their policies against “disinformation” and uses of “lawfare” honest? If Trump truly thought the 2020 election was stolen, does that mean his campaign to overturn the election was honest?
Take for instance, the Elon Musk-Joe Rogan conversation from November: I thought so much of what they said was absolute bullshit — and yet, if you asked me if I thought it was a “genuine” and “authentic” conversation — I would absolutely have to say yes. And I don’t honestly know how I’m supposed to reconcile that contradiction…
ON THE COMING RECKONING: As much as I detest the new Republican Party and Trump, I am all for the Democrats eating a big plate of crow right now. Like I said, the tragedy of this election was that both parties needed to lose so that they could have a real reckoning with themselves, but unfortunately only one party was going to be forced to do that. But make no mistake about it, Democrats will have to have a reckoning over this. Whether or not they learn the right lessons from it remains to be seen. After all, Republicans had a reckoning after Bush-43 and the election of Obama, and in my opinion they learned all the wrong lessons from it (just as I feel we learned all the wrong lessons from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). I do worry that might happen with Democrats too — in which case not only will remain stuck with only two choices to vote for, but those two choices will be far more extreme and uncompromising than they already were.
ON POLITICS-SPEAK: I find there’s a lot of these words/phrases used in our political zeitgeist that tend to get on my nerves (no more so then when I catch myself accidentally using them). Three examples that come to mind are when people constantly describe their views and politics as “common sense” (which translates as: “only me, and the people that agree with me, have valid opinions”), or when leftists in particular like to talk about how people “vote against their own interests” (which translates as: “father knows best, and I’m your father”), or the constant evocation about how “facts matter” (which translates as: “only my facts matter”).1
Another one that has bugged me lately is when someone won’t stop talking about how “people are stupid.” I even have a stand-up joke about that one, where I note how ironic it is that if you ask any person, at any time, in any place, if people are stupid — every single person will say yes. Which, in a way, proves that it’s true — because never once did any of those people stop and say, “Hey, wait a minute… I’m a person!”
It’s almost frustrating to even talk politics anymore, because I feel like any “original” thought I have immediately becomes a cliche once I find out the news cycle has already had the same thought and repeated it ad infinitum. I feel like the internet / social media age has just made it clear that none of us are as unique and insightful as we thought we were. Because everything you can think up has already been said by a million other people out there, most of whom are smarter than me anyway, and it’s really just a race to see who can publicize / monetize the thought first (hence everyone climbing all over each other to be the very first one to get the post, article, or headline out as soon as something breaks).
ON GIVING THE ELITES THE MIDDLE FINGER: Oh, I absolutely agree that much of what happened in 2016 (and 2024) was that “enough people just wanted to give a double-barreled middle finger at everything.” And look, a lot of that was completely justified — but just as much of it was petty and selfish. That’s my problem with this whole “burn it all to the ground” movement (on both sides of the aisle). I totally get wanting to give a middle-finger to the “establishment” and the “elites,” but I don’t particularly appreciate how the cure always seems to be worse than the disease.
Also, there’s a real irony to claiming that “second only to Donald Trump, Elon Musk is the biggest middle finger you can give to the establishment.” Because the Obama administration pretty much made his career, and Elon happily went along with the Democratic establishment’s progressive orthodoxy for nearly a decade (not unlike Mark Zuckerberg). It’s hard for me to take Elon’s views seriously when he was just as easily red-pilled in 2020 as he had been blue-pilled in 2010. To me, Elon Musk is just proof that you can be very, very smart in one aspect of the world (tech and business) and very, very stupid in another (humans).
MORE ON CONSPIRACIES: I think the difference between myself and the right-wing camp vis-a-vis conspiracy theories (which is honestly not very different from the left-wing camp these days) is that you have a “guilty until proven innocent” mentality, while I have an “innocent until proven guilty” mentality. Your natural predisposition is to be inclined towards the conspiracy narrative, and you can only be talked out of it if you are given some solid evidence that proves that it’s wrong. Whereas my natural tendencies push me toward the more direct “Occam’s Razor” type of explanation, and I will only believe the conspiracy narrative if you can give me some hard evidence that proves that it’s real. Of course, the real question is why so many more people on both the right and left are now naturally predisposed to the conspiracy narrative over the “Occam’s Razor” narrative than they were a generation ago.
ON REPUBLICANS BEING LABELED: Yes, it’s true that you and your brethren do have to deal with people on the left unjustifiably labeling you racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic — I won’t pretend that’s not a real thing. But let’s not also make it into a blanket condemnation. Every minority and woman in this country will have to deal with racism/sexism in their lives, but that does not mean every white man is guilty of it. Likewise, every conservative will run into people who unfairly label them as bigoted, but that does not mean every Democrat or progressive is guilty of doing that. And we have to always be open to the fact that (in both cases) sometimes the label is going to be accurately applied in certain instances.
If Republicans have trouble understanding how easy it is to fall into the trap of over-diagnosing their opponents as bigots — they can just look to the Israelis (since I know you have sympathy for their behaving in this exact same manner). They too have had to contend with real antisemitism — as well as dealing with people who wave off and dismiss their claims of antisemitism — and it has now led them to embracing the left’s tendency to just immediately assume any behavior that feels antagonistic toward them must be antisemitism. It would lead me to believe that this trend is just common, reflexive reaction from people who belong to a minority group that encounters a lot of prejudice (regardless of their political leanings).
ON THE MEDIA: I think the problem is that when you guys talk about “liberal media bias” you need to understand that the word which is supposed to upset you is “bias” not “liberal.” We shouldn’t be focused on keeping a scorecard on which side is worse, we should just be holding everyone accountable. After all, knowledge shouldn’t be a competition, it should be about cooperation. (Isn't that what Elon’s “community notes” is supposed to be all about?)2
The news environment is said to be experiencing a “revolution” — but just like all revolutions throughout history, it is seems to be rapidly desceding into chaos and factionalism (out from the ashes of which are emerging demagogues and charlatans). It has simply become a saturated market of “content,” none of which I would dare to call actual news. I just think it’s become impossible now for any rational person to keep up with it all (which is why there are very few rational news junkies left), and that has made it exceedingly difficult for an objective, impartial observer to even have the time to parse it all out (which is why most “engaged” voters no longer seem very objective). At this point, you are almost required to have a dogmatic, ideological lens to filter all this stuff through if you don’t want to end up getting lost in the maze. And so this has become the Sophie’s choice we all end up having to make with the news: We can either disconnect completely, or we can pick a side.
And again, just to be clear, I too have lost a lot of faith in legacy media and hate all of that cable news crap too — but if you’re going to tell me that we will have a more informed civil society by having the people get their news from social media and fringe websites/podcasts instead — I will have to respectfully disagree. Again, this feels like just another case of the cure being worse than the disease.
The other problem is that today everyone wants their news the instant it happens, which gives a permission structure to lower journalistic standards and just speculate about everything. And then the people commenting on the story want to have their opinions formulated instantaneously just so they can get their “hot take” out there before it becomes irrelevant (since our attention spans have dwindled down to a few milliseconds). Nobody takes their time anymore.
It’s kind of like the LA fires thing: I get that some of the issues that were brought up will likely be relevant when it’s all said and done (such as climate change or mismanagement by the blue-state government — although I less convinced that this all happened because of lesbians), but people wanted to comment immediately as if they are experts on this stuff just two minutes after the damn thing happened (even though none of them had ever once thought about this issue prior to this happening). It’s just like everyone is becoming Peter Finch from the movie Network, looking for any excuse to scream, “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not gonna take it anymore!”
ON CALLING PEOPLE NAZIS: Oh, I completely agree that it is intellectually vacant to just call your opponent a Nazi — however, this feels like a good opportunity to say that when right-wingers constantly call someone a “Marxist” or “Communist” just because they support a higher minimum wage, they do sound every bit as ridiculous as when some college kid calls someone a “Fascist” just because they believe in corporate tax cuts. So keep in mind that there is absolutely an equivalency there between the illiterate overuse of “Fascist/Nazi” and the illiterate overuse of “Marxist/Communist.”
I mean, Trump and his cohort have conflated all that leftist stuff into one catch-all slur without even understanding the differences in the terms (not that they care). In Trump’s RNC Platform (aka: Agenda 47) I busted out laughing when I read this line: “Republicans will use existing Federal Law to keep foreign Christian-hating Communists, Marxists, and Socialists out of America.” I mean, historically speaking, Socialists and Communists have typically been bitter enemies, not allies. Furthermore, Republicans are generally referencing the atrocities and totalitarianism associated with Stalinism and Maoism when they call someone a “Communist,” which is a very different ideology than Marxism (or even the original blueprint for Communism itself) — so the right has just conflated all these labels into one simplistic way to call someone “evil” without having to actually understand the complex history behind the terms (which is 100% an equivalency to how the left uses the term “Fascist” now). Situations like this are what I mean when I say that there are times when “learning from history” can actually be bad for us.
Not to mention the fact that many right-wingers have now even taken to labeling the leftists as “Fascists” too; and they typically do so just because of things like how the Nazis supported universal healthcare or more government intervention in the economy (because the “Socialism” part of the Nazis’ “National-Socialism” ideology was absolutely a real thing). Of course, this is clearly just another case of the right engaging in their favorite counter-argument of, “I know you are but what am I?” But as I’ve also pointed out frequently, the right needs to understand that when people complain about Hitler, it’s not his economic policies that really upset us — it was the other stuff.3
ON HOW THESE TRENDS ARE GLOBAL: Now when we talk about how the trends happening here in the U.S. are also happening all over the world — that’s where we get to an area where I truly do believe that “learning from history” can illuminate us. The historical trends of any given era almost always tend to be global and never seem to happen in a vacuum. The tumult of 1968 did not just happen in America, it happened in Mexico City, Paris, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and countless other places (and it happened on both sides of the Iron Curtain). The 1920s and 1930s saw the Fascism-vs-Communism battles played out in some form or another all over the world. The American Civil War was tied into the rise of liberal, nationalist movements all around the world. The “Age of Revolutions” happened not just with the American Revolution, but even more importantly in the French Revolution — and also the Haitian, Latin American, and Greek revolutions.
We are in another epoch where the global trends in one place are replicating far and wide, and this is a very common phenomenon in world history. We often think it’s just because the world is now more interconnected by technology and communications, but this trend even existed way back during the Protestant Reformation, or even ancient Greece and Rome, or how back when seemingly small, fringe religious sects like Christianity and Islam managed spread themselvs over large swathes of the world. Humans are pack animals, and I think people really do need to belong with a pack (and they also seem to need enemy packs to fight with). They don’t really want to exist in isolation from the era they are born into, they want to play their part in that era. They want to feel relevant. I guess it's kind of related to what psychologists call “meaning-making.” I think it’s actually a pretty fascinating phenomenon, and I won’t pretend that I know how to fully explain it.
MORE ON THE TRUMP ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT: The crafting of narratives around an event is the part of politics I’m most fascinated by. I don’t really get swept up into this stuff the way some American voters do. I never cared about Obama’s “Yes We Can” or Reagan’s “City on a Hill” or Hillary’s “I’m With Her” or Trump’s “Fight, Fight, Fight!” — that stuff just doesn’t do anything for me (and honestly I tend to find all of it a little corny). But I am fascinated by how it works on other people, and I enjoy trying to understand why. Plus, the historian in me is fascinated by how just one inch to the right (or a tilt of Trump’s head) could have changed the entire story of 2024. Just as Lee Harvey Oswald could have just as easily missed (or fired a non-lethal shot into JFK) and that would have dramatically changed the course of history as well.
But I never buy into the idea that these things happen because of “providence” (as Washington would have put it) or “divine intervention” (as Trump put it).4 But I do find it fascinating how people tell themselves these things and what it does to their psyche. For Washington, I think it actually made him a better man. For figures like Napoleon or Hilter, it seemed to make them far worse once they started thinking that “fate was on their side” just because they were so lucky. For Trump, I think the surprising thing is that it doesn’t seem to have changed him at all. Even his speech at the RNC — for about 20 minutes it was actually a surprisingly good speech — and then he went into another hour and a half of his usual rambling and we all realized, “Oh, nevermind. He’s still just Trump.”
I also think it’s interesting comparing the Reagan reaction to being shot to the Trump reaction. Reagan used dry-wit as a way to show he was cool and collected in the moment. And yes, there was absolutely some theatrical calculation to that, just like with what Trump did by shouting, “Fight!” — and I guess Reagan’s response could be seen as a form of “toughness” as well, but it’s a very different kind of toughness. Trump’s reaction was pure political theater, and far more purposeful. It was also an attempt to whip the crowd into a frenzy. Reagan used his shooting to bring both sides over to him (to unify), while Trump used his shooting as a way to say “it’s us-versus-them!” (to divide). In the aftermath, Trump and his surrogates were directly trying to link the shooter to the rhetoric/behavior of the Democrats and say the shooting was their fault, which is something that Reagan would have honestly found sickening. It was two very different ways of handling the situation.
ON ISRAEL & PALESTINE: I continue to think that calling Israel’s actions in Gaza a “genocide” is as misleading and counterproductive as calling Trump a “fascist.” I certainly am willing to hear people out on this issue — as I confess that over the past year the continued growth of Israeli intransigence and hubris has made me deeply uncomfortable with their conduct in this war. But I still contend that this is a war, not a genocide. I think the Israelis simply feel that they are taking an old-school WWII approach of accepting nothing less than “unconditional surrender.” Hence their constant references to WWII and the massive civilian casualties that the U.S. and its allies caused (some of which we actually caused intentionally — in the bombing of Dresden and Tokyo for example). I think Yossi Klein Halevi made a decent point when he commented that The NY Times article about how Israel has loosened its rules of engagement in regards to the “acceptable” amount of civilian casualties may upset some readers, but it also validates the claim that Israel is not engaged in a genocide — since an army that is engaged in genocide does not impose any rules on itself in regards to civilian casualties.
I think as long as Hamas does not accept the Israeli's unconditional surrender terms and continues to fight, they will pursue them endlessly without regard to the cost it imposes on Palestinian civilians. In that way, I think people are often confusing “callous indifference” with “genocidal intent.” (Although I wouldn't doubt that there are individual elements in the IDF who have “genocidal intent” — but that is unfortunately true of every army in history, including the Palestinians’.) For instance, when you think about the Nazis or the Serbians, their killing of Jews/Muslims was not incidental to their military goals — it was their military goal. That feels different than what we are seeing with in Gaza. That being said, even “callous indifference” is still an immoral conduct in war, and if that is what is happening here, it still deserves to be condemned (but it's not the same as genocide).
I just think it's important to specify this, because I think the hyperbole has so far only served to embolden the Israelis to act without reservation. Because if they can brush off their critics as merely using exaggerated and baseless accusations just to slander them, then they have basically been given a get out of jail free card when it comes to not having to change their own behavior (because I have a hard time believing that any outside force has the will and/or the power to force Israel to change it).
This is one of the endlessly frustrating things in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the lack of specificity in terminology. For instance, you can apply the term “apartheid” to the West Bank but not to Israel-proper (which most Palestinian activists do). You can say that the West Bank militants are fighting an “occupation” but Hamas was not (Gaza was “blockaded” not “occupied” and there actually is a big difference). You could make an argument that Israel has committed individual “war crimes,” but I still have not heard a convincing argument that it has a policy of systematic “genocide.” You could certainly say they are Israeli elements in the West Bank attempting to carry out “ethnic cleansing,” but that is also very different from “genocide.” You can certainly say that early Israeli settlement of Palestine was “colonialism” (because even the Zionists themselves said it) but it's pretty ridiculous to call it “imperialism.” You could argue that “armed resistance” might be legal under international law against IDF soldiers specifically engaged in occupation duties or against the settlers in the Palestinian territories, but it's hard to see how suicide bombing a pizza parlor or shooting up school full of children falls under the “right to self-defense.” So I guess my point is that (unfortunately) in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the exact words do tend to matter a lot. Particularly when persuasion is currently the only real tool left for anyone wanting to reign in the Israelis’ conduct in the war.
Honestly, I have seen persuasive evidence on this issue from each side — but I also know each side is not exactly an objective source. I continue to only feel confident in saying that it will be several years before I will even attempt to render a verdict on this war. Right now, I just go back and forth from week to week, and I don’t have a lot of faith in anyone who is not struggling with these questions as much as I am. If you are firmly on one side in this issue — and you feel uttely certain that your side is the right side — then I am not likely to take your views very seriously right now.
Honestly, by this point, I get exhausted and demoralized just thinking about it all (and I’m one of the people who actually enjoys picking this stuff apart). Which is why it doesn’t surprise that for some young leftist protester, it’s so much easier to just say, “Meh, I’m just gonna keep calling it a genocide” — or why it’s so much easier for a staunch supporter of Israel to say, “Meh, it’s all just lies being peddled by antisemites and their ‘useful idiots.’” Nothing I say or do is gonna change those peoples minds at this point. Any window there was for this horrible tragedy to bring the two sides together had an expiration date on it — and I think it’s fair to say that expiration date has passed.
That Unapologetic podcast I enjoy has been on hiatus for a bit, but they released an episode after the ceasefire went through. There was a moment in their conversation where it felt like they were confirming the worst fears I had at the start of this war (which remain my worst fears for how this war will end):5
AMIRA: Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy for the hostages. I’m happy for Gaza — for the Gazans that get to breath, get to live. But at the same time, I’m worried that — what if this happens all over again?
IBRAHIM: Yeah, are we [just] buying them time? What’s so different between this deal and the ceasefire in 2014? That was one of the most horrific Israeli operations in Gaza. The devastation and destruction in 2014 was immense — and it ended, and then we went back to the same things. And the question is, are we going back to the same cycle?6
AMIRA: God, I hope not.
I suppose my view of this thing now is that both sides have really lost their way in this war — it’s just that, sadly, only the Palestinians are having to pay the price for it. (At least for the moment, because I do think the Israelis may end up paying a price for it in another generation or two.) I have started to feel that if the pro-Palestinian camp got its way, it would be a travesty; and if the pro-Israeli camp got its way, it would be a tragedy. There just isn’t an outcome I can envision at this point that feels worth fighting for anymore. So I guess it’s just time for me to focus on my fucked-up homeland rather than theirs.
ON BEING ASKED, “WHAT’S YOUR VISION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?” Hell, I don’t know. I’m pretty burnt out and honestly don’t see myself as having anything to offer other than observations. A good historian is really just an observer anyway and as someone who has never liked “history as activism,” I have a hard time believing that my view of this history can lead America to any “solutions.” Either things are going to work out in the end … or they won’t.
Karl Marx was at his core a historian too, and I actually do think Marx’s observations were sound and really did identify the problems of (19th century) capitalism very well. But I think his “solutions” left a lot to be desired, and his “predictions” were pretty vague, fantastical, and utopian. So I think that maybe someone like me should just stay in their lane. I suppose from a purely “philosophical” point of view, I do still like the “equality of opportunity” approach (where equality and liberty are seen as working in conjunction with one another, not at odds with one another), but as far as what that approach should look like in practice or in policy — I really can’t claim to know.
Maybe one day I’ll have a better answer to this — but right now, my state of affairs is such that I really cannot worry about much other than figuring out how I’m going to survive. One thing I’ve learned about politics is that when survival is something a person genuinely has to worry about, the rest of the “hot-button” issues of the day all seem pretty inconsequential.
I think for me, the one thing that has occured to me is how I just do not like any of the modern world’s conceptions of “meritocracy.” Not that it was ever perfect, but I look at someone like Lincoln and I think, “Yeah. I could have done that.” In that frontier environment, I think could have become a lawyer, impressed my peers, and made my way on merit just by showing people what I got. I could’ve probably connected with the community in that specific time and in that specific place. But the world isn't like that anymore (if it ever really was), and there's nothing we can do about that now. The modern world feels more like your “metrics” matter more than your merit — that you have to cultivate an image of yourself in order to succeed, rather than cultivating your actual self. That’s just not an environment I thrive in, and I don’t think that I ever will.
Fun fact: Trump actually utilized one of these slogans recently when he immediately tried to blame the recent plane crash in Washington D.C. on DEI policies. A reporter asked him how he could possibly know that DEI policies were to blame when there was still so little information available on the crash at that point, and Trump replied, “Common sense.”
I also think there’s an irony in the new New-Right’s camp constantly harping on free speech while Donald Trump is engaged in multiple lawsuits to silence pollsters who put out polls he doesn’t like and using quid pro quo to lean on networks he doesn’t like.
Re-reading this exchange reminded me of a story: A friend of mine in Austin, Texas had this roommate, and one night she was walking out to go to a party while we were sitting on the front porch. As she walked away I saw that she had a Soviet hammer-and-sickle tattoo on her shoulder. The two of us just laughed when we noticed it and said, “Man, that is so ‘Austin’ of her.” And then after a minute of thinking about it, I said to him, “Isn’t it weird that we both just laughed that off like it’s no big deal? I mean, if that was a Swastika tattoo we’d would have looked at each other like, ‘Holy shit, dude. You need to move!’ But when we see that Soviet symbol we’re just like, ‘That’s so Austin!’ and cue up the Curb Your Enthusiasm music.”
In an interview in Politico, Trump’s campaign advisors, Tony Fabrizio and Chris LaCivita, discussed a conversation they had with Trump following the shooting where LaCivita said, “He’s not one to invoke God in conversation, but he made it very clear—” at which point, Fabrizio finished his sentence by saying, “—divine intervention.”
What I wrote just after 10/7 was that “an even graver consequence of all this violence may be that there is in fact no great, grand lesson learned. No moral to the story. No epic battle that is going to change the Middle East forever. Instead, we will all just go back to doing what we’ve always done: to continue to sustain an unsustainable status quo and keep the fighting going on and on and on and on and on…”
I have previously written about the 2014 war and its remarkable parallels to this war. If you want to know more about it – go to that original post and look at the full PDF embedded therein. On page 32, under the heading “JUN-AUG 2014: OPERATION PROTECTIVE EDGE” you will see the section discussing that 2014 war.