Against the voices of defeatism: I always say Israel is losing the PR war, but have a read at this...……. Mitch Schneider October 10 at 12:09 PM “I keep hearing that Israel "lost the PR war." And you know what? Fine. Sure. Whatever. The world thinks we're monsters. The UN passed over 30 resolutions condemning us. College campuses exploded with protests. "Genocide" trended on Twitter for 700 days straight. We lost the PR war. Congratulations to everyone who won it. Now let me tell you what we won instead. Two years ago, my country was surrounded. Hezbollah had 150,000 rockets aimed at us from the north. Hamas controlled Gaza with an army in tunnels beneath it. Iran was months from a nuclear weapon. The Houthis were firing missiles at our ships. Assad's Syria was an Iranian highway. Iraqi militias were itching for war. We called it the "ring of fire." Iran spent 40 years building it. Billions of dollars. Endless weapons. Thousands of fighters. All of it designed for one purpose: to destroy Israel in a coordinated attack. October 7th was supposed to be the beginning. Hamas attacks from the south, Hezbollah from the north, militias from the east, Houthis from the sea. The final war. You know what happened instead? Israel dismantled the entire thing. Piece by piece. Threat by threat. Not in some distant future. Not "eventually." In two years. Nasrallah spent 32 years building Hezbollah into the most powerful non-state military in the world. Israel killed him in his bunker and took out his entire command structure in weeks. Hezbollah isn't weakened. It's finished. Iran built a nuclear program for decades. Israel set it back years. Killed their top scientists. Destroyed their facilities. Made the regime so weak that its own people are revolting. Assad survived a civil war, Russian intervention, and American strikes. He couldn't survive losing his Iranian backers. His regime collapsed. The land bridge is gone. The Houthis thought they could close the Red Sea. Israel crippled their long-range capabilities and neutralized the threat. Hamas? Sinwar died in rubble clutching a stick. Haniyeh was eliminated in Tehran. Deif is gone. The tunnels are destroyed. And this week, Hamas agreed to a ceasefire and the release of all hostages. Read that again. The terrorist organization that started this war by massacring 1,200 people just agreed to release every hostage and accept a ceasefire on Israel's terms. So yeah. We lost the PR war. I'll take that loss. Because here's what we gained: My kids don't have to run to bomb shelters anymore. The north is being rebuilt. Hezbollah's rockets are gone. Iran's nuclear threat has been pushed back years. The tunnels under Gaza are rubble. The "ring of fire" is extinguished. And now? The hostages are coming home. There's a ceasefire. The fighting can finally end. Two years ago, we were facing an existential threat. Today, we're the dominant power in the Middle East. Here's the thing about the "PR war" - it's a luxury. It's what people with security worry about. It's optics. It's perception. It's whether someone with a blue checkmark likes you. Israel doesn't have that luxury. We never did. When people scream "genocide," we're preventing one. When they cry "disproportionate," we're stopping rockets. When they demand "ceasefire," we're rescuing hostages. While the world was busy judging us, we were busy surviving. And not just surviving. Winning. Fundamentally, decisively, historically winning. Iran's 40-year plan to surround and destroy Israel? Over. The axis of resistance? Shattered. The greatest coordinated threat in our history? Defeated. So let me ask you something: Would you rather win the PR war and lose your country? Or lose the PR war and secure your existence for the next 50 years? Because that's the actual choice. And Israel made it. Again. The world can have its hashtags. We'll take our sovereignty. They can have their protests. We'll take our security.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
No comments:
Post a Comment