Wednesday, May 13, 2026

STOOO-pid: The Ds' VA redistricting gamble is the botch of botches, upturning the Ds' gloating and making them highly visible national losers


As Dan Crenshaw explains to the likes of Rahm Emmanuel and Bill Maher (who claim, respectively, that the nationwide gerrymandering mess "all started in Texas" and that "Republicans are winning the gerrymander war"), "Democrats have been winning this battle for a looong time."

On the contrary — to repeat a post written two days ago by Damian Bennett — the Lone Star State's gerrymandering has been in response to massive gerrymandering in Democratic states, notably Illinois, New York, and California, not to mention multiple states in New England, which turns out to be a political monoculture. "Republican voters make up 40% of New England. Democrats control the district lines."  (Thanks for the Instalink, Sarah.)

In addition, as one recent meme puts it, "The Democrats welcomed 20 million illegals into America in order to change the census for voting"… And it's the Republicans who are accused of gerrymandering?!?! 


Isn't that evidence, MSM — whose members are always repeating Democrats' denials of election fraud being anything serious enough to warrant investigation — of some form of cheating in American elections?! 




Our old buddy Damian Bennett, who lives in Virginia himself, has much more to add today, the most serious of which (2nd sentence below) I haven't seen elsewhere, that "before Rs start farting in public, please note SCOVA nullified the April 21 Referendum by [only] a 4-3 ruling. That's how close the Ds came":
My previous [contribution] laid out the timeline of the Ds' pre-gloat, vote gloat, full gloat, then -- gloat to SCOVA goat. However, before Rs start farting in public, please note SCOVA nullified the April 21 Referendum by a 4-3 ruling. That's how close the Ds came.

In all of this I have not read ANYONE address the Ds' bizarre theory for VA redistricting. Please read again the Referendum ballot Q:
 
Q: Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily [!?] adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness [!?] in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia's standard redistricting process resumes [!?] for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?

Please note that this is NOT the actual amendment language, it is a purported distillation of a legislative referral.* As a matter of law, Qs are not enshrined into Constitutional law followed by a Yes. The amendment language itself never appeared on the ballot. Does the ballot Q accurately represent the actual amendment language, which can be found here? No.
* Virginia uses the "legislative referral" method of amending its Constitution. An amendment is introduced as a legislative resolution, [the exact same resolution in its original form] must be approved by legislators during two separate sessions, and then approved by a majority of Virginia voters at the next general election.

Let's break down the actual ballot Q:
  1. A Constitution is bedrock law, the fundamental law of a polity. It evokes permanency. It is above the sand-shifting of legislating policy or the gamesmanship of politics. The idea of a Constitutional amendment solely for the purposes of an incidental political win is antithetical to the very idea of a Constitution based on principles, tradition and precedent, uncolored by partisanship.
  2. A 'temporary' amendment to permanent law is contradictory, incompatible with and deleterious to stable governance.
  3. The purposive language 'restore fairness' of the Referendum Q NEVER appears in the actual amendment, which reads: 
    • The Commonwealth shall be reapportioned into electoral districts in accordance with this section and Section 6-A in the year 2021 and every ten years thereafter, except that the General Assembly shall be authorized to modify one or more congressional districts at any point following the adoption of a decennial reapportionment law, but prior to the next decennial census, in the event that any State of the United States of America conducts a redistricting of such state's congressional districts at any point following that state's adoption of a decennial reapportionment law for any purpose other than (i) the completion of the state's decennial redistricting in response to a federal census and reapportionment mandated by the Constitution of the United States and established in federal law or (ii) as ordered by any state or federal court to remedy an unlawful or unconstitutional district map.
      [This is conditional language. It does not explain, much less give, the purpose or intended effect of the amendment. Based on the amendment language, the Virginia General Assembly could "modify one or more congressional districts" following the recent CA gerrymander, which clearly contravenes the unspecified 'fairness' the Referndum Q refers to and the amendment is meant to achieve.]
      Any such decennial reapportionment law, or reapportionment law modifying one or more congressional districts, shall take effect immediately and not be subject to the limitations contained in Article IV, Section 13, of this Constitution.
  4. The Referendum Q does not posit that VA elections are unfair. The 'fairness' the Referendum seeks to restore lies elsewhere, beyond the jurisdiction of the state and the interests of Virginians. How has it been construed that Virginians should forfeit their own fair Constitution-compliant electoral districts  so as to right 'unfair' redistricting in some other state? What other perceived wrongs elsewhere will Virginians next be called on to redress at the expense of peaceably abiding under established Commonwealth law? 
  5. There is no guarantee that redistricting VA will produce the 'fairness' the Referendum Q posits to restore in 'the upcoming elections'. The point of this exercise is a specific result, scil. 'restore fairness' at the national level. The language of the Referendum suggests the amendment remedy (10D/1R) could remain in force until it achieves its purpose. 'Upcoming elections' means 2026 and 2028 or might also mean any future election cycle where the desired 'fairness' is seen in need of restoration (see next).
  6. The Referendum Q provides no mechanism for "ensuring Virginia's standard redistricting process resumes". The purpose and actionable language of the Referendum Q is to 'restore fairness'. The wording of the Referendum Q certainly suggests that the ensured resumption of "Virginia's standard redistricting process" is contingent on the stated goal (scil. 'restore fairness') being met. However, the amendment language does provide a very specific operational window:
    • The authorization in Article II, Section 6 authorizing the General Assembly to modify one or more congressional districts at any point following adoption of a decennial reapportionment law in the event that any State of the United States of America conducts a redistricting of such state's congressional districts at any point following that state's adoption of a decennial reapportionment law shall be limited to making such modifications between January 1, 2025, and October 31, 2030, in response to actions taken by another state between January 1, 2025, and October 31, 2030.
  7. The Referendum's redistricting (10D/1R) WILL stay in place till at least 2030 and possibly beyond (viz. #4 supra) regardless of any developments on the national 'fairness' front (even were all red state redistrictings thrown out by their various courts). Given the purposive political theory of the ballot Q, there's no reason to believe the amendment window would not itself be revisited and subject to extension by amendment. 
The actual amendment is conditional and procedural with no stated purpose. This is important, because the ballot Q asks voters to vote on a specific purpose (i.e., 'restore fairness') something absent from the amendment. The April 21 vote was thrown out on procedural flaws. The 'purpose' has not yet been tested in court, but it is hard to imagine any state court ruling in favor of intramural redistricting over the sovereign representation of its own citizenry. [Pause.] Then again, 'money, guns, and lawyers' is the new DNC order of settlement.

Keep in mind that Virginia Ds had access to the 'best' legal minds and scholars, think tanks and consultants, internal polling, lots of loot, and the DNC Brainiacs when drafting their rape of the Commonwealth Constitution and framing the rape in the language of the ballot Q. And still they made a complete flustercuck of it. This speaks to competence in law and the obligations of law.
The Ds are twisting and writhing like a cut snake, biting everyone and anything in reach. SPOILER: Cut snakes eventually die.
The Ds' VA redistricting gamble is the botch of botches. It is a disaster, not merely because it failed, but because it upturned the Ds' gloating and made them highly visible national losers. In March the smart money was predicting Hakeem Jeffries would be the next House speaker. Ds were +6 on the generic ballot (down from +18 earlier), only needing to win the House by a generalized 3 pts. 
After the VA fail and all the heated rhetoric, now the Ds are +3 (within MOE, toss-up territory) on the generic ballot. Had Hakeem not bragged on swinging his big dick and kept it in his pants big bat, well, with gas at $4.50/G, he could have coasted into November. But Hakeem is big king STOOO-pid in the kingdom of stooooo-PIDs.
Posted by at 4 comments:

Trump Is a Patient Man, Karsenty Insists to Incredulous Guests in a French TV Debate


Among the debaters at BFMTV's special War in the Middle East special (video at link) were Général Philippe Skios, ex-KGB agent Sergueï Jimov, and, last but not least, Philippe Karsenty (6:06-22:19), who proceeds to tell the others at BFMTV's round table that Donald Trump is most assuredly a man of infinite patience, which causes most of said guests, not to mention presenter Alice Darfeuille, to almost fall out of their seats.

BFM TV - 9 mai 2026 - Guerre en Iran, la stratégie de Trump face à la Chine et la Russie

ÉDITION SPÉCIALE : GUERRE EN IRAN 

Revoir en intégralité l’émission « 20h BFM » animée par Alice Darfeuille du 9 mai 2026.
1h40min|2026|

 

Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, May 10, 2026

Gerrymandering Wins & Fails Across the USA; + the Hysterical Response in Mudville


In a recent C-SPAN debate involving Glenn Youngkin and Rahm Emmanuel, the Democrat charged that the nationwide gerrymandering mess "all started in Texas," meaning Republicans are the original sinners. Of course 

it did not. (When the former governor of Virginia started to protest, the former mayor of Chicago immediately cut him off.) On the contrary, the Lone Star State's gerrymandering has been in response to massive gerrymandering in Democratic states, notably Illinois, New York, and California, not to mention multiple states in New England, which turns out to be a political monoculture. As Dan Crenshaw responded to Bill Maher (when the Real Time host claimed that "Republicans are winning the gerrymander war"): "Democrats have been winning this battle for a looong time."

Indeed, what is even worse in my eyes, or at least just as bad — and this is yet another news item that emerged in the Trump years that floored me and that the MSM should have revealed years ago — a dozen states have something akin to 60-40 D-R voting patterns, but do not get a single Republican lawmaker in Congress.  

"Republican voters make up 40% of New England. Democrats control the district lines."  

In addition, as a recent meme puts it, "The Democrats welcomed 20 million illegals into America in order to change the census for voting"… And it's the Republicans who are accused of gerrymandering?!?!

Isn't that evidence, MSM — whose members are always repeating Democrats' denials of election fraud being anything serious enough to warrant investigation — of some form of cheating in American elections?! Duncan Hill writes: 

My state, Connecticut, has about the same proportion Dem to Republican. Yet, we have no, zero, zip, nadda Republican representation in Washington. Hmmmm...how can that be? 


Duncan is responding to our old friend Damian Bennett, — aka the man who notes that with the Left "it's always Trump 24/7/365¼" — uncovers many of the shady dealings that have characterized the Old Dominion's smoke and mirrors, which started with 

Abigail Spanberger promising to be a moderate whose agenda placed focus [only] on living costs and public service, i.e., applying only to economics and "affordability." 

By the way, Gavin Newsom, the South became the Confederate States (or attempted to do so) precisely because it was one single Democrat stronghold, one which sputtered with outrage when a Republican had had the gall to win the race to the White House in 1860. 

If you don't have the time to read his entire plate of hyperlinks, then scroll all the way to the bottom, because Damian's basic reaction on the gerrymandering news front is his very final word at the bottom of this post. His in-depth work starts below the X video:

Damian Bennett:
A Democrat ballot initiative seeks to redistrict purpley Virginia from 6D/5R to 10D/1R. This would reduce the 48% state red vote to 9% representation in the House.

Q: Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily [!?] adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness [!?] in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia's standard redistricting process resumes [!?] for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?
□ YES 
□ NO
The outlook wasn't brilliant for the Mudville nine that day:
The score stood four to two, with but one inning more to play. ...
Then from five thousand throats and more there rose a lusty yell;
It rumbled through the valley, it rattled in the dell;
It pounded on the mountain and recoiled upon the flat,
For Casey, mighty Casey, was advancing to the bat.

 (Apologies to Ernest Lawrence Thayer)

We resume with some pre-gloats, the vote soap, the post-gloats, and the gloat reach-arounds:
Oh. Wait a minute.
WHOA! WHOA, Dawgs!
We all want 'fairness' even at the expense of Constitutional abuse, yes? Actually NO.
Oh NOOoooes! Let us check in on Mudville.
  • Hakeem Jeffries On X May 8, 2026: The decision by the Virginia Supreme Court to overturn the will of more than three million voters [!?] will not stand.
    [Hakeem, how will it not stand? Where can you shop your appeal? (BTW, redistricting was the will of only 1.6M voters of that 3M.) Read his whole statement at the link. Whatever has become of 'maxium warfare, everywhere, all the time'? What has become of the April 21 gloat? What has become of the midterms? More here. Dawg, pull up your pants and stop with the tough-talk microstiffy.]
  • Matthew Klein On X May 8, 2026: Overturn this decision? It’s a ruling from the State Supreme Court on a state constitutional matter, who are you going to appeal it to? God?
  • Kamala Harris Claims SCOVA ‘Ignored the Will Of The People’ By Killing Democrat Gerrymander Plan May 8, 2026
  • Jonathan Turley On X May 8, 2026: Hakeen Jeffries: “F around and find out”
    Virginia Supreme Court: The Democratic position "ends poorly." ...
    ... The court found that the gerrymandering effort is "wholly unprecedented in Virginia’s history." It characterized the position as a "clever argument is a story of the tail wagging the dog that has no tail."
  • Democrats In Disarray After Virginia Supreme Court Strikes Down Redistricting Referendum May 8, 2026: Axios reported that some Democrats are now openly questioning whether spending roughly $62.5 million to support the Virginia referendum effort was worth the investment. Nearly $40 million reportedly came from Hakeem Jeffries-aligned House Majority Forward. “I feel like this is a colossal waste of resources that will further erode our politics,” one House Democrat told Axios. Another asked, “How many millions of dollars are we spending on this when the DNC is in debt and we have 40 frontline races to win?” 
    Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger: “I am disappointed by the Supreme Court of Virginia’s ruling, but my focus as Governor will be on ensuring that all voters have the information necessary to make their voices heard this November in the midterm elections because in those elections we — the voters — will have the final say.”     [Ooh PUH-leeze! See Luke Rosiak bullets above.]
  • Gavin Newsom On X May 8, 2026: No vote in Tennessee (+1 GOP); No vote in Florida (+4 GOP); No vote in Missouri (+1 GOP); No vote in North Carolina (+2 GOP); No vote in Texas (+5 GOP); Virginia’s voter-approved maps thrown out. MAGA has rigged the system.
    [Glad to see SOMEONE keeping score at the DNC.]
    • Gavin Newsom On X May 7, 2026: Confederate states are rushing through rigged maps to erase Black districts off the map.
       
      [Oh, Gavin, you sweet summer child. Confederate states? Way to win the South in 2028. Wait! Your map OMITS VA, the arch Confederate state, the state that hosted the capital of the CSA. Why? Also, best brush up on latest SCOTUS VRA ruling, the Dems' imagined right to segregated 'black' districts is Constitutionally disallowed.]
In conclusion, dear reader, sometimes life is sweet, and sometimes it is all-day-double-portions-of-ice-cream-&-cake and indescribably DELICIOUS!
Coda:

Oh, somewhere in this favoured land the sun is shining bright,
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light;
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout,
But there is no joy in Mudville—mighty Jeffries has struck out.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! -- Excuse me, a final word. Redistricting is presented by both parties as rightful spoils, court-sanctioned certainties. There is some truth to that, but never lose sight -- as the chatty panel pundits do -- that every seat is contestable and the quality of a candidate is a better bet, the correct civic disposition, than a legislative штурмовщина's dog's breakfast. Alright, where was I? -- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! [Snort.] 


Posted by at No comments:

Friday, May 08, 2026

RINOs Explained: Be they Democrat or Republican, political insiders slow walk issues because a problem solved is one less issue to raise money from donors

In a a Substack article titled Trump saved Indiana in 2016, Don Surber reveals a plethora of information about Hoosier state politics that many, or most, of us have no more than an inkling about (if that much), and related issues, be they regarding former Governor Mike Pence, Dan Coats, or Ronna McDaniel. 

Naturally, Karl Rove the architect of Dubya’s 2000 and 2004 elections, and the Wall Street Journal hated [the Indiana primary] because both are Establishment Republicans who want to do as little as possible. Most of the Republicans (and Democrats) in Congress seem to be going through the motions until they die or collect their pensions … 
… Trump picked [then-Governor Mike Pence] as his running mate and saved Indiana for Republicans in November [2016]. … Pence paid Trump back by siding with the deep state and Nancy Pelosi in the January 6 [2021] charade. 

Speaking of VP Pence, Don Surber proceeds to explain the politicians of all lands, and especially the RINOs, in one single sentence (in bold as well as in the headline).

By GOP, Rove refers not to Republican voters but to the Grand Old Party of insiders. Small donors send them money and they party.

 … From Rove’s standpoint as a political insider, you can see why he is so upset with President Trump because he gets things done.

Be they Democrat or be they Republican, political insiders slow walk issues because a problem solved is one less issue to raise money from donors.

Why do you think Congress has not changed immigration law in 40 years despite their repeated cries for reform?

In addition, that explains the intense hostility Donald Trump faces from politicians everywhere, be it in America or abroad. It is something their (willfully? blinded) allies in the mainstream media refuse to acknowledge. That the animosity that Trump is the subject of derives not from any sense of fact-filled rationality from but from partisanship that will showcase their actions or, rather, their lack of actions.

Posted by at No comments:

Monday, May 04, 2026

"Nobody Interrupted You, Sir!" On the Contrary, Karsenty Is Constantly Under Assault on French TV Program by Half a Dozen TDS-Suffering Leftists

 

"Personne ne vous a interrompu, Monsieur!" s'écrie "l'hôtesse" de BFMTV.

Au contraire ! Philippe Karsenty est interrompu du début de l'émission à la fin !

Philippe Karsenty says that he was happy to join a BFMTV debate on Sunday (video at link) because The spokesman for le Comité Trump France explains that he managed to say the most important things on French TV ever, all of which were constantly interrupted by half a dozen more or less TDS-suffering French pundits, not least Renew's insufferable Bernard Guetta.

The room erupts at the end when Philippe Karsenty says nonchalantly that "We should all thank him and one day [in the near future], all of you will see that you will all be Trump fans!"

BFM TV - 2 mai 2026 - Débat très animé avec Bernard Guetta

Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, May 03, 2026

The CIA's Anti-Democratic 1953 Coup in Iran? What Nobody Tells You About America's Alleged Overthrow of the Shah's "Democratically-Elected" Prime Minister Mossadegh

The Iranian tragedy did not begin in 1953. It began in 1979 

Well, what do you know? Another "well-known historical fact" turns out to be nothing but fake news or, if you prefer, leftist re-writing of history. Over on X Twitter, Ole @DerCheapi has penned the post The Mossadegh-Myth: A coup that never happened. The original title in German ("Die Mossadegh-Lüge: Ein Putsch, der keiner war") calls it The Mossadegh Lie.

Some stories have been told so often that nobody asks anymore whether they are true. The story of the CIA coup against Mohammad Mossadegh is one of them.
It goes roughly like this: In August 1953, the CIA and MI6, acting on behalf of American and British interests, overthrew Iran's democratically elected prime minister. They installed the Shah as a puppet. In doing so, they destroyed Iran's democratic future and laid the groundwork for the Islamic Revolution of 1979, for anti-Americanism, for the mullahs, for everything that has gone wrong since.
Over the past few decades, this narrative has hardened into a Western dogma. It appears in school textbooks, in mainstream American journalism, and in the memoirs of those who shaped U.S. policy. The New York Times, CNN, and the BBC (well well well) have canonized it as the original sin of Western Middle East policy. Hollywood took up the same script: Ben Affleck's Argo (2012), winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture, opens with a three-minute animated prologue walking the audience through 1953 as the inciting cause of everything that followed.

 … Here in Germany, the chorus is no quieter: Olaf Scholz recently declared that the entire Iranian dilemma traces back to the British and American overthrow of Iran's democratic government, without which Iran would today be "a very successful Western country." … Even the German "Federal Agency for Civic Education "calls 1953 Iran's "primal catastrophe."

The only problem is: the story isn't true.
Not partially untrue. It isn't a matter of "needing nuance." It simply isn't true.

What Mossadegh Was Not

Let's start with the label that carries the whole thing: "democratically elected."
Mossadegh was not elected by the people. The Iranian Constitution of 1906 made no provision for the direct election of the head of government. Article 46 of the Supplementary Fundamental Laws expressly assigned the appointment and dismissal of the prime minister to the Shah. (1) Mossadegh came into office in 1951 because the Shah appointed him, following a non-binding expression of preference by parliament, in the expectation that the 69-year-old aristocrat would gracefully decline. To the Shah's surprise, he accepted.
This is the precise process that the myth sells as a "democratic election." … Mossadegh was no man of the people. He was a Qajar prince, a descendant of the dynasty that had ruled Iran into a state of chronic weakness for more than a century. Under the Qajars, Iran was not a sovereign state but an object of plunder. In 1907, the Russians and British divided the country contractually into spheres of influence; the economy had been sold off through foreign concessions; the hinterland disintegrated into the hands of local tribal chiefs and warlords; and the central government in Tehran often controlled little more than its own capital. It was precisely this disintegration that produced the Constitutional Revolution of 1906. And it was precisely those constitutionalists who, two decades later, together with Reza Khan, the future Reza Shah Pahlavi, finally toppled the Qajar dynasty in 1925. The Pahlavis, in other words, did not come to power against Iran's constitutional movement but with it, as a response to the failure of the very aristocracy from which Mossadegh hailed. His title Mossadegh ol-Saltaneh, "the one belonging to the monarch," was no nickname but a noble designation from that very order which had been overthrown.

… Anyone who declares Mossadegh the hero of Iranian democracy overlooks the irony: the man who fought the Pahlavis was a representative of precisely that old order whose removal had created the precondition for Iran ever to become a modern state at all.

What Mossadegh Did

But surely he was at least a democrat in spirit, right? A man who protected the constitution, respected parliament, preserved the institutions?
No.
In 1952, Mossadegh halted the parliamentary elections for the 17th Majles at the very moment when the number of deputies already elected was just sufficient to make parliament quorate. … he had the Majles grant him emergency powers that gave him the right to govern by decree, initially for six months and then extended by another year. He stripped the Supreme Court of its powers. He took over the Ministry of Defense personally, cut its budget by fifteen percent, dismissed 136 officers, and appointed his own nephew as deputy. …

What the CIA Did (and Didn't Do)

Now to the actual heart of the matter: did the CIA overthrow Mossadegh?
The honest answer is: no. But not because the CIA didn't try. It's because the attempt failed.
Operation TPAJAX was set in motion on August 15, 1953. Colonel Nassiri, commander of the imperial guard, brought Mossadegh the dismissal decree signed by the Shah. Mossadegh, forewarned by Tudeh contacts within the army, had Nassiri arrested. The Shah fled the country. The operation collapsed.

… Ayatollah Kashani, humiliated by Mossadegh, supplied the religious legitimation. The Tudeh Party tore down statues of the Shah, alarming the clergy, who feared a communist takeover. The bazaar shut down. The military marched. …

What Happened with the Oil

The economic argument with which the coup thesis is typically rounded out also doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The usual narrative is that the West overthrew Mossadegh in order to return nationalized Iranian oil to private, Anglo-American hands. In fact, the opposite happened. The nationalization of the Iranian oil industry was not reversed after 1953. The National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), founded in 1951 under Mossadegh, remained the owner of the reserves, the facilities, and the refinery at Abadan. What changed was the form of utilization.
 … The nationalization for which Mossadegh is venerated as a martyr was thus completed not in spite of, but after, his overthrow.

Who Benefits from the Lie?

That leaves the uncomfortable question: why does this story persist so stubbornly?
Because it offers too much to too many actors to disappear.
It serves the Western left, which after Vietnam needed a vocabulary of American guilt. Iran became the canvas on which "imperialism" could be demonstrated beyond the Southeast Asian defeat. Stephen Kinzer's All the Shah's Men (2003) even derived 9/11 from 1953, a chain of causation so absurd that it works only if no one asks any questions.
The CIA itself also profited massively from this narrative. The events surrounding 1953 were a complete success for both the West and Iran: communist influence was pushed back, looming chaos was averted, and in the following decades up to 1979, Iran experienced one of the most impressive economic developments in its history …

… It serves Western politicians who want to stage diplomacy and appeasement with Tehran as atonement for past guilt. Madeleine Albright apologized in 2000. Barack Obama repeated the legend in Cairo in 2009 and in his memoirs. John Kerry negotiated the nuclear deal with diplomats who, schooled in the language of Western self-accusation, played the Mossadegh card routinely whenever the pressure at the negotiating table grew too great.

But no one benefits from it more than the regime in Tehran itself.

Ali Khamenei is dead. The system he embodied for decades lives on, for now, as of the time of this article, and with it the function the Mossadegh myth serves for that system. As long as the world is talking about 1953, it isn't talking about 1979. As long as the supposed CIA coup is being debated, the mass executions of 1988, in which thousands of political prisoners were murdered on Khomeini's orders, are not. As long as Mohammad Reza Shah appears as an "American puppet," the Revolutionary Guards, who since 1979 have been financing terror in dozens of countries, don't have to explain themselves. As long as the West accuses itself, the regime in Tehran doesn't have to face accusation.

The legend of the coup is the most important weapon of the Islamic Republic. Not its missiles. Not its proxy militias. Not even its nuclear program.
But a story the West tells itself, and which the regime listens to, comfortably leaning back.

What This Means for Us

In January 2026, an estimated tens of thousands of Iranian demonstrators died under the gunfire of their own security forces. Eyewitnesses reported hundreds of corpses in the streets. The regime shut down the internet so that the world could not watch.
In that very moment, German politicians, talk-show intellectuals, and public broadcasting correspondents were declaring that the real key to understanding Iran lay in a 73-year-old event that, in truth, did not happen the way they retell it. They did so in the conviction that they were saying something enlightened.
That is the real scandal. Not that the story is told incorrectly. But that it is told incorrectly at the very moment when the victims of this regime are dying in the streets, and that the lie covers, of all people, those who pulled the triggers.

Not merely that, but because every repetition of this lie is a slap in the face of those Iranians who, since 1979, have been tortured, hanged, and shot so that the regime can keep ruling. The Iranian tragedy did not begin in 1953. It began in 1979. 

No need to comment beyond what can be read on X. Still, what stands out for me is this sentence:

[Mossadegh's] Tudeh Party tore down statues of the Shah, alarming the clergy, who feared a communist takeover
In other words, Iranians feared, rightly or wrongly, that the "democratically-elected" PM was (like Fidel Castro six years later) a secret communist and/or, at the very least, a Moscow plant, ally, or useful idiot (if not all three). 

No matter how obscure the paths to power of people like Fidel Castro in 1959 (how about Barack Obama in 2008 and Joe Biden in 2020?!), the Left is always claiming that (neo-)communists in power is the result of invariably democratic decisions made of, by, and for the people. 

But like in Russia in 1917 and like in all the countries of Eastern European countries — not to mention China — in the eight years prior to 1953, the election of a communist was, or was supposed to be, the very last time there were elections in the respective nation — before a campaign of persecution set in.

Once again, the Left's insistence on American guilt (and the attendant need for its citizens to feel the deepest shame possible) is based on exaggerated or on (outright) fake news…
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)