Fox-Men: Infinity Wars

You have to love the neocons. No really, it’s going to be a law soon. Sure Trump’s foreign policy is all over the map, but let’s hope his military aspirations won’t be. I’ve never been a huge fan of our neocons and it’s curious why a group without any clear victories since WWII remains so confident. Their ability to flourish minus any actual positive feedback is legendary. They are like the tardigrades of the political world, tiny mindless soldiers who can thrive even in the icy void of space. The more hawkish side of republicana represents the last gasp of the rightwing intelligentsia, for whatever that’s worth. Sure the Goldbergs, Kristols and Krauthammers always represented the conservative ‘adults in the room’, but it doesn’t make them any less dangerous. Bill Kristol, an affable well-spoken type, always had military interventions on speed dial. His Weekly Standard just tanked, but before his neoconservative rag joined the choir invisible he floated the idea of regime change in China. No joke. I guess when your ideology is heading for a big fall, you might as well go out with a nuclear winter. In their defense, we can’t just have the best military in the world hanging behind the 7-11, right?  We’d need a bigger Gulp.

I praised Trump back on the campaign trail for calling out the stupidity of our country’s obsession with unnecessary wars. Sure it was at a Nebraska rally and I was chanting ‘lock her up’, ‘lock her up’, but I didn’t really mean it. So, no surprise, Herr Drumpf countered this rare moment of lucidity by hiring the hawk of all hawks, John Bolton, as his National Security Adviser. No, not that singer from the 80s. I wish… How am I supposed to invade without you?

The military adults have left the building and a ton of key cabinet positions remain empty, so this is an ideal time for another country to test us. Putin, armed with the pee tape, might be taking that bait.

[Russian Pissile Crisis, Russian Bear vs Bare Pissing Match, and Moscow on the Slutson joke removed by the editor.]

Whereas my friend fears one far left voice at the Congress level, I have warned of his side’s whole shit-n-caboodle, forever, or at least since I was going Dole to Dole for Bob Door. Sorry it’s a blizzard in Flagstaff so I started early.

In 2003 our neoconservative friends pushed the ‘Iraq = 9/11’ narrative and we all know how that ended. Wait, uh, I’m being told that hasn’t ended. And when our warmongery friends say Obama pulled out of Baghdad too soon, just remind them that he shouldn’t have followed Bush’s Iraq Status Forces Agreement. Today, the Foxeteers believe the Iran deal didn’t curb its nuclear ambitions and that Trump alone defeated ISIS. Creating a new reality through Foxal matter is kind of what they do, and no mission is too shortsighted, costly, or counterproductive #Tweeting&AbettingTheEnemy.

A recent Harvard study backs my thesis that after the 2016 election even the supposed brain trusts of The GOP were starting to lose ground to the tidal wave of rightwing misinformation:

“Our comparison of the network structure of the 2016 election with that of October 2012 shows that even more traditional conservative sites like the National Review or the Weekly Standard lost significant ground to the more radical media outlets on the right between 2012 and 2016.”

The neocons did nothing to stop the widespread misinformation campaign so their death is at least, in part, self-induced. And even though the neocons have been quiet lately, with John Bolton as Trump’s National Insecurity Adviser, their resurgence could still be on the docket. Lest we forget, there’s no foreign issue they can’t magnify, escalate and then botch.

With the U.S. out of the Iran deal, the president is one step closer to the next unnecessary war. Thankfully there’s still a few key things standing between Trump and Tehran:

1. Approximately two thirds of likely voters are against a war with Iran, so such a war could backfire for Trump in 2020.

2. The Iran Deal is still being held together with duct tape and string by the other key remaining players, but how long this will hold before Iran resumes its nuclear ambitions is anyone’s guess.

3. Besides Israel and the Saudis there’s not much of a ‘coalition of the willing’, and they hate each other.

Fun Fact: 

A Saudi, Israel, U.S. coalition would be closer to an Axis of Evil than a Coalition of the Willing.

Even though our republican friends will forever fall for this shit, the international community isn’t having it. The latest on the persistent strength of the Iran Deal, here. Only time will tell if the good guys prevail.

Hint of the day: if you’re a republican, you’re not the good guys.

This next exchange captures the essence of the neoconic scheissgeist:

Chris Wallace: “But under your watch Iran went from zero known centrifuges to more than 5,000.”

Dick Cheney: “I don’t think of it that way.”

Of course not, this is how Cheney thinks of it:

Stronger & emboldened enemies = more wars & really sweet military contract deals.

Can you spell Halliburton? Your president can’t. Republicans would gladly support a nuclear Iran, because it’s never been about our safety; it’s always been about the money. Juan Cole was on point:

“The U.S. will try to get Iran to withdraw from the nuclear pact by aggressively tightening the sanctions. If Tehran takes the bait, Washington will claim the legal right to attack Iran. Bolton and the people around him engineered the catastrophes in Afghanistan and Iraq (the Obama administration gets the blame for Libya and Yemen), and knocking out Iran has been their longtime goal. If they pull it off, the U.S. will ignite yet another forever war.”

I know my friend and blogvesary was against the Iran Deal, but I couldn’t find anything when searching The Discord archives. I did find two of his semi-related predictions: 1. Hillary Clinton’s hacked email is now in the hands of Iran and they’re about to use this important ‘top secret’ info regarding her yoga classes against us, and 2. The lost Malaysian flight is in the hands of Iran who will use it to nuke us any minute now. Hmmm. Maybe there’s a reason my friend avoids the archives. But, hey, why address real issues when you can squabble over the day’s news cycle in a chaotic blur of zenwrongness?

Meanwhile, I predicted, long ago that the republican’s would end the Iran Deal. Oh, but I also promised to shut up about this eventuality back in 2014:

“Now I’m watching a president, who I voted for, struggle to do what’s right and the same people want us to jump the shark again (with Iran)? Give it a rest, people. Tell you what, if you win the presidency in 2016, you can end the world then. Deal?”

And here’s one that never made it out of The Discord draft folder, ha, ha: “This is why the Iran Deal will likely fold like a house of cards in an F4 Trumpnado.” Today I would have gone with F5, but live and learn. I also found a quote of mine from last year that hints at the demise of Kristol’s Weekly Standard:

“On some level he (Kristol) understands the havoc his ilk has wrought on our country and our Constitution and, although he’s not particularly happy about it, he’s not really sure where to turn the last of the old Republican guard. In the end, perhaps he’ll realize the GOP is a false choice between rampant brainless populism and catastrophic hawkish nation-building.”

The neocons have always represented that dangerous ‘ounce of knowledge’ phenomenon that the rest of repubilicana clearly lacks. In 2019 there are two types of neocons left, the ones who have denounced the president (Jonah Goldberg, Meghan McCain, William Krystol), and the ones who have left the party outright (George Will, Max Boot, Tom Tancredo). What iconic neoconic peep still supports the Trumpster? But please don’t mistake this for insight. These folks can ‘never-Trump’ until the troops come home, but if they stay in control …the troops never will.

Mr. Kristol probably takes some satisfaction in the appointment of John Bolton, a man not as bright, but clearly with the same misguided imperialistic tendencies. Although weakened, can our more hawkish friends still successfully orchestrate their agenda and make a case for the next forever war? Fox & Friends have proven they can sell anything to their listeners. Facts.Be.Damned.

Hey, I found a kindred spirit in Caitlin Johnstone! Here’s her words:

Step One: Pick any disputed issue of foreign policy.
Step Two: Find out what the dominant neoconservative think tanks are saying about it.
Step Three: Advocate the exact opposite position with confidence and authority.

Wow. I should sue! She’s still missing this part, though:

Step Four: Reince. Priebus. Repeat (so I am copyrighting that shit, right now ©).

Here’s some wisdom from my favorite Christian conservatives (other than the Pokester):

“The United States does not and never will possess the might to bend the people and powers of the world to our will. Hence we should not expend our blood and treasure attempting to do precisely that. The U.S. has interests, and it should defend them, with force when necessary. But those interests ought not to be defined so broadly that they extend to every corner of the globe, colliding with the far more powerful interests of those who actually live in those corners of the world.”

—Damon Linker

Isn’t it odd that the republican intellignetisia left the building without even a passing reference from my blogvesary? He’s not a patterns guy, but, in his defense, none of them are. Look, I haven’t asked you to reject all things republican, just everything from the last twenty years. I don’t buy your argument that this is just the toddler-sociopathic phase of your important, righteous movement. Your ilk is dangerous and history will judge them as such.

Who will replace this gap in the rightwing intelligentsia? Thus far the trend today is this: a barely sentient republican is replaced with an even less sophisticated version. Sure the trend is missed, but the consequences won’t be. I think Iran will eventually return to their nuclear ambitions. In the end, blowing up some our finest diplomatic wrangling ever will bring about what it always intended to …the blowing up of Iran. You might want to take heed, or take benzos. Whatever works.

On a good note, there is a new hope emerging from the Coalition of the Cognizant. It’s not just our liberal resistors, the international community as well as our own intelligence community have identified the real threat, aka, the enemy within. But don’t worry about the neocons, folks, the future of the GOP’s more warmongery brethren is still bright—let’s just hope it’s not bring-your-nuclear-flash-eye-protection bright.



(Visited 75 times, 1 visits today)
Mick Zano

Mick Zano

Mick Zano is the Head Comedy Writer and co-founder of The Daily Discord. He is the Captain of team Search Truth Quest and is currently part of the Witness Protection Program. He is being strongly advised to stop talking any further about this, right now, and would like to add that he is in no way affiliated with the Gambinonali crime family. 

  10 comments for “Fox-Men: Infinity Wars

  1. pokey
    February 25, 2019 at 9:25 PM

    doesn’t rightwing intelligentsia = neoconservativism?

    I recognize the election of Donald Trump as the rejection of neoconservativism in favor of constitutional nationalism. Instead of investing in “bend(ing) the people and powers of the world to our will” we should instead protect and conserve the borders and principles of our own nation. The neoconservatives still wield much influence within the party. However, we are working to reestablish the Republican party upon its nationalistic roots.

    The problem with the Republican party is neoconservativism. The problem with the Democratic Party is progressivism (socialism). Both work to expand centralized power beyond the restraints of constitutional principles at the expense of individual liberties.

    NOTE: I was not vocally opposed to the Iran deal, though I was very skeptical with what appeared to be Obama bending over backwards to make it happen. Admittedly I still don’t know a whole lot about the nuts and bolts. And yes I’ve made many stupid predictions in the past. I’ve held many stupid positions in the past. I’m still educating myself. It’s possible that I’m incorrect about my positions right now. But I do seek and listen to all sides, and when I’m shown to be wrong, I accept that with humility and seek to better understand my deficit. You will have a much easier time debating my statements from 4 years ago than those I make today–probably why you keep distracting from an authentic present-day engagement.

    • Mick Zano
      February 26, 2019 at 1:59 PM

      I can appreciate that, but how do you rediscover your nationalistic roots via a slightly dumber Mussolini-type Arkham villain? And I will try that humility thing should the situation ever demand, ha, ha. No, I will try! Your last statement is really important. My zenwrongness theory warns of the danger of focusing only on the day’s news cycle. If we get sucked into the entertainment drama of the day, we tend to lose sight of who’s doing the most bullshitting. The right tends to be against meaningful things, because each topic is taken to one of their chop shops, where it’s dismantled, dissected and twisted beyond recognition. It is a much safer Vegas bet today to flatly disagree with anything on Fox News. I shouldn’t be able to know something is false just by the little logo in the corner of the tv screen. But that’s where we are. This is why I have been calling for reform of the GOP since this rag’s inception. There are two sides to every debate and I remain convinced the GOP is invariably never on either of them. They are a third, wholly delusional position designed as a distraction.

      • pokey
        February 27, 2019 at 10:11 AM

        Trump is the only hope of thwarting the Progressive and Neoconservative incremental march toward centalization of power. Does he have problems? Yes. Is he risky? Yes. Might he fail? Yes. But in my estimation a Clinton or Bush presidency would have guaranteed failure (perhaps beyond the point of return) with an encouragement of illegal immigration and a devaluing of our citizenship that would have made a viable Constitutional Republic impossible.

        And in my estimation–Trump is doing fairly well considering the constant resistance he faces.

        • Mick Zano
          February 27, 2019 at 11:07 AM

          Wow. And there were these moments of lucidity and then, blink, they’re gone. Trump might fail? I predicted there was about 99% chance he would fail, before his inauguration. So you have to ask yourself, why the multi-year built in delay for republican understanding? oh, that’s right, that’s why I blog.

          • pokey
            February 28, 2019 at 8:32 AM

            Perhaps you misunderstand me. Let me give you an example about what I mean when I say that “Trump is doing fairly well considering the constant resistance he faces.”

            Throughout my adult life I have heard politicians and pundits talk about the fast approaching nuclear crisis with North Korea. President Clinton made a “deal” with North Korea that merely enriched and incentivized North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapon. Bush and Obama gave some lip service about “never permitting North Korea to gain nuclear weapons” but did nothing to slow their progress. When Trump came to power, the situation had escalated to the point of crisis–I recall that two years ago North Korea tested missiles on the 4th of July with belligerent rhetoric flowing from both sides.

            Trump faced the impossible–how could he convince North Korean leaders that it was in their best interest to give up nuclear weapons? Not an easy task for a nation whose only example (Gaddafi) was killed at the prompting of the U.S. (We came;we saw; he died! Ha Ha Ha!) within 10 years after giving up his nukes. But Trump met with Kim Jon Un, and there seemed to some progress made. No,he did not yet give up his nukes, but he did stop with the belligerence and missile testing.

            So yesterday Trump met with Kim again, and I wondered–could Trump pull off the impossible? Could he actually convince North Korea to give up their nukes?

            I assumed that my hopes for the President’s success were shared with all Americans; but then I heard that on the same day as the meeting with North Korea, the Resistance at Congress brought Trump’s ex-lawyer to publicly testify. And for what purpose? Cohen had already been totally discredited (Perjury to Congress, secretly tape-recording his client’s conversations). He wasn’t going to provide any info. that Mueller or Congress didn’t already possess. The only purpose I could see for Cohen’s public testimony on the same day Trump met with Kim Jon Un was to embarrass the president and undermine the possibility of an agreement.

            And through all that Resistance, Trump performed fairly well; and the Resistance has once again shown itself willing to damage our nation’s security in order to embarrass the President.

            • Mick Zano
              February 28, 2019 at 10:53 AM

              Cohen didn’t really fill in any dots. We already had a pretty good idea of at least some of the criminality surrounding the WH, but it just drove a few things we already knew home. But by asking Cohen zero relevant questions the republican side of congress abdicated their constitutional duties, and another prediction: they will do the same after the Mueller report, no matter the conclusions, and they will defend this president to the point of absurdity. In Watergate there was eventually bipartisan support to remove Nixon, but how can that happen today amidst an alternate universe? What would it take? Sadly we are going to find out. As for foreign policy, if Trump wasn’t torpedoing the Iran Deal you would have a point. Here’s another prediction, Obama managed to curb Iran, but when Trump leaves office we will have resumed troubles with 2 rogue nuclear states. Or, as today’s republicans would call it, Winning!

              • pokey
                March 2, 2019 at 11:08 AM

                Question: “What will it take?”

                Answer: Real evidence of criminal collusion.

                “Questions have been raised about whether I know of direct evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. I do not. I want to be clear. But I do have my suspicions.”

                That’s what every Democrat in the country was saying two years ago–we’ve got no evidence but we’re suspicious; allow the investigations to proceed. Two years of investigations, millions of dollars spent, and Trump’s scorned lawyer of ten years pressured to testify dirt against him, and NOTHING has changed. Still NO EVIDENCE but we’re suspicious…so we’ll keep investigating. Let’s up the anti and investigate his finances, his family, and his friends. If we just keep searching we’ll find some evidence to feed or suspicions.

                Soviet Union police state stuff, Zano. You’re losing your soul with your mind.

                • Mick Zano
                  March 3, 2019 at 10:56 AM

                  In reply to pokey.
                  Let’s play, is there an accurate statement in your last comment? There is a shitload of indictments on the table and we know most of this story before it started. So far we had one fake investigation (by assholes) and one real one (not released). As for the fake congressional one, yes, we need to come for the Nunes of the world next. Zero evidence of collusion/conspiracy is either wilful ignorance or delusion. You kind of have to choose one at this point. It’s A or B. Fine, I will offer one more: A and B. The only question lingering: is there enough to indict? And we will find this out in the pending report. They said from the beginning, conspiracy would be hard prove, but we cleared the ‘enough to investigate’ barrier several prostitute bladder contents ago. Your comment does describe the Benghazi investigation, nicely. 27 indictment before the report released = Not worthy of investigation V No wrong doing found after 7 investigations = You’ve obviously missed something. During one segment Hannity was actually waving around a Mueller document that was almost entirely redacted saying. “I don’t see any evidence of collusion here!” Give me a break. Is it something in the water? If it is the water, then the same people it’s effecting probably allowed it to happen. Karma? Oh, and Mueller probe may turn profit, so yeah, I can’t find anything relevant your comment, but I will add: C you’re smoking crack. I keep offering you more because I’m pro choices.

                  • pokey
                    March 4, 2019 at 10:21 AM

                    That quote I just gave you comes from a man by the name of Michael Cohen from
                    a Congressional hearing sometime way back in late February, 2019.

                    Is that an accurate statement?

                    • Mick Zano
                      March 4, 2019 at 1:00 PM

                      Fine, anything not in quotes. I’m sure it’s a real quote that will prove to be untrue, ha, ha. The president has three things going for him: 1. Cant indict a sitting president, 2. the built in deference to the office (people in high places tend to get away with shit) and 3. the charge of conspiracy is very hard to prove in court. Everything working against Trump: 1. The president’s own lack of character, 2. his associates and their own lack of character, and 3. all of their combined actions and deeds.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *