Given the state of politics today, many are starting to notice that extremes are kind of like Michael Bay movies: they tend to attract a lot of people despite the fact that they tend to suck. Not since the bloody wars of Team Edward and Team Jacob have two parties been polarized by an issue to the degree that liberals and conservatives now debate Western interactions with non-Western nations. Much like the half-brothers Rob and Jon, in this disagreement between liberals and conservatives, the difference is Stark. Today, where many see legitimate uses of influence or military force, regressive leftists see only pretext and context.
With the concepts of “pretext” and “context,” hardcore liberals can easily condemn any Western action while also justifying those of non-Western groups. “Pretext” is any motivation – greed, power, the wish to one day sit on the Iron Throne – that propels a Western nation to undertake pretty much any action, anywhere. But, like Alex Trebek flawlessly saying the name some obscure bridge in France you’ve never heard of, “pretext” answers the question without really explaining anything. Meanwhile, the opposite is true for non-western entities; the actions of theocrats, dictators, terrorists, and Justin Biebers, can all be explained, and related to, with “context.”
So what are “pretext” and “context” really? They’re the dildo and pocket pussy of regressive leftist intellectual masturbation: they always fit together perfectly, but no one accomplishes anything or ends up feeling good as a result of the exercise. They are worldview-affirming descriptions invented by babies who want to be able to categorize any fact in a way that confirms their previously held beliefs. This isn’t to say that dildos and pocket pussies have no place in international politics, even we’re not naïve enough to make that claim, just be suspicious of people who only ever use them to complement each other.