Raze

That’s been largely debunked https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/

It’s very dumb reasoning. Nothing redpill about it, it’s common now in feminist / woke spaces. For one, the main reason most men didn’t pass on their genes was because they died young, not because of women not picking them. Secondly, all enduring civilizations got around this survival of the fittest by enforcing some kind of monogamy. So if we do enter such a system it could cause massive damage to society if not collapse it altogether, as family stability would collapse and most men would have no buy in and thus be less motivated to maintain society. It also assumes that the men women end up choosing are morally or civilization-ally superior, not true. The traits that are the most sexually attractive or lead to the most sex, are not necessarily the traits that make people more moral or better for maintaining civilization. There is plenty of evidence of this. Young men with higher IQs tend to lose their virginity later. Men with higher dark triad traits tend to have more sexual partners. It also isn’t even functioning as some Darwinian thing because we have birth control, and still maintain some monogamous structures. So what con end up happening is the woman can’t get any of the most wanted men to commit, then as she gets older settles for some lower value guy, whose genes she will actually pass on, or more likely - not at all. Because either after having experienced those guys she massively overestimates her mate value and won’t settle, or she just gets too busy or too old to have kids even if she gets married. That’s another thing, fertility rates are plummeting, they’re only held up largely by people in cultures that maintain the traditional monogamous structures that value marriage and having children early. So the closest thing to a Darwinian thing happening here is not less fit men being weeded out, but rather any culture that normalizes this being weeded out because it can’t sustain itself.

Genocide is defined as “the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.” Israel has said the goal is to expel Gazans, multiple Israeli officials said things like “there are no uninvolved civilians”, and has blocked food and medicine, and destroyed most civilian infrastructure, indicating they’re trying to destroy Gazas population as a whole.

https://www.vox.com/politics/378913/israel-gaza-genocide-icj https://www.commondreams.org/news/israel-is-committing-genocide-in-gaza https://archive.ph/Po29L

I also got this in my recommended a couple days ago. Strange.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/22/us/politics/iran-uranium-stockpile-whereabouts.html https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-06-22/ty-article-live/.premium/netanyahu-says-u-s-attacks-on-irans-nuclear-sites-were-fully-coordinated-with-israel/00000197-95b2-db6f-a9ff-b7fe0eec0000 Media will probably see this as a way to bait trump into more strikes by accusing him of failure.

Join the EPRC or the SEMA lab

The strike was extremely limited. It doesn’t seem to have even killed anyone. NYtimes reports a US official told them the site was damaged but not destroyed, and Iran claimed it evacuated all the uranium and tools. I think Iran will try and retaliate in some small way so as not to trigger a greater US reaction, and the US will avoid reacting to avoid a longer war. Maybe israel will cease strikes and the US will return to negotiating. But nothing has changed on that front aside from their project being set back, we don’t even know by how much. There demands very well will remain the same. The problem is, now israel is going to shift to demanding further strikes to ensure the facilities or destroyed and striking wherever they suspect the uranium was taken too, and if Iran decides to just rebuild and actually go for a weapon this time israel will demand even greater US intervention and we are at square one.

But that’s not why they attacked, israel has admitted they don’t believe they can destroy irans nuclear capability and are asking for US intervention. But now even US officials are saying they are unsure if the US can destroy the facilities https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/19/trump-caution-on-iran-strike-linked-to-doubts-over-bunker-buster-bomb-officials-say So it’s more plausible this can result in Iran trying to attain a nuke itself as a later date, as well as other countries in the region as that’s shown to be the only deterrence since the US and Israel didn’t uphold the JCPOA.

Tucker Carlson just did a interview with Ted Cruz, it gets very heated due to his snippy comments, some highlights: Ted has been responding with various tweets after it got published: my analysis: Tucker used to be ardently pro interventionism for example supporting the Iraq war and calling for war with Iran. Over time that shifted and he’s become radically non interventionist recently. I’m surprised Ted accepted his interview when he did something similar to Mike Pence regarding his support for Ukraine which caused damage to his presidential campaign.

Full video:

- the IAEA report did not say they were making nuclear weapons, the chief just confirmed this https://x.com/EyesOnSouth1/status/1935268489767342298 - this is what US intelligence said https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/17/politics/israel-iran-nuclear-bomb-us-intelligence-years-away https://www.ynetnews.com/article/syl7ulhxgx https://www.nbcnews.com/video/hospital-damaged-by-israeli-strike-in-western-iran-241723973849 Irrelevant, striking civil energy infrastructure is a breach of Geneva conventions. Are you ok with Iran striking Israel’s energy infrastructure?

“The Israeli people want peace” is a misnomer, they define peace as Palestinians accept permanent brutal subjugation and all surrounding states be either anarchic perpetual civil wars or controlled by dictators backed by the US and Israel who repress any effort to counter Israel’s aggression and apartheid. It looks like though israel is acting like the strikes are to stop nuclear weapons (Iran wasn’t pursuing weapons and Israel alone cannot do this), they are admitting it’s actually about regime change and beginning a propaganda campaign that Iranians actually support what they are doing. This is false, while the regime is unpopular it still maintains a significant support base, and even those that dislike the regime mostly also dislike Israel for its own repression of Palestinians (far more brutal than anything Iran does to its people). The bombing campaign so far has targeted energy infrastructure to crash the economy, and also hit a hospital and news station killing countless journalist. Israel is even using terrorist tactics such as car bombs and admits 90% of deaths are civilians. Right now even Iranian opposition figures outside the US are coming out against the bombing en masse. It’s likely even more extreme for the population in Iran. The ones supporting it are a minority who have a large funding base, such as the son of the former Monarch trying to position himself as a replacement.

why? Countries without nukes that resist get picked off one by one. Iraq, Libya, Syria.

That wouldn’t be nearly enough. They are targeting banks and energy infrastructure, they also bombed a hospital and news station. They may be trying to turn it into a failed state to cause an uprising. But even that probably won’t be enough without serious boots on the ground. Also iran may go for broke and start bombing gulf oil fields and closing the strait to massively rise oil prices and crash the world economy if it comes to that.

Theoretical? Are West Bank settlements theoretical? Is invasion of Syria theoretical? The US was trying to strangle them with sanctions and arming Saddam while he gassed them long before they seriously got involved with the Israel issue. Let’s say the same to israel then. If you don’t like terror attacks and foreign countries arming rebel groups don’t make your national purpose occupying millions of people and seizing their land.

https://www.972mag.com/iran-israel-war-ori-goldberg/

Those attacks weakened and slowed the program, but they never stopped them from eventually getting weapons if that’s what they chose to do. They never did. The diplomacy example proves this. Their strategy is transparently to maintain latent nuclear capability.

So why didn’t they enrich it to weapons grade? Even if they did that it would take them more time to them build the actual weapon. You think they couldn’t have tried that at any time in the past 20 years? Why did they agree to the JCPOA which kept their enrichment below weaponization, and followed it.

Exactly, it worked out so well for Saddam and Gadaffi

They can, they chose not to. They could have went ahead with it for the last 20 years, they haven’t. They never created weapons grade uranium, and never developed a nuclear missile. That doesn’t match their behavior though. They never initiated a full on confrontation with Israel, instead just sending funds to small rebel groups. They never seriously tried to get nukes. They ignored Israel’s provocations to the point where israel had to go ahead and start the full scale war with them because otherwise they weren’t going to.