INFJ Assumes the Role of Common Enemy to Unite the Group

isms and stuff you can’t really you can
use those to an extent but you know
everybody’s a little different me
personally I think I’m a more goofy
sarcastic infj I can be serious I think
it’s I think it’s a lot about like I
said everything evolves around your
environment and who you’re around okay
and your circle of friends or
acquaintances in this case for infj is
could you I don’t have a whole lot of
friends which is not a bad thing by the
way I don’t ever assume it’s a bad thing
uh I have a group that I am more the
serious straight man in and the more
concrete rationalized analytical mind in
that group but I also have groups that I
am the clown I’m the jokester I
basically I know J’s in my personal
opinion assumed the role that is most
necessary for whatever group or
organization they become a part of so if
the organization is missing that
level-headed the structured thinker I
will do my best to become that isn’t
necessarily my strong point probably not
but I will try to do it anyway if I feel
like I need to be the bad guy in the
group I will become that bad guy so one
thing to keep in mind is that I know
Jays are very capable of becoming
extremely despotic and tyrants all the
biggest tyrants and then despots and and
all those kind of people in the world
like Hitler and all that where INF
J’s at the same time some of the
greatest philosophical minds people who
pushed society into a more positive
direction and things like that like
Gandhi and stuff Brian of JS as well so
we’re bit were capable of either role so
it’s all about it’s all about how you’re
shaped by your environment and the
people you interact with and meet you
can very much Teeter on either edge
there’s also RJ’s are very complicated
to write because I’m very capable evil
I’ve done evil in the past what I would
consider evil to people but I do those
things because I see them necessary I
very much see
like when I was talking about conflict I
very much feel sometimes conflict is
necessary sometimes lies are necessary
and I will do those things if I feel
like I can benefit the people involved
I’ve had groups in the past where I’m
taking the role of the bad guy the the
guy who who will say things that
triggers people gets them upset it’s
very much it’s almost it’s almost
considered like a martyr complex but at
the same time it’s almost more of just
this being annoying I actually find
actually weird feeling to be extremely
obnoxious to be honest makes me do
things I don’t really want to do I
always it always leads me to this
demonizing my life and doing things and
making decisions based on this because I
want to make other people happy I don’t
do enough of this to feel it what makes
me happy and what I value and what’s
important to me because this is weak I
don’t know how to do these things
properly when I do figure them out so I
ended up just naturally catering to
other people there’s times I’ve
sacrificed myself for groups taking the
blame for things that I don’t need to
take the blame for for the most part
I’ll just let that happen to me
I’ve gotten better at not letting it
happen but it’s always gonna naturally
have and I’ve always kind of fallen into
this I think it’s just because you get
so comfortable playing that role it
eventually just becomes into natural and
an everyday part of your life
I have groups that I’ve played that role
in and you know every once in a while
there’s always like that one or two
people you know hilariously one of my
friends that I talked to a lot it’s hard
to say if we’re even friends or not but
I for whatever reason I’m always like
extremely comfortable we were just
sharing some really private things with
her and like bouncing a lot of ideas and
things offer her she was in a group that
we were in together where I was
basically like everybody knew who I was
this wasn’t a this wasn’t an MMO we
played everybody in the server knew who
I was and I was basically the number-one
villain in that entire game server
across thousands of people everybody
knew who I was
there was forum posts about me all the
time and how
much of a scumbag I was how vile I was
and I took that role in our group mostly
for unification purposes because people
weren’t getting along so I pretty much
became the bad guy in order to help push
the group in order to achieve things and
the group ended up becoming the number
ones and you serve Gildan server for a
long time I think they still are and I
have a lot of archived at villainous
posts to both have myself in that game
it’s pretty funny actually I think I
think they have I think they still keep
my character active then they just kind
of rename it and around to fit and
they kind of use it as like almost like
a statue now of remember remember the
villain it’s pretty funny but this is
this girl in particular understood like
she could see I know I don’t know what
type she is I never bothered and really
care but you know she could see she
understood what I was doing and she’s
somebody that it was really painful for
me to actually do those things but
because she understood what I was doing
and I could talk to her about it and and
and and she understood what was
happening what I was trying to do it was
easier for me that way so there’s always
gonna be people who can see and
understand the hidden meaning behind
your actions so don’t think there won’t
be so there’s always going to be people
out there for you you’re not going to be
misunderstood forever there are people
who do understand and so oh that’s it
man this video is extremely long I
apologize I have nothing else I don’t
know what to say guys you have any
questions or comments let me know your 9
MJ you want to talk about things I guess
that’s that’s everything that’s
everything I’m pretty sure

Khamenei Wants to Put Iran’s Stamp on Reprisal for U.S. Killing of Top General

In a departure from Iran’s usual tactics of hiding behind proxies, the country’s supreme leader wants any retaliation for the killing of a top military commander to be carried out openly by Iranian forces.

In the tense hours following the American killing of a top Iranian military commander, the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, made a rare appearance at a meeting of the government’s National Security Council to lay down the parameters for any retaliation. It must be a direct and proportional attack on American interests, he said, openly carried out by Iranian forces themselves, three Iranians familiar with the meeting said Monday.

It was a startling departure for the Iranian leadership. Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979, Tehran had almost always cloaked its attacks behind the actions of proxies it had cultivated around the region. But in the fury generated by the killing of the military commander, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, a close ally and personal friend of the supreme leader, the ayatollah was willing to cast aside those traditional cautions.

The nation’s anger over the commander’s death was on vivid display Monday, as hundreds of thousands of Iranians poured into the streets of Tehran for a funeral procession and Mr. Khamenei wept openly over the coffin.

After weeks of furious protests across the country against corruption and misrule, both those who had criticized and supported the government marched together, united in outrage. Subway trains and stations were packed with mourners hours before dawn, and families brought children carrying photographs of General Suleimani.

A reformist politician, Sadegh Kharazi, said he had not seen crowds this size since the 1989 funeral of the Islamic Republic’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

“We are ready to take a fierce revenge against America,” Gen. Hamid Sarkheili of the Revolutionary Guard, declared to the throng. “American troops in the Persian Gulf and in Iraq and Syria are within our reach.”

No negotiations or deal, only war with America,” students chanted in an online video from a university campus.

A renowned eulogist and member of the Revolutionary Guard, Sadegh Ahangaran, exhorted the funeral crowds to raise their voices so “damned America can hear you” and to “wave the flags in preparation for war.”

The increasingly public vows of direct action on Monday constituted Iran’s latest act of defiance to President Trump. Over the weekend the president had repeatedly threatened to retaliate for any attacks against American interests by ordering airstrikes against as many as 52 potential targets, one for each of the American hostages held after the seizure of the United States embassy in Tehran in 1979.

In response, Iran’s moderate president, Hassan Rouhani, on Monday responded with his own numerology. “Those who refer to the number 52 should also remember the number 290,” he said on Twitter, a reference to the 290 people killed in 1988 in the accidental downing of an Iranian airliner by an American warship. “Never threaten the Iranian nation,” Mr. Rouhani added.

Where, when and even if Iran may choose to retaliate remains a matter of speculation. As Iranian leaders weighed just what form it might take, analysts said the targets included American troops in neighboring Syria and Iraq, American bases in the Persian Gulf or American embassies or diplomats almost anywhere.

When previous attempts at direct strikes or assassinations have proved unsuccessful, some noted, Iranian-backed militants have turned to the simpler tactic of killing civilians with terrorist bombs.

This was the sequence in 2012 with the Iranian-backed Lebanese group Hezbollah. After failing in attempts to attack Israeli targets or kill Israeli officials in revenge for the killing of one of the group’s leaders, the militants eventually settled on the easier job of bombing a bus load of Israeli tourists in Bulgaria, said Afshon Ostovar, a scholar of Iran at the Naval Postgraduate School.

“We are in uncharted territory, and the truth of the matter is nobody knows how Iran is going to respond. I don’t think even Iran knows,” Mr. Ostovar said. “But I think there is a blood lust right now in the Revolutionary Guards.”

In Iraq, where the Parliament had earlier called for the immediate expulsion of the 5,000 American troops stationed there, Prime Minister Mahdi on Monday listed steps to curtail the troops’ movements.

While plans were being made for departure of the Americans, he said, they will now be limited to “training and advising” Iraqi forces, required to remain within the bases and barred from Iraqi air space.

Mr. Mahdi met with Matthew Tueller, the American ambassador to Iraq, on Monday, and “stressed the need for joint action to implement the withdrawal,” according to a statement and photo released by Mr. Mahdi’s office. He also emphasized Iraq’s efforts to prevent the current tensions between Iran and the United States from sliding into “open war.”

The United States military stirred a media flurry by accidentally releasing a draft letter that seemed to describe imminent plans to withdraw from Iraq. Marine Corps Brig. Gen. William H. Seely III, the commander of the United States forces in Iraq, wrote to the Iraqi government that the American troops would be relocated “to prepare for onward movement.”

“We respect your sovereign decision to order our departure,” he wrote.

But Defense Department officials played down the significance of the letter. “Here’s the bottom line, this was a mistake,” General Mark A. Milley, President Trump’s top military commander, told reporters at the Pentagon during a hastily called press briefing. “It’s a draft unsigned letter because we are moving forces around.”

“There’s been no decision whatsoever to leave Iraq,” Mark T. Esper, the defense secretary, told reporters. “There’s been no decision made to leave Iraq. Period.”

Although the Trump administration has said that the United States killed General Suleimani because he was planning imminent attacks against American interests, there were indications Monday that he may have been leading an effort to calm tensions with Saudi Arabia.

Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi of Iraq said that he was supposed to meet with General Suleimani on the morning he was killed, and that he expected him to bring messages from the Iranians that might help to “reach agreements and breakthroughs important for the situation in Iraq and the region.”

In Washington, two top Senate Democrats urged President Trump early Monday to declassify the administration’s formal notification to Congress giving notice of the airstrike that killed General Suleimani.

Such notification of Congress is required by law, and to classify the entirety of such a notification is highly unusual.

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, and Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said in a joint statement that it was “critical that national security matters of such import be shared with the American people in a timely manner.”

And Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, urged Mr. Trump’s critics not to jump to conclusions. “Unfortunately, in this toxic political environment, some of our colleagues rushed to blame our own government before even knowing the facts,” he said.

For its part, Iran simultaneously continued a months-long push against the Trump administration over its demands that Tehran submit to a more restrictive renegotiation of a 2015 accord with the Western powers over its nuclear research. The Trump administration has sought to pressure Iran by devastating its economy with sweeping economic sanctions, which Iranian officials have denounced as economic warfare.

The sanctions set off the cycle of attacks and counterattacks that culminated last week in the killing of General Suleimani. Iran has also responded with carefully calibrated steps away from the deal’s limits on its nuclear program. On Sunday, Iranian officials said that they had now abandoned all restrictions on the enrichment of uranium, though they said they would continue to admit inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Amid the emotion of the funeral, some called for vengeance that would remake the region. “Even if we attack all of U.S. bases and even if we kill Trump himself it’s not enough revenge,” Brig. Gen Amir Ali HajiZadeh said at the funeral. “We must totally eliminate all U.S. troops from the region.”

For now, Iranian officials seem to be in no rush to strike back against the United States, possibly enjoying their ability to spread anxiety throughout the West. They seem content to

  • bask in the nationalist surge in their popularity,
  • growing international sympathy and the push to
  • expel the American troops from Iraq.

“I don’t think they want to shift the conversation yet,” said Sanam Vakil, a scholar of Iran at Chatham House, a research center in London.

But for the hard-liners who dominate the Iranian National Security Council, she said, some vigorous retaliation would be the only rational response. “A non-response would appear weak and invite further pressure, creating problems in domestic politics and internationally,” she said.


We wanted Turkey to be a partner. It was never going to work.

American officials have often insisted on seeing Turkey, a NATO ally since 1952, as a close partner, which is why the recent fallout seems so shocking. Don’t these two countries share interests and values?

Not really. When you strip away all the happy talk, it’s clear the two nations aren’t really, and have never been, that close. This is a relationship doomed to antipathy.

Alliances are never perfect, of course, and there have been moments over the past seven decades that justify Turkey’s image as a close partner of the United States: President Turgut Ozal shut down pipelines carrying Iraqi oil through Turkey during the run-up to the Gulf War, at great cost to the Turkish economy, for instance. A decade later, the Turkish government was among the first to condemn the 9/11 terrorist attacks and quickly committed troops to Afghanistan. Turkey became an important and valued component of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in that country.

By that time, American officials had become accustomed to seeing Turkey as a partner, like their closest allies in Europe and East Asia. The country’s failure to live up to this role reveals more about our own desperation for Turkey to be something it isn’t, and about Cold War strategies, than about Turkish shortcomings.

.. In the decades since the Cold War ended, problems between the United States and Turkey have piled up, but Washington and Ankara no longer share a threat that mitigates these differences. 

.. In 2016, Erdogan threatened to allow tens of thousands of refugees to enter Europe, apparentlybecause of suspended talks on Turkey’s European Union membership. “You did not keep your word,” he said in a speech in Istanbul. The threat, repeated months later by Turkey’s interior minister, stoked fears in Europe and the United States that such a move — intended or otherwise — would help further empower populist, nationalist and racist political forces already roiling the politics and potentially the stability of the E.U., a core strategic interest of the United States.

.. The danger from Moscow no longer justifies overlooking these significant differences in priorities. In fact, the Turkish government is buying an air defense system from the Russians that could provide Moscow with information about the American F-35 fighter jet, the newest high-tech plane in the U.S. arsenal, which Turkey also plans to fly. Under these circumstances, lamenting the end of our partnership with Turkey seems absurd.

.. A staggering number of Turks believe that Washington was complicit in the attempted 2016 coup d’etat. One poll conducted online in 2016 by a Turkish newspaper found that almost 7 in 10 Turks blamed the CIA. This patently false idea (which Erdogan and other officials have nurtured) along with Trump’s tweet makes Erdogan’s latest accusation that the United States is attempting an economic coup all the more plausible to the Turkish public.

.. The speed with which relations deteriorated after the deal to free the clergyman imploded highlights a relationship marked by frustration and mistrust, not common aims. It is no wonder the Turks seldom, if ever, defend their relationship with Washington. They believe America seeks to do them harm.

How Does War Teach Soldiers About Love?

Journalist Sebastian Junger was embedded with soldiers in the Korengal Valley during the war in Afghanistan. One of the reasons some veterans miss war, he says, is because it fulfills a deep human need to belong to a trusted group.

Many soldiers experience intense connections, without fully understanding what they experienced.
How does this experience of a common enemy compare to Rene Girard’s ideas about the first scapegoating process.