Blog

All of this seems fairly likely, to me. 

Geopolitical/Strategic:

1. China will lean harder on Taiwan but avoid a hot war - they'll pursue stalemate/slow strangulation rather than invasion.

2. Russia will use this as justification/cover for its own actions - probing boundaries while US is distracted. The US may cede on Ukraine. 

3. The US cannot sustain defense of Taiwan while overextended in Venezuela. It may not even want to. 

4. Cuba and Nicaragua will be targeted next (Rubio has already named this).

5. This will escalate from one front to multiple fronts - the "narco-terrorism" framing allows indefinite expansion.

6. Colombia could become a target as resistance fighters flee there and cartels provide pretext.

7. North Korea will increase cyber attacks.

8. Iran will brutally suppress protesters (Trump can't credibly threaten action while overextended).

9. Israel will accelerate in Gaza.

10. By claiming the West, Trump has implicitly ceded the East to China/Russia - a de facto sphere of influence deal.

Domestic/Political:

11. American casualties within months. 

12. This will evolve from Panama analogy to Ukraine analogy, with us playing the part of Russia.

13. Rubio will be scapegoated first when things go wrong, then Hegseth.

14. Trump may try to abandon the effort when it stops being profitable, as is his pattern.

15. The left will make the mistake of defending/lionizing Maduro, handing Trump a rhetorical victory.

16. Right-wing discontent will be expressed tribally (internal bitching) rather than breaking ranks - until material consequences hit.

17. The trial will be turned into sensationalist ratings-maker showcasing Maduro's real crimes.

18. Healthcare subsidy loss won't get coverage as the war will swallow all oxygen.

19. This becomes a quagmire that outlasts his presidency - Republicans should "kiss your JD Vance Presidency goodbye"

Structural:

21. Power vacuum cannot be solved. As I said, "you can't unfuck a goat". 

22. Venezuelan regime loyalists (military, officials, Cuban intelligence) won't simply cooperate.

23. Resistance/insurgency is inevitable.

24. Refugees will flow north, creating the border crisis that "justifies" more intervention in a feedback loop.

25. Risk of asymmetric retaliation. Guerilla warfare comes to our shores.

Take a breath. I need you to hear something.

Maduro is a monster. His regime tortured dissidents, stole elections, starved his people, and ran drugs, to put it mildly. The Venezuelans who fled to our border weren't running from American imperialism, they were running from him. This is documented. This is real. The suffering of millions of people is not propaganda.

Trump capturing him does not change any of that.

Here's what's about to happen: The administration will parade Maduro's crimes, and they are crimes, in front of every camera. They will be telling the truth. And if your response is to defend Maduro, to minimize his atrocities, to pretend he was a misunderstood socialist hero, you will lose. Not the argument. The people. The actual Venezuelans who lived it. And every moderate who watches you deny reality because the wrong team reported it.

The enemy of your enemy is not your friend. Maduro was never your friend. He was a brutal authoritarian who happened to oppose America. That's not solidarity. That's tribalism wearing a beret.

Here's what you should actually be angry about:

Trump just flipped a 180 on foreign policy. The "America First" president who promised no more foreign wars just invaded a sovereign nation, captured its leader, and announced we're going to "run the country" and take their oil. He said it out loud. On camera. "Blood for oil" isn't a slogan anymore, it's the stated policy. 

That's the fault line. It's one that the vast majority agrees on regardless of political afilliation. The MAGA base didn't sign up for neocon regime change. MTG already broke ranks. This is exploitable, but only if we don't hand them a way to dismiss us. Only if we focus. Only if we leave our hobby horses at home. I will not watch another gun control reform falter after a massacre, another Wall Street left unoccupied, another Qulaified Immunity left standing, simply because we can't focus. 

So hear me now: The moment we defend Maduro, we become the story. The moment we deny documented atrocities, we become the reason moderates tune out. The moment we make this about relitigating socialism vs. capitalism, we let Trump off the hook for the most brazen imperialist power grab in modern American history.

Keep your eye on the ball:

1. Trump lied to his base about foreign intervention.

2. Trump explicitly said we're taking their oil.

3. Trump opened a front that weakens our position on Taiwan, Ukraine, and Iran.

4. Cuba and Nicaragua are next; he already said so.

5. This will cost American lives and billions of dollars for years.

These are arguments that work across the aisle. "Maduro wasn't that bad" works nowhere except your echo chamber.

Be smarter than they expect you to be. Don't take the bait. Focus.

What I intend to do is provide a *brief* breakdown of how I’ve built my worldview from the ground up. I’ll try to give at least one book per topic, if anyone wishes to begin their own exploration.

I’ll begin with the foundational question of God’s existence. The short answer is: God Doesn’t. Full stop. Recommended reading here is Victor Stenger’s “God: The Failed Hypothesis.” It provides a scientific critique of the divine, arguing that naturalism sufficiently explains the universe without invoking supernatural entities. By dismissing the need for a deity, we set the stage for a worldview grounded in reason and empirical evidence. Without this step, any coherent attempt at a multicultural universal ethics is doomed. We would always be at the mercy of those who not only don’t defend their beliefs, but who believe that calling on them to do so is one of the highest insults you can speak.

From this foundation, we establish secular ethics that focus on human well-being. Without reliance on divine command, morality is derived from principles like empathy, reciprocity, and the minimization of suffering. This approach aligns with the idea of moral objectivity based on human experience and logical reasoning made by Sam Harris in his book “The Moral Landscape.” Yes, you read that right. I am an atheist who believes in objective human morality.

The importance of free speech emerges as a cornerstone of this worldview. Christopher Hitchens famous speech (look for it on YouTube) exemplifies the critical role of open dialogue in challenging dogmas and advocating for progress. Protecting free expression is essential for the exchange of ideas and the incremental improvement of society. Karl Popper’s 2 part Opus “The Open Society and its Enemies” is a must read on the topic, providing a cool headed antidote to the historicist Utopianism of Marx.

Building on free speech, we embrace Karl Popper’s concept of incremental social change. We could stick with “The Open Society and its Enemies” but I believe his book “Conjectures and Refutations” highlights the evolutionary process of proposing and then testing hypothesis. We recognize this as scientific thinking, but it is just as valid in discussions of social policy. Rather than pursuing radical overhauls, society progresses through continuous critique, testing, and refinement of ideas. This piecemeal approach allows for adaptability and responsiveness to new challenges, fostering an open society where policies evolve based on evidence and reasoned debate as opposed to the hot headed nature and short life spans of mammals who demand immediate changes for which in the aftermath they have no plan.

So we must now speak about how we put this into practice. To understand how the foundational importance of free speech and its testing of hypothesis actually works in the modern world, we turn to Jonathan Rauch and his book "The Constitution of Knowledge". We learn by sticking our claims out in public and letting other people take a swing at them. Rauch explains what makes that survivable at scale. A free society doesn't just “allow speech” without giving thought to the friction that inevitably causes. It builds a knowledge system that forces ideas to run a gauntlet through science, courts, and objective journalism, all designed to turn disagreement into error-correction. The minute we start treating beliefs as identity, criticism becomes literal harm, truth becomes a team sport, and the only referee is power.

Integrating economics into this framework, I consider capitalism with a social safety net, sometimes referred to as interventionist capitalism, to be the best on offer. Robert Reich’s “Saving Capitalism” is a great intro to this framework. This model maintains the efficiencies of a market economy while addressing social inequalities through government interventions. Popper’s incrementalism (sorry to be so particular about this one philosopher) supports this economic approach by advocating for gradual improvements and regulatory adjustments to fix systemic faults, rather than overhauling the entire system. This stands in contrast to communism, which leads to centralized control and diminished individual freedoms — outcomes that conflict with the values of open discourse and personal liberty that I emphasized previously. As E. O. Wilson once quipped of Communism: Great Idea, Wrong Species.

John Rawls’ contributions further enrich our perspective on social policy and justice through his work in “A Theory of Justice”. Rawls introduces the principles of “justice as fairness,” employing the thought experiment of the “original position” behind a “veil of ignorance.” This framework seeks to establish societal rules that are fair and impartial, ensuring that they benefit all members of society, especially the least advantaged. Rawls’ emphasis on reason and equality aligns with the secular, ethical foundation I began espousing, promoting a just society where individual rights are respected, and opportunities are accessible to all.

Humanism is another critical component, placing inherent worth and dignity at the center of ethical considerations. I would suggest Steven Pinker’s book “Enlightenment Now: The case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress.” Humanism promotes individual rights and freedoms that enable people to pursue fulfilling lives while emphasizing compassion and efforts to reduce suffering globally; a focus that is highlighted in movements like Effective Altruism and the website “GiveWell”. Humanism supports the idea that humans are capable of morality and self-fulfillment without reliance on the supernatural. As we are all the same species Humanism is a universal ethic best exemplified in Eleanor Roosevelt’s “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” in 1948. A humans dignity and worth should not diminish when they cross a border.

Recognizing our responsibility to future generations, environmental ethics then become essential. Sustainable practices and environmental stewardship ensure that our impact on the planet does not compromise the ability of others to thrive. This aligns with the moral objective of minimizing harm and promoting well-being on a global scale. There’s no book here as I believe that point to be self evident.

In conclusion, this coherent secular worldview is built upon a foundation of scientific understanding, objective ethics, free speech, equitable economics, principles of justice, humanism, and environmental responsibility. It advocates for a society that continuously seeks improvement through reasoned dialogue and evidence-based policies, aiming to enhance the well-being of individuals and communities alike. By integrating these elements, we construct a framework that emphasizes rational discourse, individual dignity, social justice, and collective responsibility — an approach that aspires to create a more just and compassionate world.