Stop Caring
By: Kurt Schlichter

It’s become clear that America has a problem with caring. Americans care far too much. They need to care less about things that are pinko ruling class deems important. They need to actively not care.

Why limit our caring? Because caring gives your enemies leverage over you. Your enemies don’t care about you. Do you think those fat, ugly communists infesting our college campuses care about you? They don’t, except to the extent they can hurt you. When they talk about “From the River to the Sea,” they’re not just talking about the Jordan to the Med – they’re talking about the Mississippi to the Pacific and the Atlantic, or they would if they knew any geography.

They don’t care about you. They want you dead. Their problem is they have no upper body strength and no guns. They can’t make you die or do anything else. The only way they can exercise power over you is by convincing you to exercise power over yourself.

That’s where your caring comes in. They use caring as leverage against you. It’s weaponized caring. They can’t do anything at all unless you care what they say and what they think and act accordingly. If you stop caring, you start winning.

Now, I’m not saying all caring is bad. You should care about your family, not in a Joe Biden way, but in a normal daddyshower-free way. You should care about your dogs, but not in a Kristi Noem way. The Bible instructs us to care about others. Look at the Good Samaritan story (Luke 10: 29-37). Note that the Samaritan story took place in ancient Israel, kind of establishing the whole Jewish indigenous thing, but that’s not the point here. The point is that Jesussays you should care about innocent people in need of help. The Samaritan came across a man who had been beaten and robbed, except on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho and not a modern blue Democrat city. The Samaritan helped him out. The victim didn’t do anything wrong. He didn’t ask for it. He suffered misfortune. It’s a good thing to care about people like that.

But it’s a bad thing to care too much about people who cause their own problems because that deprives them of the educational benefit of suffering the consequences of stupid decisions. And it’s also bad to care about people who use caring to beat your brains out.

We all have a limited caring bandwidth. We can’t care about everything, which the left understands and uses against us. We’re supposed to care about the things the commies care about. We’re supposed to care about Gazans who are getting killed because Gazans started a war instead of Nigerians who were getting killed because they are Christians. Allowing the enemy to determine your hierarchy of caring allows them to set your agenda. Don’t allow them to do that.

A proper hierarchy of caring has God, Country, and Family right at the top. You should care about those things and care a lot. But after that, you have to make choices about what you will care about. Here are mine. Next in the hierarchy of caring come American civilians, and then come American soldiers and first responders. Why are these heroes second? Well, because they – and I – took an oath that does not expire to uphold the Constitution, meaning putting American citizens’ lives ahead of our own. So, if I have a choice between an American citizen and an American soldier taking a bullet, it’s got to be the soldier. That’s when we earn all that “Thank you for your service” stuff. But still, their pace in my hierarchy of caring still means a heck of a lot of caring.

Next come allied civilians—that’s because they are allies. Then come allied soldiers and first responders. After that come other civilians. Then come enemy civilians—yes, I care less about the lives of enemy civilians than I do about American and Allied civilians and soldiers. You have correctly assessed my relative levels of caring. I know it will stun moral illiterates that I will take my own side in a conflict, but I do.

And after that comes…nothing. I don’t care about enemy combatants – the Hamas semihumans do not deserve the title “soldiers.” Not a bit. I actively want bad things to happen to them.

So, if somebody asks me why I don’t care enough about the Gazan people who are suffering because of the war the Gazans started, that’s because, as enemy civilians, they are near the bottom of my hierarchy of caring. How do I know they are our enemy? I listen to them.

It’s unreasonable to expect me to care much about the enemy, not simply because they are the enemy but because one can only care so much. Again, you only have so much caring bandwidth. You can’t care about everything, and you certainly can’t care about everything equally. Adults distinguish between things. The left distinguishes between things. My life and yours are right at the bottom of their hierarchy of caring. The leftists don’t care if we think that’s wrong. Why should we care what they think?

And here’s another rule of caring – I can’t care more about strangers than the people who have a duty to care about them do. Let’s take the Gazans again, please. Gazan children are getting hurt in a war that their parents and tribe started and still perpetuate by not surrendering and giving up their hostages, yet I’m expected to care a lotabout them. But why am I expected to care about them more than their parents and their tribe do? If they cared, they would surrender, release the hostages, and better yet, have never started this war in the first place. A parent’s duty is to care about his own children. I’m not sure how anyone really expects me to care about somebody else’s children more than the children’s parents do, but I’m not going to. And no amount of moral intimidation is going to make me.

The fact is that the Gazans brought on their own pain, and their problem is their problem, not mine. Even if I could do something about it, other than end it sooner by encouraging Israel to get on with it and wipe out these Hamas bastards, it is not my moral duty to do so. I didn’t create the problem. I don’t control the solution, or at least one that’s acceptable to me. I suppose we could cut Israel off from arms and allow the Gazans to murder them all, but that’s not going to happen. So, I guess the Gazans are screwed until they decide to change how they do business. If they don’t care enough about their own fate to do that, I don’t see why I’m required to compensate by caring much more about their fate than they do. And I don’t.

Your caring is yours. You get to decide what you care about, not some bloated pierced freak working out their daddy issues on the campus quad. And if they don’t like that, guess what? I don’t care.

The Polish people are very wary and have been shuffling their military around to area where they feel vulnerable. The Poles remember WWII when Lenin declared that attacking Poland would be the same as attacking the Allies.

Since Poland is part of NATO, Putin attacking it would mean far more than it did in 1939. At that point I believe that the proverbial shit would be hitting the fan.

The long and the short is, if the Poles are anticipating an invasion then that is enough evidence of a Russian threat for me.

https://www.newsweek.com/dont-believe-washington-war-machine-putin-not-going-invade-another-nato-ally-opinion-1897533

Don't Believe the Washington War Machine: Putin Is Not Going to Invade Another NATO Ally | Opinion
By: By Rebekah Koffler former DIA

The primary reason for continuing to flow billions of dollars in cash and weaponry to Ukraine for what is clearly becoming another Afghanistan, is that if we don't, Putin will march through Europe, invading a NATO country such as Poland or the Baltics. In this case, the U.S. would have to deploy armed forces to fight off the Russians to defend the Europeans. These are the talking points that the Washington Establishment politicians and their fellow commentariat members in the media have been using to convince the American people to continue parting with their hard-earned money. In fact, even Speaker Mike Johnson, who as a rank-and-file Right-wing Congressman opposed the funding of Ukraine's war effort, recently signed off on another massive foreign aid package, $95 billion worth, the bulk of which is designated for Kyiv.

"I think that Vladimir Putin would continue to march through Europe if he were allowed," said Johnson, justifying the spending of another $61 billion on a what serious analysts assess as a unwinnable war. "I think he might go to the Baltics next. I think he might have a showdown with Poland or one of our NATO allies," asserted Johnson.

But is it true?

Evidence indicates that this justification for depleting U.S. treasury and weapons arsenal represents a lack of understanding of Putin's thinking and Russia's security strategy—and the incompetence of our national security apparatus. At worst, it is a lie fed to the American people for some other reason.

Here's why Putin is highly unlikely to invade a NATO nation:

Many in the West view Putin as a reckless dictator with imperial ambitions. As someone who spent her intelligence career studying and analyzing Putin's thinking and Russia's war-fighting doctrine and security strategy, I'm here to tell that while Putin is a typical Russian dictator, he is entirely rational.

Putin invaded Ukraine to enforce his version of the Monroe Doctrine, to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, and to restore the strategic buffer zone on which Russia relied for its security for centuries. No sane military commander would allow an adversarial alliance to situate itself along more than 1,000 miles of its border.

Putin never made it a secret what his goals were for Ukraine as well as other former Soviet states, such as Belarus, Moldova, and Georgia. In every public speech or official writing, the Russian strongman clearly declared that post-Soviet nations, including Ukraine, were off limits for Western influence; accepting them into NATO would be crossing Russia's red line.

Moreover, every strategic planning document of the Russian Federation, such as its Foreign Policy Concept, National Security Strategy, Military Doctrine and the like, in every iteration since 2000 and in some cases since 1993, codify Moscow's strategic goals of re-integrating the post-Soviet neighbors into a supranational alliance that Moscow calls The Eurasian Union.

By contrast, no plans to "integrate" or take by force a NATO member nation have been declared in any Russia's official doctrinal documents or official speeches made by Putin or the Kremlin.

As a former Defense Intelligence Agency officer and one of top three analysts on Russian Doctrine & Strategy who worked with the CIA's National Clandestine Service, I had access to the most sensitive intelligence—including Top Secret intelligence, with code word sub-compartments and red stripes indicating for President's Eyes Only. There was no intelligence revealing or suggesting that Putin had designs on Europe beyond the post-Soviet states. We've conducted multiple wargames simulating a Russia-US/NATO war and in all of the scenarios, a local conflict between Russia and its post-Soviet neighbor escalated into a war with the U.S. and NATO. No scenario included Russia attacking a NATO country that it did not consider as part of its strategic buffer zone.

In fact, none of the Intelligence Community's annual threat assessments that are published at the unclassified level by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, including the one for 2024, include analysis suggesting that Putin would invade a NATO member.

If such intelligence existed, you can be sure that it would be declassified immediately. Wouldn't the powers that be want the American people to be on board with continuing to fund another forever war? The intelligence agencies, in the past several years, have routinely declassified even highly sensitive intelligence if it serves the purpose of the political class. They also routinely leak intelligence to left-leaning media, such as The Washington Post and the New York Times.

To the contrary, several U.S. intelligence assessments contradict the Washington Establishment's narrative that Putin would invade a NATO member. An invasion of a NATO country would undoubtedly trigger Article 5 Collective Defense, which would require the deployment of NATO forces to defend the invaded NATO member. Claims that Putin would want a war with NATO on his hands is unequivocally disputed by the following statement from the 2024 Annual Threat assessment by the intelligence community, that "Russia almost certainly does not want a direct military conflict with U.S. and NATO forces and will continue asymmetric activity below what it calculates to be the threshold of military conflict globally."

The following excerpts from the 2024 assessment entirely refute the idea that Russia has the military and economic capacity to invade a NATO country, triggering a war with NATO:

"Russia has suffered more military losses than at any time since World War II—roughly 300,000 casualties and thousands of tanks and armored combat vehicles."

"Moscow's military forces will face a multi-year recovery after suffering extensive equipment and personnel losses during the Ukraine conflict."

"The Russian military has and will continue to face issues of attrition, personnel shortages, and morale challenges."

"Russia's GDP is on a trajectory for modest growth in 2024 but its longer-term competitiveness has diminished in comparison to its pre-war outlook."

Finally, U.S. and NATO leaders knew as early as in 2013 and possibly earlier about Putin's plans to restore Russia's strategic security perimeter. As a former senior official in the U.S. intelligence community, I personally briefed President Obama's White House national security staff on Putin's plans and Russia's war-fighting strategy multiple times. I also briefed countless top U.S. military commanders and Pentagon officials, as well as NATO ministers and military leaders, including just months prior to Putin's invasion of Crimea in 2014.

As vice president at the time, the go-to person on Ukraine policy, and the architect of the failed Russia "reset" strategy, Joe Biden had to be made aware of those briefings. If anyone in the U.S. and NATO senior leadership thought that Putin would invade a NATO country, why didn't they beef up there defense spending prior to Russia's attack on Ukraine in 2022? To this day, the majority of NATO nations fail to spend the two percent of GDP guideline on defense.

Putin is clearly a typical Russian dictator and a bad dude. But he is not suicidal. Invading a NATO country is not part of his agenda.

If Washington elites are hell bent on continuing to fund another forever war, impoverishing ordinary Americans, as inflation is raging in our homeland, they should pick a more clever excuse.

Yet so many on this very site relentlessly swear and devote Putin will, not only take Ukraine, but plans on invading Europe. Of course, those same people will believe they know more, because DC told them so, than someone with years for experience in the DIA. What a group of dolts!!!