#miniotis

I had a dream. Let me share it with you. Israel, a nation with a profound biblical history and a prophetic tradition centered on kingship, stands out for its lack of a monarch in modern times. Despite a rich monarchical past and a well-documented Davidic lineage, Israel operates as a parliamentary democracy. The question of why there is no king today is complex, involving historical, political, and cultural dynamics, with a subtle irony in the notion of rejecting “no to free elections.” The enduring documentation of the Davidic line—unbroken through centuries—further enriches this discussion, while modern electoral challenges and perceptions of Benjamin Netanyahu as a near-divine ruler add contemporary layers to the absence of a monarchy.

A Monarchical Past Rooted in Scripture

Israel’s monarchical era began with Saul, anointed around 1020 BCE, followed by David, whose dynasty became the bedrock of Jewish messianic hope. The Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7 promised an eternal throne: “Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me.” This line is meticulously documented through biblical texts, rabbinic sources, and genealogical records preserved by Jewish communities. Unlike many ancient dynasties, the descendants of David—through figures like Zerubbabel and later rabbinic families—have been traced with care, ensuring the line hath never been broken. After Solomon, the kingdom split into Judah and Israel, with the Davidic line ruling Judah until the Babylonian exile in 586 BCE. The fall of Jerusalem ended independent Jewish kingship, with Zedekiah as the last Davidic king, yet the hope for a restored monarchy persisted through prophetic visions (Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5).

The Absence of a Modern Monarchy

Several factors explain why Israel lacks a monarch today:

Historical Disruptions: The Babylonian exile marked the end of Jewish sovereignty, followed by Persian, Greek, Roman, and later Islamic and Ottoman rule. The Hasmonean dynasty (140–37 BCE) briefly revived Jewish kingship, but it was not Davidic, and Herod’s Roman-backed rule lacked legitimacy. By the Second Temple’s destruction in 70 CE, diaspora conditions made monarchy impractical.

Rabbinic and Messianic Shifts: Post-exile, Jewish leadership shifted to rabbinic and communal structures. The Sanhedrin and rabbinic authorities prioritized Torah study over political kingship, while messianic hopes for a Davidic king became eschatological, tied to divine intervention rather than human efforts.

Modern Political Realities: In 1948, Israel adopted a parliamentary democracy, aligning with 20th-century democratic ideals. The Zionist movement favored egalitarian governance over monarchy, which was seen as outdated. The quip “no to free elections” carries irony: Israel’s democracy wasn’t a rejection of elections but a pragmatic choice to unify a diverse society, avoiding theocratic or authoritarian risks.

Cultural and Religious Sensitivities: Restoring a monarchy, even with a documented Davidic claimant, is fraught with challenges. The Davidic line includes multiple branches, complicating the selection of an heir. Many Orthodox Jews view monarchy restoration as a messianic event, while secular Israelis prioritize democracy.

The Struggles of Modern Elections

Israel’s democratic system, while robust, has faced significant challenges that highlight its limitations. Frequent elections—five between 2019 and 2022—reflect deep political polarization, with coalitions often collapsing over ideological divides between secular and religious factions, left and right, and Jewish and Arab interests. This instability has led to governance gridlock, with no single party able to secure a lasting mandate. Critics argue that the parliamentary system, reliant on fragile coalitions, fails to provide the decisive leadership a monarch might offer. The constant electoral churn fuels public frustration, as short-term politicking overshadows long-term vision. In this context, the absence of a unifying figure like a king underscores the democratic system’s struggle to bridge Israel’s diverse and fractious society, raising questions about whether a symbolic monarch could stabilize the nation’s identity.

Netanyahu as a Godhead Figure

Amid these electoral woes, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, has emerged as a polarizing yet quasi-divine figure for some. His supporters, particularly in right-wing and religious circles, view him as a near-messianic leader, uniquely capable of navigating Israel’s security challenges and global standing. This perception stems from his longevity (over 16 years in office), rhetorical prowess, and ability to maintain power despite legal and political controversies. To his base, Netanyahu embodies a godhead-like authority, a modern “king” whose dominance transcends electoral volatility. Critics, however, see this as a cult of personality, arguing that his centralized control undermines democratic checks and balances. The irony is stark: while Israel lacks a formal monarch, Netanyahu’s enduring grip on power mirrors the singular authority of a king, yet without the Davidic or divine mandate. This dynamic complicates any push for a true monarchy, as his presence fills a symbolic void for some while alienating others.

The Davidic Line: A Living Legacy

The Davidic line’s continuity is remarkable, preserved through texts like Chronicles, the Talmud, and medieval works like Seder Olam Zutta. Modern efforts, such as the Davidic Dynasty project, identify living descendants in Israel and the diaspora. Yet, no serious movement advocates for a king, reflecting the tension between historical reverence and practical governance. The line remains a symbol of hope, not a political reality.

Irony in the Democratic Choice

The phrase “no to free elections” encapsulates the irony of Israel’s path. A monarchy would bypass elections, yet Israel’s democracy was chosen to foster unity, not suppress freedom. The absence of a monarch reflects a pragmatic embrace of modern governance over a potentially divisive revival of kingship. Netanyahu’s godhead-like status further muddies the waters, offering a pseudo-monarchical figure within a democratic framework.

Conclusion

Israel’s lack of a monarch results from historical exile, religious evolution, and democratic ideals. The Davidic line, unbroken and documented, remains a potent symbol, yet its restoration is deferred to a messianic future. Modern elections, plagued by instability, highlight democracy’s challenges, while Netanyahu’s near-divine status fills a monarchical void for some, complicating the landscape. The ironic “no to free elections” slogan would underscore Israel’s choice of democracy over monarchy—not out of disdain for its royal past, but as a practical response to its complex present. Until prophecy or consensus dictates otherwise, Israel’s throne remains vacant, its royal legacy preserved in lineage and memory.

I had a dream that everyone took to the streets and chanted "No To Free Elections, Selah" and wanted a monarch in Israel. Then I woke up to the realities of modern Israel and understood why it's a parlimentary democracy that has had five fragile elections between 2019 and 2022 and wrote this article. I read the comments below. Contact at SteveMini.com

--- Original Post at: SteveMini.com https://bio.link/neutralg/p/why-isnt-there-a-monarch-in-israel

Produced by: Stephen Miniotis Writing from his desk. THE BOROUGH: Scarborough, Toronto Ontario, Canada June 24, 2025

writing for TheMutant.net; A desktop-only publication (tumblr on mobile). Charity: ParanoidSchizophrenic.ca

1.0 Might be edited.

Who am I? A League Of Legends & Hearthstone Streamer, Night Time EST: The Late Show: 10pm EST+. Troll/Budget decks to Legend. Usually in the top 10k somewhere for fun.

All the decks I've streamed with at:

Hearthstone.lol/Decks

Live nights 10pm EST:

twitch.tv/NeutralG

###

NeutralG on Twitch tv!

The High Warlord Warlock of Havelock, ON

Mister SM of SM College & Havelock, TO

Lit TO: UofT.

6 Minions fo' sho'. Where my 6ix at? Well Ima light this Canon, yo.

Stephen Miniotis "Steve Mini" from the 6ix.

I take home about 10k/yr. Disability: Paranoid Schizophrenia. Therefore, I welcome all donations: 3$ per meal:

DonateAMeal.ca

Twitter:

SteveMini.com

Writings and contact info:

CrappyBlog.com

Over 3,000+ Anonymous questions answered for free:

AskMeAnything.bet

Live nights 10pm EST:

twitch.tv/NeutralG

sub for free with Prime!

Charity: Where I was diagnosed:

ParanoidSchizophrenic.ca

camh.ca

All Decks I've Streamed With and Win Rates:

On June 17, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump ignited a firestorm of speculation and diplomatic tension with a series of social media posts addressing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In a post on Truth Social, Trump declared, “We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there — We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.” This statement, coupled with a call for Iran’s “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER,” marked a sharp escalation in rhetoric amid the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict. This article explores the context, implications, and reactions to Trump’s remarks, situating them within the broader geopolitical landscape.

Context: A Volatile Middle East Conflict

Trump’s comments came during a period of heightened hostilities between Israel and Iran, which intensified after Israel launched a series of strikes on Iranian nuclear and military facilities starting June 13, 2025. These attacks, described as Israel’s largest-ever operation against Iran, targeted sites linked to Iran’s nuclear program, including Natanz and Isfahan, and killed key Iranian military figures, such as wartime chief of staff Ali Shadmani. Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes on Israel, resulting in significant casualties—224 reported deaths in Iran and 24 in Israel, according to official figures, though independent estimates suggest higher tolls in Iran.

The U.S., while publicly distancing itself from Israel’s initial strikes, has played a defensive role, helping intercept Iranian missiles aimed at Israel. Trump’s posts, however, suggested a potential shift toward deeper U.S. involvement, raising questions about his administration’s strategy. His claim that “we now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran” further fueled speculation, as it contradicted earlier White House statements emphasizing non-involvement.

The Statement: A Calculated Provocation?

Trump’s remarks about Khamenei were striking for their directness and menace. By asserting that the U.S. knew Khamenei’s location and could easily target him, Trump employed a tactic reminiscent of his “madman” negotiating style—projecting unpredictability to pressure adversaries. The caveat, “at least not for now,” added a layer of ambiguity, leaving open the possibility of future action while stopping short of an immediate threat. This phrasing, combined with his demand for unconditional surrender, appeared designed to intimidate Iran’s leadership while signaling resolve to his domestic base and Israel.

Reports indicate that Trump’s comments followed a conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who reportedly proposed assassinating Khamenei. According to U.S. officials cited by CBS News, Trump rejected this plan, deeming it “not a good idea.” This context suggests that Trump’s public statement may have been a way to assert control over the narrative, distancing himself from Israel’s more aggressive proposals while still projecting strength.

Implications for U.S.-Iran Relations

Trump’s rhetoric has significant implications for U.S.-Iran relations, already strained by decades of mistrust. His administration has prioritized preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, a goal shared with Israel. However, Trump has oscillated between advocating for diplomacy—citing a planned sixth round of nuclear talks in Oman, which were canceled after Israel’s strikes—and issuing bellicose threats. His June 13 warning to Iran to “make a deal, before there is nothing left” underscored his preference for a negotiated resolution, but the “unconditional surrender” demand suggests a hardening stance.

The mention of Khamenei’s vulnerability could destabilize Iran’s leadership, already reeling from the loss of key military and scientific personnel. Iranian state media reported that Khamenei’s inner circle has been “hollowed out” by Israeli strikes, increasing the risk of strategic miscalculations. Khamenei responded defiantly on June 18, declaring that Iran “will never surrender to any form of imposition” and warning of “irreparable harm” if the U.S. joined Israel’s attacks. This exchange underscores the precarious balance between deterrence and escalation.

Domestic and International Reactions

Domestically, Trump’s comments have deepened divisions within his Republican base. The “America First” faction, including figures like Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, opposes U.S. involvement in Middle East conflicts, viewing it as a betrayal of Trump’s non-interventionist campaign promises. Conversely, hawkish Republicans and some Democrats support a tougher stance on Iran, particularly regarding its nuclear ambitions. Senators like Tim Kaine and Representative Thomas Massie have introduced resolutions to block unauthorized U.S. military action against Iran, reflecting congressional unease about Trump’s unilateral rhetoric.

Internationally, reactions have been mixed. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz echoed Trump’s hardline tone, comparing Khamenei’s potential fate to that of Saddam Hussein. In contrast, G7 leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, have emphasized de-escalation, with Macron mistakenly suggesting Trump was pursuing a ceasefire—a claim Trump swiftly denied. Iran’s mission to the U.N. branded Trump a “has-been warmonger clinging to relevance,” signaling Tehran’s refusal to bow to pressure.

The Broader Geopolitical Stakes

Trump’s comments must be viewed within the context of Iran’s weakened regional position. The fall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in December 2024, coupled with losses suffered by Iran’s proxies—Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthis in Yemen—has diminished Tehran’s influence. Russia and China, Iran’s traditional backers, have offered limited support, with Russia focused on Ukraine and China prioritizing economic ties over military involvement. This isolation makes Iran more vulnerable but also potentially more unpredictable, as its leadership faces internal and external pressures.

The reference to “control of the skies” also raises questions about U.S. military capabilities in the region. The deployment of a second U.S. aircraft carrier, the USS Nimitz, to the Middle East, as reported by NBC News, suggests preparations for possible escalation. The U.S. possesses bunker-busting bombs capable of targeting Iran’s fortified Fordo nuclear facility, a capability Israel lacks, which could be a bargaining chip in negotiations or a prelude to military action.

Critical Analysis: Strategy or Sabre-Rattling?

Critics argue that Trump’s comments risk inflaming an already volatile situation without a clear strategy. His demand for unconditional surrender is unlikely to yield diplomatic concessions, as it leaves Iran little room to save face. Moreover, his focus on Khamenei personalizes the conflict, potentially undermining broader efforts to address Iran’s nuclear program through dialogue. The cancellation of nuclear talks in Oman, coupled with Iran’s vow of “punitive strikes,” suggests that Trump’s rhetoric may have closed off diplomatic avenues for now.

Supporters, however, view the statement as a masterstroke of psychological warfare. By publicly signaling restraint—“we won’t kill him yet”—Trump may be attempting to deter Iranian retaliation while reassuring Israel of U.S. support. His claim of air superiority could also be a message to Iran’s allies, particularly Russia and China, that the U.S. holds the upper hand militarily.

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s “we won’t kill him yet” comment encapsulates the high-stakes brinkmanship defining the current U.S.-Iran dynamic. While the statement aligns with Trump’s penchant for bold, unpredictable rhetoric, it carries profound risks, from escalating the Israel-Iran conflict to alienating his non-interventionist base. As the Middle East teeters on the edge of broader war, the world watches to see whether Trump’s words herald a new phase of U.S. involvement or remain a calculated bluff in a high-stakes geopolitical poker game. In the words of T.S. Eliot, “Between the idea / And the reality / Between the motion / And the act / Falls the Shadow,” and it is in this shadow that the delicate balance between deterrence, diplomacy, and destruction now resides.

Sources:

NPR, June 17, 2025

The Times of Israel, June 17, 2025

CBS News, June 17, 2025

The Washington Post, June 18, 2025

Reuters, June 17, 2025

BBC News, June 15, 2025

NBC News, June 17, 2025

Posts on X, June 17, 2025

Produced By:

Stephen Miniotis, Writing from his desk. THE BOROUGH: Scarborough, Toronto Ontario, Canada June 18, 2025

writing for TheMutant.net; A desktop-only publication (tumblr on mobile) & SteveMini.com; His personal blog (Contact info there). Charity: ParanoidSchizophrenic.ca

I reserve the right to edit all writings and consider them a rough draft placed freely in the public domain.

Who am I? A League Of Legends & Hearthstone Streamer, Night Time EST: The Late Show: 10pm EST+.

Formerly a High Warlord Warlock from the World Of Warcraft, subsequently of Havelock, ON Canadian. Literature undergraduate at the University Of Toronto. My favorite game is Hearthstone: troll/Budget decks to Legend. Usually in the top 10k somewhere for fun.

All the decks I've streamed with at:

Hearthstone.lol/Decks

Live nights 10pm EST:

twitch.tv/NeutralG

###

NeutralG on Twitch tv!

The High Warlord Warlock of Havelock, ON

Mister SM of SM College & Havelock, TO

Lit TO: UofT.

6 Minions fo' sho'. Where my 6ix at? Well Ima light this Canon, yo.

Stephen Miniotis "Steve Mini" from the 6ix.

I take home about 10k/yr. Disability: Paranoid Schizophrenia. Therefore, I welcome all donations: 3$ per meal:

DonateAMeal.ca

Contact info on his blog:

SteveMini.com

and/or

CrappyBlog.com

Over 3,000+ Anonymous questions answered for free:

AskMeAnything.bet

Live nights 10pm EST:

twitch.tv/NeutralG

sub for free with Prime!

Charity: Where I was diagnosed:

ParanoidSchizophrenic.ca

camh.ca

All Decks I've Streamed With and Win Rates:

At their annual convention on June 10, 2025, in Dallas, Texas, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, voted overwhelmingly to oppose same-sex marriage, passing a resolution that calls for overturning the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. With over 10,000 church representatives in attendance, the resolution, titled “On Restoring Moral Clarity through God’s Design for Gender, Marriage, and the Family,” not only denounces marriage equality but also urges lawmakers to affirm marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman, drawing inspiration from the Christian conservative movement’s success in overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022.

Authored by Andrew Walker, an ethicist at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the resolution frames the effort as a long-term strategy to challenge Obergefell both legally and culturally. Walker acknowledged the uphill battle, noting that over 70% of Americans support marriage equality according to 2022 polls, but emphasized a “long game” approach, citing the decades-long campaign against abortion as a model. The 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson decision, which ended federal abortion protections, has emboldened evangelical activists, with some Supreme Court justices, like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, signaling openness to revisiting Obergefell due to its reliance on similar legal reasoning as Roe.

The resolution’s scope extends beyond marriage, advocating for defunding Planned Parenthood, promoting parental rights in education and healthcare, ensuring “safety and fairness” in women’s sports by excluding transgender women, and criticizing “willful childlessness,” reflecting the SBC’s alignment with the broader Christian right, particularly under the influence of President Donald Trump’s judicial appointments. This marks a significant escalation in the SBC’s decades-long opposition to LGBTQ+ rights, which began with a 1980 resolution against same-sex marriage and includes 22 resolutions over the years, support for the Defense of Marriage Act, and opposition to anti-discrimination protections and transgender rights.

The vote, proposed by traditionalist leader Denny Burk and building on the 2017 Nashville Statement, faced no debate, underscoring the denomination’s conservative consensus. Human rights groups, like the Human Rights Campaign, condemned the resolution as a “boldened attack,” with Laurel Powell asserting that marriage equality is “settled law” backed by most Americans. Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out called it a “destructive message” prioritizing denial of equal rights. On X, users like @girlsreallyrule warned of a broader threat to marriage equality, while @ChristnNitemare noted the SBC’s conservative agenda, with some Republican-led states, like Idaho, introducing similar anti-Obergefell resolutions.

Overturning Obergefell faces significant obstacles, including widespread public support for same-sex marriage, with 68% of Americans in a May 2025 Gallup poll favoring equal rights, and the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act, which codified federal recognition of same-sex marriages. Unlike Roe, a reversal of Obergefell would not automatically ban same-sex marriage nationwide, as 36 states had legalized it by 2015, but could create a patchwork of state-level restrictions. Internally, the SBC is grappling with a 3.6 million member decline over two decades and a sexual abuse crisis, highlighted by the recent death of whistleblower Jennifer Lyell, yet its focus on same-sex marriage underscores a commitment to cultural battles.

Leaders like Burk embrace a “prophetic minority” role, but critics argue this risks alienating younger generations and shrinking the denomination’s influence as public opinion trends toward inclusivity. The resolution’s call to emulate the anti-abortion movement has heightened alarm among LGBTQ+ advocates, who see it as part of a broader assault on civil rights, including transgender protections. As the SBC pursues legal challenges, political lobbying, and cultural campaigns, the fight to overturn Obergefell remains uncertain but has reignited a polarizing debate, signaling that the battle over marriage equality is far from over. As Oscar Wilde once wrote, “Many lack the originality to lack originality,” a reminder that the SBC’s recycled strategy against evolving social norms may struggle to reshape a world increasingly embracing love’s diverse forms.

Sincerely,

Stephen Miniotis, Writing from his desk. THE BOROUGH: Scarborough, Toronto Ontario, Canada June 14, 2025

writing for TheMutant.net; A desktop-only publication (tumblr on mobile). Charity: ParanoidSchizophrenic.ca

1.0 Might be edited.

Who am I? A League Of Legends & Hearthstone Streamer, Night Time EST: The Late Show: 10pm EST+. Troll/Budget decks to Legend. Usually in the top 10k somewhere for fun.

All the decks I've streamed with at:

Hearthstone.lol/Decks

Live nights 10pm EST:

twitch.tv/NeutralG

###

NeutralG on Twitch tv!

The High Warlord Warlock of Havelock, ON

Mister SM of SM College & Havelock, TO

Lit TO: UofT.

6 Minions fo' sho'. Where my 6ix at? Well Ima light this Canon, yo.

Stephen Miniotis "Steve Mini" from the 6ix.

I take home about 10k/yr. Disability: Paranoid Schizophrenia. Therefore, I welcome all donations: 3$ per meal:

DonateAMeal.ca

Twitter:

SteveMini.com

Writings and contact info:

CrappyBlog.com

Over 3,000+ Anonymous questions answered for free:

AskMeAnything.bet

Live nights 10pm EST:

twitch.tv/NeutralG

sub for free with Prime!

Charity: Where I was diagnosed:

ParanoidSchizophrenic.ca

)(

camh.ca

All Decks I've Streamed With and Win Rates:

Contact: SteveMini.com

It's a spectacle. As tanks rumble down Constitution Avenue in Washington, D.C., and fighter jets roar overhead, the United States showcases its military might in a grand parade marking the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army on June 14, 2025—coinciding with President Donald Trump’s 79th birthday. Billed as a tribute to national strength, the $40 million spectacle unfolds against a backdrop of domestic unrest and international turmoil. Across the nation, from Los Angeles to New York, protests under the “No Kings” banner rage, sparked by aggressive Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids and fueled by accusations of authoritarianism. Meanwhile, the Middle East teeters on the brink of wider conflict after Israel’s preemptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, prompting the cancellation of critical U.S.-Iran nuclear talks following Trump’s stark warnings to Tehran to “obey or face consequences.”

The domestic unrest began in Los Angeles on June 6, when ICE raids targeted Latino-heavy neighborhoods like the Fashion District and a Westlake Home Depot, detaining 44 people for immigration violations. The raids, part of Trump’s pledge for the “largest deportation operation in U.S. history,” ignited immediate backlash. Hundreds marched, some hurling fireworks and rocks at police, who responded with tear gas. By June 9, protests escalated, with thousands rallying outside the Metropolitan Detention Center, demanding an end to what they called human rights abuses. Trump’s response was uncompromising: overriding California Governor Gavin Newsom, he deployed 2,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines from Twentynine Palms, costing $134 million and marking the first federal military mobilization on U.S. soil without state consent since 1965. Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass condemned the move as “authoritarian,” and California’s lawsuit against the deployment remains unresolved, with troops authorized to stay through at least June 17.

The Los Angeles protests became a national catalyst. By June 11, the “No Kings” movement, rooted in the 2018 “Abolish ICE” campaign, spread to cities like Chicago, Dallas, Seattle, and San Antonio. Over 1,800 protests were planned for June 14 across all 50 states and Puerto Rico, organized by 200 civil society groups. In Santa Ana, clashes erupted between protesters and police, while Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe deployed state National Guard units, citing public safety. Nationwide, over 1,200 arrests have been made, and fears of escalation loom as federal troops, armed with live rounds, guard key sites.

Simultaneously, the Middle East plunged deeper into crisis. On June 13, Israel launched “Operation Rising Lion,” a series of preemptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, including the Natanz enrichment plant, and military targets, killing key Iranian commanders and scientists. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) justified the attack, stating, “Iran is closer than ever to obtaining a nuclear weapon,” an existential threat to Israel and the world. The strikes followed months of tension, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly threatening action to halt Iran’s nuclear program, even as Trump pushed for a diplomatic deal.

The U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, mediated by Oman and held in Muscat, were set for a sixth round on June 15. Trump had expressed optimism, claiming a deal was “very close” that would allow U.S. inspectors unprecedented access to Iran’s sites in exchange for sanctions relief. However, he also issued ultimatums, warning Iran to “just do it” or face “bombing the likes of which they have never seen.” Iran’s rejection of a U.S. proposal to halt uranium enrichment, coupled with its threats to target U.S. bases if attacked, hardened positions. After Israel’s strikes, which Trump called “very successful” while denying U.S. involvement, Iran retaliated with over 100 drone strikes on Israel and launched ballistic missiles at Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The escalation led to the cancellation of the Muscat talks, with Iranian officials citing Israel’s aggression and Trump’s threats as proof of bad faith.

The parade in Washington, with 150 vehicles, including 28 tanks, and MAGA supporters waving flags, projects a vision of unyielding American power. Yet, critics like Senator Rand Paul liken it to authoritarian displays, and veterans like Janessa Goldbeck of Vet Voice call it “deeply un-American.” The “No Kings” protests, meanwhile, channel fury at both domestic policies and foreign entanglements. Protester Marlene Lopez in Los Angeles said, “We’re fighting for our communities here, but we see the same control abroad—tanks at home, bombs in Iran.” The military’s domestic role, with Marines guarding federal buildings, raises fears of overreach, with former Major General Paul Eaton warning of politicization.

This collision of events—protests, a military parade, and a spiraling Middle East conflict—exposes America’s fractures. Trump’s dual stance, celebrating Israel’s strikes while lamenting failed talks, underscores the contradictions. As Whitman’s “multitudes” clash, the nation grapples with its identity: a beacon of strength or a tinderbox of division. With oil prices spiking 7% and U.S. embassies evacuating personnel, the stakes are global. Can democracy hold when its streets and skies burn with unrest and ambition? The answer remains elusive as America navigates this perilous moment.

Sincerely,

Stephen Miniotis, Writing from his desk. THE BOROUGH: Scarborough, Toronto Ontario, Canada June 14, 2025

writing for TheMutant.net; A desktop-only publication (tumblr on mobile). Charity: ParanoidSchizophrenic.ca

1.0 Might be edited.

Who am I? A League Of Legends & Hearthstone Streamer, Night Time EST: The Late Show: 10pm EST+. Troll/Budget decks to Legend. Usually in the top 10k somewhere for fun.

All the decks I've streamed with at:

Hearthstone.lol/Decks

Live nights 10pm EST:

twitch.tv/NeutralG

###

NeutralG on Twitch tv!

The High Warlord Warlock of Havelock, ON

Mister SM of SM College & Havelock, TO

Lit TO: UofT.

6 Minions fo' sho'. Where my 6ix at? Well Ima light this Canon, yo.

Stephen Miniotis "Steve Mini" from the 6ix.

I take home about 10k/yr. Disability: Paranoid Schizophrenia. Therefore, I welcome all donations: 3$ per meal:

DonateAMeal.ca

Twitter:

SteveMini.com

Writings and contact info:

CrappyBlog.com

Over 3,000+ Anonymous questions answered for free:

AskMeAnything.bet

Live nights 10pm EST:

twitch.tv/NeutralG

sub for free with Prime!

Charity: Where I was diagnosed:

ParanoidSchizophrenic.ca

camh.ca

All Decks I've Streamed With and Win Rates:

Dear Prime Minister of Canada,

Yo, just gotta say, major props for droppin’ that $18-20+ billion on our shiny new military: Our New, Big Beautiful Army will be resilient and amazing! You’re out here buildin’ a strong, legit army and hittin’ that NATO goal five years early, by March this year? That’s straight-up impressive, man. You made a promise, and you delivered—big respect. It's about damned time.

But here’s the deal, and I’m keepin’ it real: the U.S. could be a problem. They’re sellin’ us all these planes, war machines, and ships, but if they ever turn on us, they could just flip a switch and shut it all down. Our jets? Grounded. Our ships? Dead in the water. Our war machines? Opposed. That’s a serious threat to our survival, you feel me?

Maybe it’s time to shop around a bit. Why not check out what China or Russia’s got? They’re makin’ planes, tanks, and ships too, and they won’t have us on a leash like the States. It’s a bold move, but we gotta think smart to keep Canada safe.

What’s your plan, PM? How you gonna make sure we’re covered in the case of an existential crisis? Lookin’ forward to seein’ how you handle this, and where the goods come from.

Of course, there's always the small chance we just ally up with the big bois south of the border, one last time. But I don't think the groundwork hath been laid for this to occur. We just don't want to yet. And maybe you're right: and we never will.

So time to defend this great nation. And build up a shiny, new, big beautiful army, and win in the case of an existential crisis. Great thinkin'. I'm in!

Sincerely, NeutralG On Twitch TV

9 June 2025

//

//

League Of Legends & Hearthstone Streamer Night Time EST: The Late Show: 10pm EST+ Troll/Budget decks to Legend. Usually in the top 10k somewhere for fun.

All the decks I've streamed with at:

Hearthstone.lol/Decks

Live nights 10pm EST:

twitch.tv/NeutralG

###

NeutralG on Twitch tv!

The High Warlord Warlock of Havelock, ON

Mister SM of SM College & Havelock, TO

Lit TO: UofT.

6 Minions fo' sho'. Where my 6ix at? Well Ima light this Canon, yo.

Stephen Miniotis "Steve Mini" from the 6ix.

I take home about 10k/yr. Disability: Paranoid Schizophrenia I welcome all donations: 3$ per meal:

DonateAMeal.ca

Twitter:

SteveMini.com

Writings and contact info:

CrappyBlog.com

Over 3,000+ Anonymous questions answered for free:

AskMeAnything.bet

Live nights 10pm EST:

twitch.tv/NeutralG

sub for free with Prime!

Charity: Where I was diagnosed:

ParanoidSchizophrenic.ca

camh.ca

All Decks I've Streamed With and Win Rates:

The Submissive State: A Theory of Conflict and Control

Introduction

Throughout history, power dynamics have shaped human societies, from tribal hierarchies to modern nation-states. Traditional political theories often frame these dynamics in terms of competition, self-interest, and mutual cooperation. However, an overlooked yet fundamental structure exists within these relationships: submission and dominance. Borrowing from the kink community’s concepts of "topping" and "bottoming," I propose The Submissive State as a framework to understand how states, organizations, and individuals willingly assume positions of submission within broader power structures.

The Nature of Submission and Dominance

In the realm of BDSM, the "top" assumes control, leading the interaction, while the "bottom" submits, yielding power in an exchange built on consent and trust. These roles mirror real-world governance and international relations, where one entity assumes control, while another submits, often willingly, for the sake of security, stability, or economic benefits.

Submission, in this sense, is not a weakness but an active choice that enables structure. Just as a submissive partner in a relationship derives pleasure or fulfillment from yielding control, a submissive state finds security, protection, or economic prosperity in yielding to a dominant power. This can be seen in vassal states, protectorates, and even modern geopolitical alliances where smaller nations accept military oversight or economic dependency in exchange for stability.

Conflict as a Mechanism for Power Exchange

Conflict, whether violent or diplomatic, serves as a means of negotiating roles within this hierarchy. A state does not submit arbitrarily; it does so after recognizing the futility of resistance or the benefits of subordination. Similarly, the dominant state (or power) assumes its role not simply through force, but because submission is offered, consciously or otherwise.

The Cold War exemplifies this dynamic. The United States and the Soviet Union played the role of competing "tops," while many smaller nations were forced into submission—either willingly, through economic dependency, or unwillingly, through military intervention. Even today, the relationship between the U.S. and its allies can be seen as a structured form of topping and bottoming, where smaller nations align themselves under U.S. military or economic influence in exchange for protection and support.

The Stability of the Submissive State

A submissive state does not exist in perpetual servitude; rather, its submission is contingent on the competency of its "top." A poorly managed dominant power risks rebellion, just as an inadequate dominant partner in a relationship risks losing their submissive's trust. The submissive state, therefore, retains agency—it can withdraw submission, seek a new dominant power, or attempt to switch roles.

History is rife with examples of this transition. Former colonies that once submitted to imperial rule later rebelled, seeking autonomy. Nations under economic influence sometimes shift their allegiances to stronger or more favorable partners. Submission, therefore, is fluid, and dominance is never absolute.

Conclusion

The Submissive State offers a lens through which we can analyze power dynamics beyond mere conflict or cooperation. Submission is not solely about coercion but about structured relationships that allow for stability and prosperity. Just as in kink dynamics, the act of submitting can be a choice that brings security, while the act of topping requires responsibility and control. Understanding political and social structures through this framework allows us to see that dominance and submission are not merely roles imposed by force, but often chosen, negotiated, and even desired.

Shared with permission. Stephen Miniotis. 31 Jan 2025.

"Rough drafts become letters. stay tuned!"

THE BODY POLITIC

By artist ("comrade"?) Stephen Miniotis

THE ARTIST

"We're all artists: else, none of us ever were." — Stephen Miniotis

Art is not the privilege of the few, nor the domain of the trained—it is the birthright of every human being. The very act of creation, from the moment a child scrawls symbols in the dirt to the grandest of masterworks, is a fundamental part of human expression. If art belonged only to the celebrated, to the anointed few, then no one would have ever been an artist to begin with. For art to exist at all, it must be universal.

Yet, before an artist enters the public eye—before their work is consumed, appraised, or understood—they exist in what could be called a pre-social contract state. Inspired by Thomas Hobbes, this is a condition of nature, a realm of pure artistic solitude. In this space, art has no intrinsic value beyond the artist’s own satisfaction. It is free from commerce, critique, and cultural expectation. In this moment, the artist creates for no one but themselves, their work existing in a vacuum, unseen and untouched by the greater world.

But this is not a sustainable state. Art, by its nature, craves an audience. The artist, like all individuals, seeks to leave a mark upon the world. And so, they step forward from obscurity, presenting their work to the public, unknowingly entering into an unspoken contract with society—one that will judge, elevate, and, ultimately, oppose them.

APOTHEOSIS

The artist does not simply emerge into the public sphere; they collide with it. To create is to invite opposition. The world is full of art, much of it unnoticed, derivative, or mundane. But when an artist dares to be different—when they break from convention, challenge expectations, or redefine a form—they become the subject of scrutiny. Opposition, then, is not a failure but a catalyst. It is the force that separates the remarkable from the ordinary.

This opposition gives rise to an artist’s Apotheosis, the moment where they transcend the common pastiche of their peers and become something more. Their art, once devoid of value, is suddenly priceless. They achieve recognition, fame, even veneration. They become icons, their work immortalized in culture.

But this glory is fleeting. The Apotheosis of an artist is merely the climax of a cycle. As new opposition arises, as tastes shift and styles evolve, the once-revered creator is cast down. Their art, once vital, becomes relic—respected, perhaps, but no longer at the forefront of the cultural conversation. They return to the shadows, back to the drudges of obscurity, once again in the pre-social contract state from which they emerged. The cycle begins anew.

OPPOSITION THEORY

If an artist is to rise, they must first be opposed. But even at the height of their Apotheosis, they are not free from conflict. Opposition is a constant. Whether they are loved, hated, misunderstood, or imitated, the artist is always subject to the gaze of others.

Opposition Theory posits that all art is opposed. No work is created in a vacuum, and none escapes scrutiny. Whether through rejection, critique, or imitation, every piece of art is engaged with, dissected, and challenged. The greater the work, the greater the opposition.

Even when art has no clear meaning, society seeks to decipher it. Symbols are projected upon it, messages are unearthed, and interpretations are imposed. The artist, then, is never truly in control of their own work. Once released into the world, art takes on a life of its own, existing independently of its creator.

To be an artist, then, is to be opposed. It is a social condition as much as a creative one. The artist exists in a state of perpetual friction with the world around them. But this is not a tragedy—it is a necessity. Without opposition, there can be no transformation. Without resistance, there can be no Apotheosis.

THREE FACTIONS: On Neutrality

Beyond the realm of art, humanity itself is divided into factions: The Good, The Evil, and The Neutral. These are not mere moral categories, but existential states, ones that shape both individual identity and the role of the artist.

Goodness is a state of selflessness. When we are young, we are idealists. We create art for the joy of it, for the love of expression, without thought of personal gain. This is the purest form of creativity, yet it is also the most fragile. The world does not reward selflessness indefinitely.

Evil, then, is the reaction. In order to survive, in order to prosper, an artist must embrace selfishness. They must profit, compete, and dominate. They must navigate the systems of power that govern the artistic world—patrons, markets, critics, and collectors. In this state, art becomes transactional. It serves a purpose beyond itself. It is no longer simply created; it is sold.

But there is a third path. To transcend both selflessness and selfishness, to move beyond Good and Evil, is to embrace Neutrality. This is the artist’s final evolution. To be Neutral is to create without dependence on external validation, yet without rejecting engagement with the world. It is to understand the necessity of both purity and profit, to accept the cycles of opposition and apotheosis without being bound by them.

The Neutral artist is neither slave to the market nor martyr to idealism. They create because they must, yet they do not seek nor reject the consequences of their creation. They are beyond fame, beyond obscurity, beyond opposition itself. In this state, they are truly free.

---

(...) What are your thoughts? I suppose a reaction to "no reaction" or "opposition always" is absolutely necessary.

Or i'm just trolling. Sometimes even I can't tell.