Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Lisa Nystrom's avatar

I was hoping for just a little optimism. Maybe tomorrow. Thanks, Paul. You nailed it.😞

Johan's avatar

Trump just declared victory while promising to keep fighting, compared Iran to Venezuela “formula that’s working,” walked back unconditional surrender, claimed mission complete but “we can go further,” and suggested Iran might have stolen a Tomahawk to bomb their own school.

So, which narrative sticks? Declare victory for base, threaten escalation to justify continuation, float Venezuela puppet-state model, deflect war crimes. When you have no actual endgame, you try every story simultaneously and see which polls best.

The tell: Trump surprised Iran hasn’t capitulated, admitted Vance “philosophically different” and “maybe less enthusiastic about going” . That’s the model:regime change theater, oligarchical control maintained.

War entering second week, 1,230+ dead in Iran, oil prices spiking, mission objectives changing daily… but Trump speaking in past tense like it’s already over while simultaneously threatening harder strikes. Performing multiple endings at once. This imbecilic machine/brain is broken—circuits clearly fried.

The complexity cascade in action: Each incoherent message creates new crisis requiring new contradictory message. Launch war without plan → generate cascading failures → throw narratives until something sticks → repeat. Classic authoritarian move: declare victory regardless of facts, maintain flexibility based on political needs, never commit to verifiable outcome.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

16 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?