U.S. Troops Were Told Iran War Is for "Armageddon,"
49 points
2 hours ago
| 7 comments
| jonathanlarsen.substack.com
| HN
legitster
1 hour ago
[-]
Context: This refers to a particular Evangelical quasi-cult called the "New Apostolic Reformation".

Obsession with the end times stems from a particular Biblical interpretation called "dispensationalism" that was introduced into America in the 1800s. If you're wondering why certain Christian sects became more obsessed from retreating from society than improving it, these are the head waters. It's a successful theme that took off on radio, then with televangelists, and now on social media.

The New Apostolic Reformation is kind of the ultimate culmination of these beliefs. It's one of the key components of what is being called Christian Nationalism.

It's not even clear what parts of the movement are earnestly held and which are purely opportunists trading on the fears of the naive. Many Christians may cross-pollinate in these circles without knowing it - but it takes a very specifically indoctrinated person to think Trump is divinely anointed

reply
monkpit
1 hour ago
[-]
is this real life
reply
esalman
1 hour ago
[-]
> Iran war is part of God’s plan and that Pres. Donald Trump was “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth

I lived in Texas for 5 years and I have heard people saying this kind of things first and second hand during his first term and also after his defeat.

reply
tastyface
1 minute ago
[-]
Why would anyone downvote this?
reply
diogenescynic
1 hour ago
[-]
And the sad truth is that democrats will continue to nominate candidates that are so appalling they'll still be rejected in favor of this lunatic or someone like him. Pathetic options on both sides. The two party system is failing the country. If there was literally anything in the middle, I feel like we'd be better off than lurching from one extreme to the other.
reply
apothegm
36 minutes ago
[-]
The problem isn’t that the candidates are appalling. They’re not. It’s that the left is shit at messaging.
reply
palmotea
25 minutes ago
[-]
> The problem isn’t that the candidates are appalling. They’re not. It’s that the left is shit at messaging.

The "the left is shit at messaging" is an excuse to distract from having a bad message (or at least a message with bad parts), so that message doesn't get revised into something better. Basically: "we don't want to change so we can win, so lets hope all we have to do is say stuff better."

Here's something to think about:

> And the stakes of politics are almost always incredibly high. I think they happen to be higher now. And I do think a lot of what is happening in terms of the structure of the system itself is dangerous. I think that the hour is late in many ways. My view is that a lot of people who embrace alarm don’t embrace what I think obviously follows from that alarm, which is the willingness to make strategic and political decisions you find personally discomfiting, even though they are obviously more likely to help you win.

> Taking political positions that’ll make it more likely to win Senate seats in Kansas and Ohio and Missouri. Trying to open your coalition to people you didn’t want it open to before. Running pro-life Democrats.

> And one of my biggest frustrations with many people whose politics I otherwise share is the unwillingness to match the seriousness of your politics to the seriousness of your alarm. I see a Democratic Party that often just wants to do nothing differently, even though it is failing — failing in the most obvious and consequential ways it can possibly fail. (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/18/opinion/interesting-times...)

reply
c54
1 hour ago
[-]
What kinds of middle policies would you like to see?

Genuine question. This is a surprising opinion to me because I see the democrats as a center left largely moderate party. Agreed that the democrat candidates are appalling and generally show no conviction.

reply
hedora
1 hour ago
[-]
I’m far left, but these right wing things I support are too far left for the moderate democrats in DC:

- Prosecution of criminals.

- Free market economics.

- Freedom of speech / privacy / assembly

reply
mattydread
9 minutes ago
[-]
This is complete nonsense. Moderate Democrats loudly and vigorously support all these things. Either you’re ignorant or you’re trolling from your actual far-right position.
reply
mindslight
1 hour ago
[-]
Talking about the "middle" is the wrong way of framing it. The problem is that the Democratic party sandbags any meaningful reforms, as they're still beholden to that same Epstein class when it comes time to campaign. For example the Democrats' grand attempt at healthcare reform included making it mandatory to patronize the "insurance" cartel! Is it possible for regulatory capture to be any more brazen?

So people get frustrated with the hamfisted top-down plans tailored for those deeply wed to the system, tire of the hypocrisy, and then either stay home or vote for the alternative that doesn't even bother promising to try and constructively fix anything. It's a game of bad cop worse cop. We desperately need ranked pairs voting.

reply
tzs
55 minutes ago
[-]
Several countries with universal healthcare use the "you have to buy private insurance" model, such as the Netherlands and Switzerland. There doesn't seem to be anything inherently wrong with that system.

ACA has survived 12 years and enabled a lot of people to obtain health insurance that would not have been able to otherwise, with Republicans wanting to kill it that entire time but failing to do so. Do you think there was any other system Democrats could have passed instead that would have lasted that long?

reply
mindslight
40 minutes ago
[-]
> Do you think there was any other system Democrats could have passed instead that would have lasted that long?

You're buying into the paradigm wherein sandbagging it was necessary for pragmatic reasons, and justifying within that. While this is true to an extent, it doesn't really change my overall point.

I do get that the ACA was a significant piece of legislation that has helped many people. And if you want to talk system design, such a mandate might make sense in a system with much much more regulatory bandwidth than ours, where it's not just forcing people into a corrupt system. But as it stands, they didn't even address the antitrust issues of bundling healthcare plans with employment or price fixing between insurers and providers. So I stand by my characterization of the dynamic as brazen regulatory capture.

reply
diogenescynic
45 minutes ago
[-]
>ACA has survived 12 years and enabled a lot of people to obtain health insurance that would not have been able to otherwise, with Republicans wanting to kill it that entire time but failing to do so.

My insurance is more expensive than ever and quality of care lower quality than ever.

>Do you think there was any other system Democrats could have passed instead that would have lasted that long?

Medicare for all. Or lower the age gradually (cover kids and elderly first). They should have voted on it during the pandemic but Pelosi blocked it and AOC wouldn't do anything. They're all fakes.

reply
diogenescynic
47 minutes ago
[-]
Exactly this. They went the entire pandemic without even bringing a vote on Medicare for All. The democrats are not left wing at all. They are complete corporate sell outs. They don't actually do what their voters want, they represent only their donors.
reply
diogenescynic
50 minutes ago
[-]
I'll get downvoted by both sides but this is what a winning political party policies look like for most of Americans not in NYC or in SF Bay Area, LA, SD, Seattle, Portland:

-Medicare for all

-Lower income taxes (federal and state) cut all the useless bloat like the $20B in homeless spending we can't even account for in California

-Free state college tuition for local residents (we need to significantly decrease cost of college)

-Universal background checks on guns

-Ban abortion after 20 weeks

-America first and only (stop being Israel's bitch)

-Strong on crime laws (none of this bullshit we deal with in blue states where we catch and release violent offenders constantly and let people run over and kill entire families with ZERO consequences)

-Having no stance on DEI, LGBTQ, or other cultural issues that serve only to divide and distract

reply
palmotea
9 minutes ago
[-]
> I'll get downvoted by both sides but this is what a winning political party policies look like for most of Americans not in NYC or in SF Bay Area, LA, SD, Seattle, Portland:

I don't agree on all the specifics, but I think that's the absolute right way to be thinking about this. If you actually want to make things better, you need to have empathy for people who aren't like you. Despite their self-image, I don't think liberals are actually any better at empathy than anyone else.

> -Having no stance on DEI, LGBTQ, or other cultural issues that serve only to divide and distract

This is a key point. The focus on those issues is probably the only reason the plutocrat/big business Republicans even have a chance.

reply
sleepyguy
1 hour ago
[-]
The people running the country are fucking insane.
reply
impossiblefork
1 hour ago
[-]
The strange part from my point of view is that it's so obviously heretical from inside the system.

They have Amos, which reasons out the problems of wishing for the Day of the Lord, and I don't understand how they can ignore it. Internalizing this idea should rather lead to a profound dislike for destabilizing the world, push the Day of the Lord as far into the future as it can be, to save all the people who can be born. I can understand how one can be a madman for a while, when one is full of grief. That's fine, but when one returns to normality one should realise that not destabilizing things is a moral duty.

reply
mindslight
55 minutes ago
[-]
The way they ignore everything else that doesn't validate their own sinning?
reply
toomuchtodo
1 hour ago
[-]
They are a reflection of the electorate. If you don’t want crazy and incompetent, don’t vote for it. If you get what you voted for, don’t be sad about it, it’s what you voted for. Regime change will come with time, but it’s going to suck for a while because of this governance failure mode.
reply
JumpCrisscross
1 hour ago
[-]
> If you don’t want crazy and incompetent, don’t vote for it

We have less of a problem with crazies voting for crazies than non-crazies not voting. Because if the crazies can find compromise with someone approximately as crazy as them while the non-crazies are either too lazy to turn out or unable to get out of stitches because the less-crazy candidate disagrees with them on two issues, the crazies win.

reply
denkmoon
1 hour ago
[-]
A fair position if the electoral system weren't a complete shambles. When gerrymandering is openly used as a weapon by the only two parties, it's pretty clearly not working.

Of course, change is impossible without a complete dissolution of governance in the US.

reply
toomuchtodo
1 hour ago
[-]
~89 million eligible voters did not vote in the last presidential election. “Fuck around find out”, and we are at the “find out” stage. This was a collective choice.

So if you didn’t vote, or you voted for this, you voted for this. Enjoy the ride.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-11-1...

reply
denkmoon
1 hour ago
[-]
I can understand why someone would choose not to participate in an unrepresentative electoral process.

Here in the authoritarian hellhole that is the Commonwealth of Australia, showing up to the voting booth is mandatory. We also have preferential voting, and in a few jurisdictions we even have proportional representation.

reply
ggm
1 hour ago
[-]
"authoritarian hellhole" as in Jon Kudelka's "Tasmania is awful don't come here" hellhole.

In these times, I think humour does not work well in written communications without a flag.

It's not a hellhole, and it's no more authoritarian now, than it was when I came here in 1988.

reply
fzeroracer
1 hour ago
[-]
What percentage of those eligible voters do you think would've mattered? For example I lived in WA and voted, how much do you think my vote mattered over an entire red county of 100 people voting for Trump?

Our electoral system is designed to disenfranchise the most populated areas.

reply
toomuchtodo
1 hour ago
[-]
More voters 55+ will have died in a year (~2M/year) since he was elected to office than was the margin of victory. High single digit percentage points of eligible voters who did not vote. Ahh, well, it is what it is.
reply
hedora
1 hour ago
[-]
Trump got less than 50% of the vote, and less than a third of eligible voters voted for him. The real issue is that the two parties have created a situation where you cannot vote for a viable candidate. Case in point: approximately a dozen democratic senators have come out in support of the war. Like, if you don’t want to intentionally bring about the apocalypse/nuclear holocaust, and you live in those states, the only way to avoid voting for those things is to not vote.

You can try getting your incumbent kicked out in the primaries, but that’s a dangerous game in swing states. In your case (WA) you absolutely should vote in the primary for the farthest left democrat possible.

We probably should switch to multi-party proportional representation at some point.

reply
gruez
1 hour ago
[-]
But only around a quarter of Americans support the war?
reply
treetalker
1 hour ago
[-]
*special Judeo-Christian operation
reply
fzeroracer
1 hour ago
[-]
I wouldn't say it's a reflection of the electorate. There's a lot of states that have been gerrymandered for years and Christians in extremely red areas have outsized voting power compared to everywhere else. Combined with the complete media capture by billionaires, the dumbest rule by fiat.

Unfortunately Christian nationalists happen to be extremely wealthy and extremely stupid.

reply
ggm
1 hour ago
[-]
Calling people stupid who are voting for what they want feels counter-productive.

I don't know them, and I don't see a reason to call anyone stupid. Turkeys voting for thanksgiving is not "stupid" it's normal. Turkeys do what turkeys do.

I would have said "Unfortunately Christian Nationalists want what is being offered them by this administration, are extremely wealthy and fund PAC accordingly." but even "unfortunately" is argumentative. Of course to ME it's unfortunate, but thats me.

reply
apothegm
33 minutes ago
[-]
It’s not just gerrymandering (though that is indeed pervasive and pernicious. It’s structural. The apportionment between states gives small right-leaning states outsized representation in both the house and senate relative to their proportion of the national population.
reply
awnird
1 hour ago
[-]
If Americans didn't like their system then they would change it. Isn’t that their whole founding mythos?

I don’t think hundreds of millions of Americans are continually being duped. I think they actually like the system they’ve built, and the outcomes that system produces.

reply
DougN7
43 minutes ago
[-]
So much easier said than done. We have to get our elected representatives to make the change, but it is against their self interest. If this was the only thing people considered when voting _maybe_ it would stand a chance. And honestly, I suspect less than 20% understand how other voting systems could lead to better out comes. Heck, we can’t even use the metric system!
reply
diogenescynic
1 hour ago
[-]
>There's a lot of states that have been gerrymandered for years and Christians in extremely red areas have outsized voting power compared to everywhere else. Combined with the complete media capture by billionaires, the dumbest rule by fiat.

It's happening on both sides. https://www.npr.org/2026/01/14/nx-s1-5647442/midterm-electio...

We the public should be rejecting it, but we're idiots and keep falling for 'but they're doing it!' and then undermine our own political power to 'own' the other side. We're being played for fools.

reply
tzs
1 hour ago
[-]
That's a ridiculous comparison. The California special redistricting was done via a voter initiative that was approved by a majority of California voters, and imposes a temporary change on the rules for drawing districts that reverts to the neutral rules when after the next census.

It was specifically proposed to counter the Texas special redistricting which was done by the Texas legislature and government with no concern over whether or not Texas voters approved (and polls show that more Texas voters disapprove than approve).

reply
fzeroracer
1 hour ago
[-]
It's happening on both sides now because the Supreme Court has signed off on it for years and given all the power to gerrymandering efforts from the right. The public can't reject what is unaccountable to said public.
reply
tstrimple
1 hour ago
[-]
The bigger challenge is the people who vote for them are also fucking insane and there are tens of millions more of them.
reply
outside2344
1 hour ago
[-]
I mean people voted for Trump so I'd bet there are people falling for this too
reply
treetalker
1 hour ago
[-]
the power of Christ compels you … to bomb schools, apparently
reply