Spreading pessimism has never been highly regarded. If there is no offer for a solution, there is no need to set alarm bells for the problem. This is the received wisdom, thus, doomsayers ought to be banished. Yet, the doom is known to have always been near. That “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must,” as that great Greek historian put so eloquently, is terrifying indeed, but it is to be left unsaid for the comfort of the mind.
This is the world we inhabit. It matters not what we wish to see, but only what we can do, which is often very little. Perhaps all we have left in our power at this point is what we can say, and that only to the extent that we can actually say it. Of course, this is in the hope that others can hear what we have to say – others who can perhaps do more. There is certainly an argument to be made for the necessity of realpolitik, but unless one is directly involved in making the “big decisions,” there can be no excuse for not stating what can be clearly seen. Failure to take a moral stance is inexcusable.
It is for this reason that everyone who is terrified by the state of the world today must say whatever they can to contribute to a collective conscious effort against the capricious behavior of the strongest. When it displays arrogant aggression, either due to compulsion by an external power or simply out of habit, knowing too well that it will be immune to any meaningful backlash whatsoever, it must be called out, and called out explicitly. There is no excuse for remaining silent in the face of grave injustice, unless the cost of speaking up would be even more than self-destruction and possibly shape the fate of many others, which is naturally the standard alibi of the decision-makers all over.
Those who have the privilege to have their opinions heard thus have a unique obligation to intervene. It is important to oppose and protest the promotion of death and destruction. It is important, for example, when an obscene New York Times opinion piece attempts to make the case for striking this country, overthrowing that government, and so on, to expose its real purpose for everyone else to see. This is the minimal moral demand.
Yet, those who have that privilege so often serve the complete opposite function in the system. Outright promotion of death and destruction aside, even some “well-intended” commentators dignify the caprices of the strongest by offering fine-tuned “analyses” of their misguided affairs. Take, for instance, the detailed accounts presented of "how the destruction of Iran" would impact “regional dynamics” (or some other “serious” term). The ample historical evidence documenting the systematic abuse of that nation by the strongest, stretching from the early 20th century when it was practically reduced to a vassal, to the last few decades during which it has become the main target of imperial aggression, reveals just how ridiculous it is to take seriously such “politically correct” discussions. Whether caused by some natural scholarly tendency or simply came about as a requirement of professionalism, no one who is interested in the truth could actually care for such niceties when the law of nature is pronounced the law of the land.
The advocates of the strongest understand this perfectly. For example, Fox News host Mark Levin posted on Twitter / X dozens of times in the last few days his simple yet persistent demand: “Get Khamenei!” He has had no time for the kind of refinements that many “well-intended” commentators are so fixated on. The truth is plain for the privileged to see after all. And the privileged, if indeed also “well-intended,” ought to put forward their demands at least as forcefully. If incitement to war can be stated so crudely, opposition need not hide behind procedural language or feigned detachment. The obligation remains the same: to speak plainly against domination and hegemony, and to refuse the comforts that make acquiescence appear reasonable.
