Inside the brand-new museum
there’s an old synagogue.
Inside the synagogue
is me.
Inside me
my heart.
Inside my heart
a museum.
Inside the museum
a synagogue,
inside it
me,
inside me
my heart,
inside my heart
a museum

She clutches life;
it is all she knows.
The past attracts her.
One grows aware
upon meeting her
of Death.
Time is defined
at the Void:
before/after.
There is an after
and there is not:
children
who are no more—
and more.
There is Death
that is Life
that defies Death
going on
and on
and around
alone in the dark house
with the TV on.

The name he heard was similar,
Letters and sounds familiar,
But Yusuf barely recognized himself.

The looking glass reflection,
Captures the present,
Hints at the past.

“Search for it יוֹסֵף”—Yusuf thought he heard the mirror whisper.
“You have your grandfather’s eyes,”
Staring right back at me.

His grandfather’s name was Ibrahim,
His grandmother adoringly called him “Abba.”
“Father,” in Arabic, he mistakenly believed.

And he spoke perfect Arabic,
Except when he prayed in private,
That’s when Yusuf would detect a foreign accent.

“Look deeper.”

His grandmother observed rituals,
Not practiced in the Muslim faith.
The candles she lit on Friday night,
Always warmed up their home.

“Keep searching, questioning.”

Yusuf began to search,
And question.
The evidence confused him.

Hidden identification papers,
Misspelled his grandfather’s name as Abraham,
Signed with an unfamiliar surname,
“Halabi” (from Aleppo).

Fear began to overwhelm him.
Were my grandparents converts?
Who am I?

“Ask the question.”

“Jadd,” Yusuf began to address his grandfather,
“Yes, Yoseph,” Avraham answered.

I removed the wrapping,
Washed it clean,
Prepared myself,
To expose the unseen.

Stem and root sliced off,
Discarded as unfit,
Nor useful or connected,
The recipe did not permit.

Off came the skin,
Peeled back its veneer,
Fragile but protective,
The top layer appeared.

Tears welled up,
A fresh cut revealed,
Memories hidden,
Life had concealed.

Another layer removed,
Closer to the core,
Some will embrace,
What too many ignore.

Such beauty and pure,
The bulb I could see,
Unblemished by growth,
Still guarded from me.

The truth if told,
Of struggle and revival,
Ingredients for battle,
Tales of survival.

Let it recall and let it shine,
Its authentic identity,
Then plant and regrow,
For the future will be,

Fraught with darkness,
Tested by the night,
To emerge stronger once again,
And reach toward the light.

“Holy was my pursuit,”
The client responded to the attorney.
The judge nodded and added,
“It’s all part of a lifetime’s journey.”

“No judgment will be rendered,”
“No crime was committed.”
Strict Justice remained silent,
As the client was acquitted.

“You never called me to testify,”
From the gallery Truth spoke out.
“Your pursuit was not intended for me,
Nor for Justice was this about.”

“We hold you in contempt,”
Said the Judge while slamming down the gavel.
“That’s the first truthful thing to be stated,”
Truth retorted, as the decision began to unravel.

Truth continued, “If you don’t ask the correct questions,”
“And the court has been corrupted,”
“Your statements and testimony are stricken,”
The dishonorable Judge interrupted.

Truth replied, “Strike, twist, and distort.”
“Ignorance will not suffice.”
Truth will always overcome,
“So ‘think’, is my advice.”

“I’ve seen the repercussions,”
“As I’ve been here long before.”
“Your guilt will ultimately be on display,”
“And this can’t be ignored.”

You “had a dream,”
Born from need,
And purpose,
Have thou forsaken both?

A divine invitation,
To protect and guide us,
“Through the night with the light from above,”
Have thou lost thy faith?

Your standing in disrepute,
“Whose broad stripes and bright stars”
Now tarnished,
Have thou the will to repair?

The refuge,
And the demand,
“Give me your tired, your poor,”
Is thy “golden door” corrupted?

The American spirit is cracked,
Not broken,
“Give me liberty, or give me death!”
And give me a sign,

To “Let freedom ring”
Ring again,
“We the People,”
If not us, then whom?

I am an Indian Buddhist, but let me make it clear: I do not belong to the clan of neo-Buddhists of Ambedkar, who believe in schism with their heritage and eternal grudge against Hinduism, and are held in scant regard by all genuine Buddhists—Theravada, Vajrayana, and Madhyamaka.

I come from the Vajrayana tradition, but what I write here will give you a few instances of India and other countries’ experience with Islam, and then pick a controversial Buddhist figure from Myanmar to discuss a few ideas of what should be done as a response from so-called “infidels.”

The Martand Surya Mandir (Sun Temple), an architectural wonder built by King Lalitaditya Muktapida, in Kashmir, is one of the most important spiritual sites of ancient India. Under Islamic rule, it became known as “Shaitaan ki Gufa” (The Devil’s Crypt)—a classic case of how Hindu heritage and Hindu symbols were villainized where they could not be entirely razed to the ground.

If only the Persians were able to resist, Zoroastrians and indigenous Persian civilization may not have been wiped out in Iran to be replaced by Arabic ideology. What would Persian civilization have looked like had Zoroastrians successfully resisted the Arab conquest?

In Afghanistan, the fate suffered by the Bamiyan Buddhas in recent times is well known. All these examples clearly show that Islam is incompatible with all other ways of life.

Ashin Wirathu—a voice of defiance, born of a wounded history—is not merely a monk whose sermons crossed international boundaries; he is a product of Myanmar’s unresolved traumas—colonial, demographic, economic, and spiritual. To judge him only through the lens of international headlines is easy. To understand why thousands followed him is harder, but necessary.

Burma’s anxiety about Islam did not begin with Wirathu; it began under British rule. From 1824 onward, when the British annexed Burma into their Indian Empire, the British began importing large numbers of Indian Muslims into Burma’s cities for administration, trade, and labor. Yangon (then Rangoon) became majority Indian by the 1930s. Native Burmese watched their economic control recede. Their land was not just governed by foreigners—it was worked, taxed, and traded by them.

Three consequences followed:

1. Burmese Buddhists became minorities in parts of their own towns.
2. Trade and finance shifted into Indian Muslim and Hindu hands.
3. Buddhism felt pushed into retreat—not only politically, but spiritually

Tension rose. Riots followed. In 1938, Buddhist-Muslim violence erupted in Yangon for the first time—nearly eight decades before Wirathu’s sermons. The seeds were already sown.

In the 1990s and 2000s, Saudi-funded Wahhabi influence quietly spread through parts of Myanmar and Bangladesh. Burmese Buddhists noticed a harder, more literalist form of Islam replacing older syncretic forms. Mosques multiplied rapidly. Many Burmese Buddhists saw this as cultural conquest, not mere worship. When communal violence broke out in Meiktila in 2013 and later in Rakhine, it was not created by Wirathu—he simply gave voice to the fears already circulating.

Wirathu’s message resonated not because it was gentle—but because it spoke to a fear that Burmese Buddhist identity was slowly eroding, while the world seemed to care only for minority rights, never for majority anxieties.

His famous metaphor—“I am like a dog barking when a stranger comes to the house”—reflected a sense of guardianship. For many Burmese, he voiced an unspoken worry: “Will Buddhism survive here? Or are we next to disappear?”

One may disagree with his tone, his exaggerations, his political alliances—but it is difficult to deny that Burmese Buddhists felt existentially unsafe, especially as Islamist movements grew violent globally and the Rohingya conflict gained international attention.

The Rohingya problem now has spread to India—many illegal entries from Bangladesh, and their appeasement by people who should have known better have ensured that. But that is a different discussion.

Ashin Wirathu must be remembered not as a provocateur but as a symptom of deeper wounds in Myanmar’s history. His resistance to Islamism cannot be dismissed as mere bigotry. It was rooted in anxieties that the world did not hear—or did not ask to understand. When identity feels cornered, it lashes out. For Myanmar to find genuine peace, it must do what Wirathu could not:

1. Affirm Buddhism’s dignity.
2. Recognize historical grievances without letting them harden into hatred.
3. Build a nation not of fear, but of cultural confidence.

The response to political Islam ultimately may not be religious war, but strategic clarity: the revival of plural civilization. But if war—by sly means if necessary, and lies—and domination is all Islamists understand, then it’s very hard to see how denying oneself the option of proactive, stiff resistance is any option. Violence in this case has to be met with violence. Negotiation with Islam is not possible.

We see Myanmar being repeated all over the world. We need more Ashin Wirathus to give an angry voice to people’s fear, and then only we can think of moving ahead. Recent incidents in India have once again exposed as a lie the leftist position that Islamism grows in a vacuum of purpose, and we need employment-driven urban policies to prevent radicalization.

Buddhism has historically been associated with non-violence, equanimity, and a unique emphasis on inner transformation. Yet the modern world confronts Buddhists with challenges that our predecessors also knew, though in a different guise, distinct from the forms these difficulties take today: global terrorism, the rise of ideologically motivated violence, and the politicization of religion on a scale that transcends borders.

The seed or the core of these challenges in essence is the same, Islamism—not Islam itself, but a dictatorial political-religious ideology of Islam or a specific tyrannical and autocratic interpretation of Islam that seeks to impose those specific interpretations on the society, often through coercion, violence, hatred, or forceful conversion at the mercy of a drawn blade or a loaded gun.

In countries where Buddhists coexist with Muslim populations—Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and parts of India—Islamist movements have periodically intersected with local tensions, sometimes violently. In these contexts, some Buddhists have responded with fear, aggression, or nationalism. The case of Ashin Wirathu, the Burmese monk who became globally known for extreme anti-Muslim rhetoric, represents a dramatic example.

A contemporary and forceful Buddhist response must be powerful without being hateful, principled without descending into chauvinism, and grounded in the Dharma while addressing real-world threats. Such a response must be capable of condemning violent ideologies—including Islamism—without condemning the people who may be entangled in them.

1. Buddhism and the Challenge of Ideological Violence

1.1 Non-Violence as Principle, Not Passivity

The Buddha did not teach passivity in the face of harm. He taught skilful action, which includes stopping harm compassionately.

In the Dhammapada, the Buddha declares: “Hatred is never appeased by hatred… but by non-hatred alone.”

This is not a command to allow harm to flourish. It is an injunction to resist harm without imitating it. Buddhists are therefore not obliged to ignore extremism, whether religious or ideological. The Dharma explicitly allows:

• Preventing harm
• Speaking truth forcefully
• Calling out wrongdoing
• Protecting communities
• Challenging dangerous views

But all of these must be done without enmity, stereotyping, or thirst for domination.

1.2 Differentiating Islam from Islamism

A Buddhist response must distinguish among:

• Islam—a diverse, Abrahamic monotheistic global religion or faith
• Muslims—adherents or followers of Islam
• Islamism—an Islam-influenced religious, political, and ideological movement that believes that Islam as a religious-political system is superior to all, whose features include:
  • rejection of pluralism
  • non-democratic aims
  • violent jihadism
  • compulsory religious law
  • political expansionism

 So, we can see that wherever Islam itself is a faith or religion, Islamism is a religious and highly political movement which believes in utter totalitarianism. They believe that Islam should influence everything from personal lives to the freedom of choice to the entire political infrastructure. They believe that Islam is superior to communism, liberal democracy, capitalism, and other alternatives in achieving a just, successful society as they see fit. The advocates of Islamism, also known as “al-Islamiyyun,” are usually affiliated with Islamic institutions or social mobilization movements, emphasizing the implementation of Sharia, pan-Islamic political unity, and the creation of Islamic states.

It is true we often fail to see the difference between Islam as a faith and Islam as a movement or Islamism. But this distinction is crucial. Failure to maintain it leads to collective blame, which contradicts Buddhist ethics as well as its codes of conduct and way of life, and inflames violent nationalism.

1.3 Buddhism as an Anti-Totalitarian Tradition

Islamism, like all totalizing ideologies, seeks to define the entirety of a person’s life—including law, culture, identity, and governance—through a single doctrinal lens.

Buddhism rejects such totalisation. The Dharma emphasizes:

• the primacy of liberation of the individual and all sentient beings
• the non-ultimate nature of all views
• resistance to dogmatic certainty
• the prohibition on coercing belief
• the value of pluralistic coexistence

Thus, Buddhism stands in philosophical opposition to any ideology—religious or secular—that demands universal submission.

2. Where Buddhism Encounters Islamism Today

Different Buddhist-majority countries have encountered different forms of Islamist extremism.

2.1 Thailand’s Deep South

Several decades of insurgency in Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat have included attacks on Buddhist civilians and monks by separatist groups employing Islamist rhetoric. The vast majority of Malay Muslims are peaceful; extremists are a minority. Yet the violence has understandably traumatized local Buddhists.

2.2 Sri Lanka

The Easter 2019 attacks, carried out by an ISIS-aligned group, demonstrated that Islamist radicalization exists even in small, historically integrated Muslim populations. This shocked Sri Lankans and intensified pre-existing tensions.

2.3 India and Global South Asian Context

While India is not a Buddhist-majority country, in the past, the picture was quite different and Buddhists faced some extreme assaults by these external extremist forces in the name of Islam.

Nalanda Mahavihar was one of the world’s oldest universities, active from the 5th to around the 12^th and 13th centuries C.E. The earliest detailed narrative of Nalanda’s destruction comes from the Tibetan historian Taranatha (16th–17th century). He claimed that a Turkic general named Bakhtiyar Khilji attacked and burned the monastery around 1193 C.E. Modern historians agree that Nalanda suffered major damage during the late 12th century, linked to incursions by Ikhtiyar al-Din Bakhtiyar Khilji, a military commander of the Delhi Sultanate. Almost 9 million books were burnt, libraries were destroyed, monks were brutally killed, and the entire institutional supports collapsed. The fire at Nalanda University burned for approximately three months, though some accounts suggest a longer period. Not only Nalanda: Vikramashila Mahavihara, Odantapuri Mahavihara, Somapura Mahavihara (Paharpur, Bangladesh)—they all met the same fate.

In today’s world, Buddhism has a strong presence through Dalit movements and Himalayan communities. South Asian Islamist groups—such as those involved in attacks in Mumbai and Kashmir—shape regional security dynamics that affect many religious communities, including Buddhists.

2.4 Myanmar and the Rohingya Crisis

Myanmar has seen violence involving both extremist Buddhist nationalism and militant Rohingya groups such as ARSA. The humanitarian catastrophe that followed—mass displacement, widespread suffering—requires moral clarity: neither extremist Islamism nor extremist Buddhism can be morally defended.

3. The Case of Ashin Wirathu: A Cautionary Tale

3.1 Background

Ashin Wirathu, a Burmese monk associated with the 969 Movement and later Ma Ba Tha (the Patriotic Association of Myanmar), became internationally known for inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric. His speeches painted an entire minority group as an existential threat. Time Magazine labelled him “The Face of Buddhist Terror”—a phrase provocative but rooted in real concern over his language.

3.2 Why Wirathu’s Approach Contradicts the Dharma

Wirathu’s condemnations of Muslims often:

• rely on generalizations
• cultivate fear
• promote exclusionary nationalism
• blur the line between ideological threats and entire populations

Even if some of his concerns are based on encounters with Islamist extremism, the method he used—aggressive rhetoric, dehumanization, moral panic—is incompatible with Buddhist ethics.

Buddhism teaches:

• Right Speech: speech that is truthful yet gentle and conducive to harmony
• The Four Divine Abodes: loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, equanimity
• Non-Harming: intentional avoidance of harm in thought, speech, and deed

Wirathu’s style violates these standards. A Buddhist monk may criticize a dangerous ideology, but cannot legitimately vilify an entire community.

3.3 Why Wirathu Gained Traction

A forceful Buddhist response must honestly acknowledge why figures like Wirathu attract followers:

• fear of demographic change
• real incidents of Islamist violence
• weak rule of law in conflict regions
• social media disinformation
• lack of Buddhist literacy among the public
• political manipulation

Understanding these factors allows Buddhists to address legitimate fears without endorsing hatred.

3.4 Lessons from Wirathu’s Rise

Wirathu demonstrates that righteous anger can easily morph into destructive anger. A Buddhist response must therefore be:

• vigilant against demonization
• disciplined in language
• rooted in compassion for all sides
• principled in confronting harm
• sharply critical of ideology, never of populations

4. A Contemporary, Forceful Buddhist Rebuttal to Islamism

4.1 Forcefulness Without Hatred

A strong Buddhist stance should do the following:

1. Name Islamism clearly as an ideology

Buddhism need not shy away from stating that violent, totalizing ideologies—whether Islamist, communist, fascist, or ultra-nationalist—are harmful.

2. Oppose violence decisively

The Buddha repeatedly discouraged passive witness to harm. A contemporary response should support community protection, legal enforcement, and deradicalization efforts.

3. Defend pluralism

Buddhist societies can emphasize that diverse religious traditions can coexist peacefully, and that any ideology seeking compulsory dominance is incompatible with pluralistic ethics.

4. Reject collective stereotypes

Islamism is not Islam. Muslims are not Islamists. This is a Buddhist principle as well as a sociological fact.

4.2 Intellectual Critique of Islamism Through Buddhist Philosophy

Buddhist thinkers can critique Islamism on several philosophical grounds:

• Rejection of doctrinal absolutism:

Buddhism warns against attachment to views as ultimately true.

• Rejection of religious coercion:

The Buddha consistently taught freedom of conscience.

• Critique of identity-based politics:

Buddhism sees identity as contingent and empty, undermining the ideological fixation on religious supremacy.

• Non-violent ethics:

Violence for ideological ends contradicts universal Buddhist precepts. This is a way to confront Islamism without demonizing Muslim communities.

4.3 Ethical Defence Against Extremist Violence

A Buddhist response can support:

• security measures protecting civilians
• community-based deradicalization
• inter-faith initiatives
• public education on distinguishing ideology from population
• strong rule of law that punishes perpetrators, not populations

Buddhism does not require fatalism in the face of threat; it allows moral firmness.

5. Engaging Muslim Communities as Partners

Ironically, the strongest allies against Islamism are often Muslims themselves. Many Muslim-majority nations have fought Islamist extremism for decades.

A forceful Buddhist response should include:

• supporting Muslim leaders who oppose extremism
• creating interfaith networks to immunize youth against radicalization
• promoting shared ethical values
• building solidarity at the community level
• addressing grievances that extremists exploit

This transforms the conflict from “Buddhists vs. Muslims” to “Buddhists and Muslims vs. extremism.”

6. Preventing Buddhist Nationalism from Becoming a Mirror-Image Extremism

6.1 The Danger of Symmetrical Extremism

History shows that when one extremist ideology arises, its opposite number often forms in reaction. This is what happened in parts of Myanmar and Sri Lanka: nationalist monks mirrored the absolutism they opposed.

Forceful Buddhist ethics must reject this symmetry.

6.2 Monastic Responsibility

The Vinaya (monastic code) instructs monks to:

• avoid partisan politics
• refrain from inciting hatred
• teach with compassion
• avoid speech that divides communities

Monks who violate these principles undermine the moral authority of the Sangha (community).

6.3 The Middle Path Applied to Social Conflict

A Middle Path response to Islamism includes:

• clarity without aggression
• compassion without naïveté
• protection without cruelty
• firmness without fanaticism

This is difficult, but necessary.

7. Building a Dharma-Centered Strategy for the 21st Century

7.1 Educating the Buddhist Public

Many Buddhists react to extremism out of fear rather than Dharma knowledge. Education should include:

• teachings on tolerance
• critical thinking
• understanding extremist recruitment
• non-violent conflict management
• exposure to peaceful Muslim communities

7.2 Strengthening Institutions

Healthy institutions—legal systems, police forces, community organizations—reduce the appeal of nationalist monks and extremist ideologies alike.

7.3 Promoting Buddhist Principles in Policy

A Buddhist-informed social policy might emphasize:

• human rights
• rule of law
• religious freedom
• restorative justice
• socio-economic equity

Such policies weaken the soil in which extremism grows.

8. Conclusion: A New Model for Buddhist Engagement

The modern world requires Buddhists to develop a moral vocabulary that can condemn harmful ideologies without fostering hatred of people. A truly contemporary and forceful response to Islamism must:

• be rooted in Dharma
• condemn violent ideology
• defend pluralism
• remain compassionate
• reject nationalist distortions
• collaborate with peaceful Muslims
• uphold human dignity for all

The case of Ashin Wirathu stands as a warning: fear, even when justified by real threats, can lead to unskilful action. Buddhism offers tools to address threats without becoming what one fears.

The Dharma does not ask Buddhists to be passive. It asks them to be wise.

It does not ask them to ignore danger. It asks them not to lose compassion when facing it.

It does not ask them to accept harmful ideologies. It asks them to reject hatred as a response.

A contemporary Buddhist response to Islamism must therefore be vigorous, principled, and compassionate—a model for the world at a time when polarization threatens to overwhelm humanity’s better instincts.

It is not only possible to be forceful without hatred.

From a Buddhist perspective, it is the only legitimate way.

It is historically understandable that many Buddhists in Sri Lanka and Myanmar feel threatened: there have been violent Islamist attacks and demographic anxieties, and a Pew Research Center piece, “Buddhism, Islam and Religious Pluralism in South and Southeast Asia” (September 12, 2023),  shows religion is tightly woven into identity. 

The general view, though, is that proportionate state action against violent extremists is justified; but majority-led nationalist movements that stigmatize, exclude or violently target entire Muslim communities are not justified—legally, strategically, or ethically. They damage social cohesion, provide fodder for real extremists, and leave societies less safe in the long run. 

There should not be any issues with the first part of this view. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), better known as the “Tamil Tigers,” had a long and bloody war with the Sri Lankan army. Many Sri Lankan Tamils were displaced. Many would say that the action the Sri Lankan army took was justified. However, the conflict between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan state was never a Hindu vs. Buddhist fight—and framing it that way is historically inaccurate and academically misleading. The conflict was about ethno-political rights, language discrimination, and autonomy—not religion.

When you look at the history of the so-called Buddhist-Islamic “feud” in Sri Lanka, it is not so at all. Religion—the intolerance shown by nearly all Muslims, and their inability to co-exist or culturally assimilate with the host country—is the key there.

Here are the approximate percentages of different religions in Sri Lanka (based on recent census / reliable data): Buddhism: ~70.2%, Hinduism: ~12.6%, Islam (Muslim): ~9.7%, Christianity: ~7.4% (mostly Roman Catholic). The rest are “others.”  So why are the Muslims singled out as trouble-makers? The reason is very clear for those who have not put on blinkers.

The April 2019 Easter attacks that killed 269 people—mostly Christians—were carried out by a Sri Lankan extremist group (National Thowheeth Jama’ath) with claimed or possible ISIS ties. That attack was a rare but devastating example of Islamist terrorism on Sri Lankan soil and created profound national trauma and security concerns.

Islamist extremists in these countries are relatively small in number and geographically limited. Their presence creates real security problems, but a greater issue is that they are the dominant voice in Islam, and the so-called “moderate” Islamic people cannot or do not speak out against them. They easily radicalize the youth, spread their influence through mosques, and strike whenever they find an opening. The end aim is always jihad; and there is consensus among Islamic scholars that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against wrongdoers, and anyone who does not follow Islam is a wrongdoer by that account. No Muslim may deny this.

A state is justified in using proportionate measures to prevent and respond to violent extremism (intelligence, arrests of militants, prosecution). The 2019 Easter bombings and ARSA attacks show the security threat is not purely theoretical. It is easy to say that justified responses must operate under rule of law, with fair trials and protections for civilians; repressive, discriminatory laws that target entire religious communities are inconsistent with constitutional norms and international human rights. Pew’s data showing religion-state integrationism means legal reforms risk being skewed toward majoritarian preferences unless safeguards are enforced; but when the minority are the Islamic people, majoritarian preference has to be given precedence.

Improving intelligence cooperation, community policing, and judicial capacity; arresting and prosecuting violent actors; keeping constant vigil—that is the price Israel pays, and that is the price any country where there is a sizable Muslim population must be prepared to pay. Empowering moderate Buddhist leaders and moderate Muslim voices to delegitimize violent narratives is mostly a stillborn initiative, because the moderate face of Islam has always been a sham.

Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thera is the most well-known hard-line Buddhist monk in Sri Lanka today. He has made so-called inflammatory, actually very prescient, remarks about Islam in the past; in 2016, for example, he reportedly described Islam as a “cancer that must be eradicated.”  in 2025, he made claims (during a YouTube interview) about “suicide fighters” infiltrating the Sri Lankan government. Like Ashin Wirathu of Myanmar, Gnanasara articulates a majoritarian Buddhist nationalism. They argue that Buddhism and Sinhala-ness are under threat, especially from Muslims, and they mobilize public fear and identity. A point to be noted is that he has never held this to be at all true about the sizable Hindu population in Sri Lanka. 

Through the JHU and coalitions, Buddhist nationalist monks in Sri Lanka directly enter political life—much more formally than in some other Buddhist-majority contexts. These nationalist monks sometimes enjoy political support (or toleration) from powerful political leaders, which helps them exercise influence beyond just monastic circles. They are not doing it out of self-aggrandizement but because they urgently feel that the threat from Islam is very real, and yapping at the heels.

Galagoda uses his position in BBS (Bodu Bala Sena) to campaign aggressively against what he calls the rise of “Muslim extremism.” He has called for “one law” in Sri Lanka, while some critics have said it implicitly criticizes religious pluralism and minority rights—but look at India and its struggle to have a Universal Civil Code imposed out of similar necessities. Meanwhile, BBS has been directed against Muslims predominantly, and occasionally against Christian evangelists trying to convert Buddhists.

Gnanasara has been incarcerated several times for anti-Muslim remarks; but he was appointed by former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa as Chairman of a “Presidential Task Force for One Country, One Law.” He also made serious charges, alleging that USAID funded NGOs to undermine Sinhala-Buddhist forces. Here there is a clear parallel with Sir Lanka’s much larger neighbour India, which had to pass stringent laws to limit the deleterious influences of many NGOs.

Gnanasara Thera has become a symbol of militant Sinhalese-Buddhist nationalism. Critics argue that his rhetoric has contributed to polarization and violence. Supporters claim he is defending Buddhist heritage and Sinhalese identity from perceived external threats.

In the Buddhist-majority countries, very large majorities of Buddhists see religion as central to their national identity. For instance, 95% of Sri Lankan Buddhists say being Buddhist is important to being “truly Sri Lankan.” Many Buddhists don’t treat their religion purely as a belief system—they also see it as culture, family tradition, and even an ethnicity. 

In Cambodia, 76% of Buddhists say being born Buddhist is part of their identity. A strong proportion of Buddhists in Cambodia (75%), and Sri Lanka (72%), are what Pew calls “religion-state integrationists”—meaning they support basing national laws on Buddhist teachings (dharma). Unlike in some Western contexts, economic growth in these Asian countries does not strongly equate to secularization. Religion remains a core part of life, even as societies modernize.

Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thera will likely remain a contentious figure in Sri Lankan history—often criticized for his sharp rhetoric, yet also recognized for raising issues that many preferred to ignore. In a period when global Islamist militancy was rising, he voiced anxieties present among sections of the Sinhala Buddhist majority who felt politically sidelined or culturally insecure.

His methods were frequently termed as divisive, but his interventions forced the country to engage with questions of national identity, legal uniformity, foreign influence, and long-term social cohesion. In this sense, his impact lay not in providing solutions, but in compelling society to confront concerns it might otherwise have suppressed.

After the Easter Sunday attacks of 2019, his warnings could no longer be dismissed, and a broader public debate emerged over how to balance vigilance with inclusivity. The challenge ahead is not to silence uncomfortable voices, but to cultivate wiser ones—encouraging leaders who can protect cultural identity without hatred and uphold security without prejudice.

If Sri Lanka learns from this moment, Gnanasara Thera’s legacy may serve as a reminder that democracies must address fear openly rather than let it harden into extremism. His story shows the need for moral leadership—firm, fair, and deeply rooted in ethical responsibility.

In the shadowed forests of northeastern Nigeria, where the line between hope and despair blurs like the Sahel dust storms, 21-year-old Leah Sharibu is still in chains. Abducted at 14 from her school in Dapchi, Yobe State, on February 19, 2018, by militants of the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), a brutal offshoot of Boko Haram, Leah Sharibu has become a symbol of unyielding faith amid unrelenting terror. Her crime? Refusing to renounce her Christianity, a defiance that has kept her from the freedom granted to 104 of the 110 schoolgirls kidnapped alongside her.

Today, as the world reels from yet another mass abduction of Christian students, Leah Sharibu’s story pierces the heart of Nigeria’s escalating crisis of religious persecution. On November 21, 2025, gunmen stormed St. Mary’s Catholic School in Papiri, Niger State, seizing approximately 303 pupils and staff in a brazen raid that lasted over 20 minutes, with no security response in sight. About 51 children escaped into the surrounding bush, but the rest remain missing, fueling fears of forced conversions, ransom demands, or worse, echoing the nightmare that swallowed Leah Sharibu whole.

“Leah stood firm in the face of extreme danger, proving outstanding personal courage in defense of her Christian faith,” reads a desperate 2019 plea from her family and advocates, addressed to then-U.S. President Donald Trump and Nigerian leaders. Former President Muhammadu Buhari secured the release of the other Dapchi girls but left Leah behind, a “prisoner of conscience” whose resilience “upholds the highest virtues of religious freedom.” Nearly eight years later, those words ring with fresh urgency under President Bola Tinubu’s administration, as Boko Haram’s insurgency rages on despite official claims of its defeat.

Lean Sharibu’s abduction was no isolated horror. Boko Haram, sworn to establish an Islamic caliphate and eradicating Western education, has targeted schools since 2010, slaughtering hundreds of students and kidnapping thousands more, often girls, whom they view as unfit for learning and ripe for enslavement. The 2014 Chibok kidnapping of 276 girls remains a scar on the global conscience, with 82 still captive after more than a decade. Leah Sharibu’s case, however, stands apart for its stark religious dimension: ISWAP released the Muslim girls but retained her, threatening execution or lifelong bondage if demands for her conversion weren’t met.

Today, with no verified sightings or communications since her capture, the family endures in limbo. Indications suggest she may still be alive, possibly having borne children in captivity, underscoring the profound human cost of her prolonged ordeal.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) lists Sharibu among its “Religious Prisoners of Conscience,” condemning her ongoing detention as a violation of fundamental human rights. In June of 2025, the U.K. Parliament echoed this outrage, with lawmakers demanding accountability from Nigerian authorities. Yet, as Boko Haram and its affiliates like ISWAP splinter and regroup, killing tens of thousands and displacing millions, critics accuse the Tinubu government of inaction, much as they did under Buhari.

In a pivotal development, on October 31, 2025, the U.S. State Department, under the reinstated Trump administration, officially designated Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC) for severe violations of religious freedom. This marks a renewed escalation in U.S. scrutiny with President Trump accusing the Nigerian government of failing to curb “genocidal” attacks on Christians. The designation, recommended annually by USCIRF amid surging violence, including over 4,000 Christian deaths in 2024 alone, triggers potential sanctions, aid restrictions, and diplomatic measures under the International Religious Freedom Act. Advocacy groups like the LEAH Foundation, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), and Jubilee Campaign hailed the move but warned it must be more than symbolic: “Nigeria must remain a CPC,” they urged in letters to U.S. officials, spotlighting Leah Sharibu’s case as emblematic of unaddressed religious prisoners. Concurrently, Representative Riley Moore (R-WV, District 2) introduced a resolution condemning Christian persecution, while the Nigeria Religious Freedom Accountability Act of 2025 proposes a bilateral task force to track progress on rescue campaigns like those on behalf of Leah. Nigerian Christian leaders, in response, called for swift investigations into atrocities and the immediate liberation of hostages, framing the CPC as a “wake-up call” for Abuja.

The Papiri raid has ignited a firestorm of international appeals, drawing direct parallels to Leah Sharibu’s plight. Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ, District 4), a longtime champion of religious freedom, urged tying American aid to Nigeria’s progress in curbing persecution, including sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act against complicit officials. Many labeled the attacks a “coordinated genocide” against Christians, calling on the U.S. to lead with humanitarian aid, security guarantees, and pressure to dismantle discriminatory laws favoring Islamist militias. Pope Leo XIV condemned the abductions, praying for the hostages’ safe return and an end to the “systematic targeting” of schools and clergy in Nigeria and neighboring Cameroon.

As the CPC designation amplifies global pressure, the question of “what to do” has never been more urgent. I emphasized during recent D.C. visits that “Leah must be free now,” a mantra tying personal resolve to collective resolve: “Christian children must be protected. Leah Sharibu must be brought home safely.”

How many more girls’ faces will fade in captivity before the world forces open these iron gates? With the CPC hammer now poised, the onus falls on swift, coordinated action to turn designation into deliverance.

For the Sharibus and countless families like theirs, the answer cannot come soon enough. Advocacy groups like the LEAH Foundation, Open Doors, and USCIRF continue to amplify their voices, but experts warn that without sustained diplomatic and economic pressure, particularly from the U.S., Nigeria’s largest donor, the cycle of abductions will persist. In a nation where faith is both shield and shackle, Leah Sharibu’s quiet defiance reminds us: True freedom begins with one girl’s unbreakable spirit.

Infidel! Kafir! Heretic!

These are not merely insults; they are weapons forged in the theological anxiety of traditions that tremble before the presence of the other. This inquiry begins with a longstanding paradox: polytheistic cultures routinely absorb new deities, while exclusivist monotheisms consistently resist them. In Hindu, African, and other pluralistic contexts, the presence of Jesus, Allah, or local gods produces no theological rupture; the divine is understood as intrinsically plural. For strict monotheisms, however, recognizing an alternative divine presence threatens the coherence of salvation itself. This contrast prompts a deeper question: why do Islamic and Christian fundamentalisms generate the category of the “infidel,” and why does plurality become a threat rather than a possibility?

The answer lies in an epistemic architecture that elevates a single revelation to absolute finality. When the Qur’ān is taken as the sealed message or Christ as the only path to the Father, all other claims are, by definition, false. Truth becomes singular, error universal. Within such a system, other gods, scriptures, or views are not parallel expressions of the sacred but negations of it. From this structure arises the uncompromising force of the First Commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.”

This exclusivist logic is reinforced by doctrines of salvation and eternal punishment. The Qur’ān links disbelief (kufr) with eternal loss—“Those who disbelieve… the Fire will be their abode” (Qur’ān 2:39)—and the Hadith intensify the severity of apostasy: “Whoever changed his religion, then kill him” (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 6922). Classical Islamic jurisprudence treats apostasy (riddah) as both a theological and civic fracture, allowing legal consequences once repentance is refused. Christian tradition mirrors this trajectory. Salvation is exclusive—“No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6), “No other name… by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12)—and this exclusivity produced the institutional machinery of orthodoxy: ecumenical condemnations of heresy, inquisitorial tribunals, and, later, missionary programs that suppressed indigenous religions. Where fear of eternal punishment does not compel conformity, socio-political pressure often does. Islamic history shows the use of takfīr (excommunication) to silence dissent; Christian polities enforced doctrinal allegiance through exile, confiscation, and civil penalties. In both traditions, deviation jeopardizes not only salvation but social belonging. In opposition to this lies the polytheistic view. Let us take up three cases.

First is Caribbean Vodou religion, in which African deities find their place in saints, or where older deities are worshipped and petitioned through saints and angels, as it has happened in Bulgaria, and East Europe. Where the Christianity that was forced upon a people was taken up to masquerade the old ways.

Second, where Islam and Tantra meet leads to usage of talismans and surahs by Hindu tantrics, or the acceptance of wiccan and other magical practices of the West in the practices of East. 

Third is the Sahajiyā Fakiri bauls, who combine the Islamic language and doctrine with the Hindu yogic practices, Lalon Fakir being a predominant figure.

And we can consider a fourth category like Nazrul Islam (20th century C.E), where a Muslim Kazi is devoted to the goddess Kālī, and we also find the story of Bibi Thulukka Nachiar, a Muslim princess devoted to Viṣṇu (11th century C.E.).

In stark contrast to the stagnation attributed to fundamentalism, the polytheistic field exhibits a remarkable circulatory dynamism: ideas, rituals, and personae traverse traditions with comparative ease. Crucially, this permeability is less a matter of exoteric conformity than of an esoteric economy of power, a subterranean praxis of ritual efficacy and mystic technique in which disparate forms of devotion and expertise meet and are made commensurable. Syncretism, therefore, often operates at the level of sādhanā (“realization”), talismanic practice and initiatory transmission rather than merely as doctrinal bricolage.

Equally significant is the inclusion of heterodox and even atheistic positions within this pluralist framework. The hedonistic strands of ancient Greece and the materialist Cārvāka-Lokāyata current in classical India are not sociological anomalies but recognized interlocutors within broader intellectual ecosystems. Polytheism, properly understood, is not simply the worship of many gods but the institutional and philosophical tolerance for multiple, incommensurable accounts of the world. Disagreement and gradation of belief persist while debate, contestation, and hierarchy remain real, yet these do not usually aim at the total eradication of dissent. Rather, plurality admits the coexistence of contradiction; truths are perspectival, efficacy often outranks exclusivity, and the resulting ambience of toleration sets the parameters for the ensuing debate. This critique targets exclusivist theological structures, not the everyday believer. 

The question thus follows: does polytheism prove to be better in this regard?

The charge of “infidelity” itself discloses the conceptual error at the heart of the monotheistic (in this case, Islamic) critique. It rests upon a taxonomic invention internal to monotheistic thought, a classificatory device designed to secure the supremacy of a single, exclusive truth by criminalizing all forms of plurality. Such a category has no parallel within polytheistic traditions, for the simple reason that difference has never constituted a theological or civic threat within them. Polytheism does not require the fabrication of a “false god” in order to stabilize its own identity; it operates on the assumption that the divine may manifest through many names, functions, and contexts. 

Monotheism, by contrast, generates hostility structurally, for it begins by denying the legitimacy of any deity other than its own, thereby transforming diversity into error and coexistence into rivalry. Consequently, the conflict often attributed to polytheistic multiplicity does not originate within polytheism at all; it is produced by the monotheistic need for exclusivity and the discursive apparatus that enforces it. To label the polytheist an “infidel” is therefore not an observation but an imposition, an artefact of monotheistic logic projected onto a worldview that never required such a distinction in the first place. 

Polytheism, as Maurizio Bettini demonstrates in his In Praise of Polytheism (2014), operates according to the logic of a language: its gods correspond, map, and translate across cultural boundaries because divinity is understood as a spectrum of functions rather than an isolated, non-negotiable absolute. This translatability is not a mere curiosity but a structural feature of polytheistic thought. 

It is precisely why a Roman could recognize the Egyptian Amun as a form of Jupiter, or the Greek Hermes as analogous to Mercury. Such interpretative elasticity reveals a worldview trained to identify resonance rather than contradiction. Monotheism, however, denies this very possibility. Its God cannot be translated because translation presupposes equivalence, and equivalence presupposes plurality. The result is an epistemic closure: the monotheist is condemned to misunderstand foreign religions because the architecture of his theology forbids him from recognizing any genuine correspondence.

This is why the monotheistic ideal of “tolerance” is so structurally fraught. Toleration is, at heart, a hierarchical gesture: the dominant faith concedes space to others, but only as a matter of permission, never as a matter of recognition: “You may exist, but only because we allow it.” Polytheism does not operate by such conditional magnanimity. Its practice of interpretation is not a grudging endurance of the alien but an act of comprehension—an acknowledgement that the divine assumes many guises and that foreign gods are intelligible within one’s own religious grammar. 

Thus, whilst monotheists offer a fragile, revocable permission, polytheists offer an interpretive hospitality that treats difference as meaningful rather than dangerous.

This distinction reveals the instability social inherent in monotheistic systems when they come into contact with others. A single divine center—absolute, non-relational, and jealously singular—cannot sustain the pressures of genuine plurality. When confronted with religious differences, such a system does not expand; it contracts. It seeks to defend itself through exclusion, demarcation, and the linguistic strategies of superiority. Polytheism, by contrast, thrives under those very conditions. The presence of multiple sacred forms does not undermine its coherence; it constitutes its coherence. It is structurally incapable of collapsing under diversity, because diversity is the medium through which it understands the world. Multiple divine centers (polytheism) allow flexible coexistence (see Bettini, chapters 4 and 12). Thus polytheism is structurally more resilient.

“You fear curiosity; we practice it.” This contrast becomes even clearer when one considers the historical trajectories of cultures shaped by polytheism. Both the Greek and the Hindu worlds evolved through the disciplined cultivation of questions; inquiry was not only permitted but structurally embedded within their religious and philosophical frameworks. The polytheistic mindset, because it never feared plurality, never feared interrogation either. In Greece, philosophy emerged directly from the freedom to challenge myth, interrogate cosmology, and explore competing accounts of the divine without the threat of doctrinal rupture. A thinker could contest Homer, revise Hesiod, or even deny the literal existence of Olympian figures, and yet remain within the cultural fold. 

Likewise in India, the Védic tradition did not interpret philosophical contestation as blasphemy. The Upaniṣads prospered precisely because they questioned the ritual orthopraxy of the earlier Védas; the heterodox systems—Buddhism, Jainism, Sāṃkhya, Cārvāka—did not simply emerge despite Hindu polytheism but because such a milieu rendered questioning intellectually possible and socially survivable. In neither civilization did critique equate to treason against the divine. Rather, interrogation was understood as a means through which truth might be approached and refined. 

Monotheism, however—with the notable exception of the midrashic tradition within Judaism—renders questioning precarious. Once truth is anchored to a single absolute doctrine, the field of legitimate inquiry decimates. To challenge doctrine becomes to challenge God, thus blasphemy; to revise metaphysics becomes to trespass upon sacred authority. Hence the monotheistic preoccupation with heresy—not as an intellectual disagreement but as a moral transgression. Curiosity becomes dangerous because it threatens the unity upon which monotheistic identity depends. Polytheism, however, faces no such anxiety. It does not require the policing of boundaries because its very coherence lies in its capacity to absorb, reinterpret, and expand. What monotheists condemn as syncretism polytheists recognize as the natural movement of a living tradition. 

This is why polytheistic cultures repeatedly demonstrate intellectual elasticity. They realize that the sacred is not a single monopolized locus, but something that proliferates: in mountains and rivers, in guardians and ancestors, in celestial bodies and ritual moments. Therefore divinity is not held hostage by one name or one narrative. It reveals itself through a multiplicity of forms, each inviting scope of novelty in reflection and reinterpretation. Monotheism, by confining sanctity to one authorized source, inevitably enforces a theology of scarcity. Only one path is legitimate, one revelation definitive, one narrative binding. In such a system, critique becomes a threat because it destabilizes the single axis on which the entire edifice rests. 

Polytheism, therefore, fosters a culture in which the question is not a danger but a duty. It understands that thought evolves through disagreement, through provisional answers, through intellectual hospitality rather than suspicion. It is no coincidence that both Greek dialectic and Indian darśana traditions developed within polytheistic civilizations that accepted contradiction as an invitation rather than an offense. The polytheist is not frightened by competing truths; he assumes the world is large enough to contain them. The monotheist, however, must either conquer difference or repress it, for every competing claim risks becoming a rival revelation. 

Thus the debate returns to its central insight: polytheism multiplies the sacred and thereby multiplies the pathways of thought; monotheism restricts the sacred and thereby constricts the pathways of inquiry. Where you demand purity, we pursue understanding; where you fear deviation, we cultivate reflection. It is through questioning, not through the enforcement of a single truth, that civilizations grow in wisdom. 

In the end, the polemical vocabulary you direct towards us exposes far more about your assumptions than about our practice. “Infidel” is not a descriptor we ever required, nor a category that emerges from our own intellectual or ritual traditions. It is a word born from a system that cannot abide plurality, a system that must divide the world into truth and error in order to stabilize its singular claim. Polytheists, by contrast, never fashioned a term to condemn the religious “other,” for the simple reason that the category of “other” never bore the weight of suspicion or hostility in our worldview. We have no theological need to criminalize difference, no doctrinal anxiety that demands the invention of enemies, no metaphysical insecurity that turns plurality into a threat. It is therefore no surprise that the language of infidelity belongs exclusively to monotheistic discourse: it is the inevitable product of a theology that defines itself against all that lies beyond its own boundaries. 

Thus our reply is both concise and unassailable: the word “infidel” does not describe us—it reveals you.

How do you speak of a story that was never allowed to become a story? How do you describe a hierarchy that hides behind the word “brotherhood”? And, more importantly, how do you convince a world, so eager to believe in neat binaries of “Muslim vs. non-Muslim,” that the deepest fractures often run within, quietly, almost invisibly?

Whenever I try to explain the Pasmanda question to a Western or even an Indian audience (pasmanda meaning “those left behind”), I notice a strange silence settle in the room. It’s almost as if admitting that “all Muslims are not equal within Islam” breaks some sacred script of public discourse, breaking the overall protected framework. But does truth wait for permission? And why should moral clarity submit to geopolitical sensitivities?

The story of the Pasmanda (Muslims descended from Hindus of low caste and lured to convert to Islam by the promise of release from their status, but who are today still subject to extreme class disdain within the Muslim community), after all, is not a rebellion. It is not a movement. It is not even an accusation. It is simply a mirror, held up politely, almost shyly, towards a community and the dogmas that have long claimed equality but rarely practiced it. And mirrors, as we know, tend to irritate those who enjoy the comfort of unexamined narratives.

But something deeper lies beneath this veneer—indeed Pasmandas make up at least 80% of Indian Muslims. Something civilizational. Something Indic in my understanding. Because when you look closely at the lives of the Ajlaf (“backward caste”) and Arzal (“untouchable”) Muslim communities, you realize that their memories, customs, accents, even their culinary instincts, still carry the scents and textures of a civilization older than any conqueror’s theology. One begins to wonder: did they convert, or did they simply survive? And if conversion was meant to erase their identity, why does the hierarchy continue to remember exactly who they were before they entered the fold?

This is why the Pasmanda question unsettles everyone. It unsettles the Ashraf elite (the “noble” Indian Muslims descended from the Arab and Persian conquerors) because it forces them to confront the uncomfortable truth that their proclaimed egalitarianism had gatekeepers. It unsettles outsiders—“the infidels”—because it complicates the simplistic idea of a monolithic Muslim bloc. And it unsettles those of us tracing civilizational patterns because it shows, so quietly, the resilience of Indian social memory; how it persists even under pressure; how it bends but refuses to break.

So, the Pasmanda story is not a political claim; it is a civilizational whisper. It is the reminder that inequality can hide inside slogans of unity. It is the proof that identities can endure beneath layers of imposed brotherhood. And it is the gentle question I want to place before the readers: Can any honest conversation on Islamism ignore the voices of those who suffered not outside Islam, but inside it? Because unless we listen to them, we will always mistake silence for harmony, and hierarchy for faith.

The Past That Refuses to Stay Quiet

When we sift through the historical layers of the Pasmanda experience, something curious emerges. The official narrative of Islam in India loves tidy lines, great conquerors, noble Sufi saints, mass conversions driven by spiritual attraction and the usage of caste as the reason for conversion. But history, like people, rarely behaves so obediently. It leaves traces, side notes, hesitations, and half-erased stories that don’t quite fit the brochure version.

Take the question everyone avoids: Why did so many local communities convert? Were they simply moved by revelation, or were they moved by the far more worldly pressures of survival—land, tax, fear, or the political tides of the time? This is not to deny genuine spiritual yearning—India has always been fertile soil for seeking—but how do we ignore that the earliest converts came disproportionately from the most vulnerable occupational groups? And if Islam was meant to erase their past status, why did their “new brothers” remember it so meticulously? And if it was the push factor from within the sanatan way of life, why not many of the most so-called “downtrodden” converted? Rather, we find the converts from the artisans’ fold who were the middle-upper class caste-wise.

A religion that proclaimed equality somehow managed to carry forward every marker of caste, only now shaded with Persian and Arab color. Ajlaf and Arzal became the new vocabulary, but the old hierarchy slipped in through the back door, perfectly at ease. You begin to realize that the theology claimed universality, but the society it created was exquisitely selective. Brotherhood had borders. Equality had conditions.

But here lies the real intrigue, the local Indic signature that never dissolved. Pasmanda communities, despite conversion, somehow held onto their older ecological rhythms, their village cosmologies, their food preferences, their dialects, even their folk gods disguised as “local customs.” It is as if the civilizational soil refused to be overwritten by any imperial script. Islam was adopted, yes, but Bharat (India) never left them.

And this is where the story becomes larger than just “Muslim caste.” It becomes a study in civilizational resilience. If an imported theological framework couldn’t erase these identities even with political power behind it, what does that say about the nature of Indic social memory? Why does it cling so stubbornly, so quietly, across centuries of upheaval?

There is a profound irony here: The communities Islam tried hardest to reshape are the ones who ended up reshaping Islam within the Indian context. And yet, they remain invisible in public discourse, spoken of only when convenient, silenced when not.

Between Faith + Power

Whenever ideological debates erupt—Islam vs. the West, Islam vs modernity, Islam vs democracy—rarely does anyone ask: What about Islam vs. its own oppressed? Why is intra-Muslim inequality treated as an embarrassing family secret best kept hidden from “infidels”?

Perhaps because acknowledging it weakens the political claim to victimhood unity. Or perhaps because it forces the community to confront a truth far more uncomfortable than external criticism: that sometimes the harshest injustice comes from those closest to you.

The Ashraf idea, that descent from foreign blood brings inherent superiority, sits uneasily inside a religion that claims absolute equality. But doctrines do what doctrines always do: they adjust themselves to power, and they punish those who question.

Pasmanda communities never declared rebellion; they were simply never invited into the narrative of “brotherhood” in the first place. And when a community has been historically denied authorship, its silence is mistaken for contentment. But is silence really proof of harmony? Or is it merely the exhaustion of fighting a hierarchy that refuses to acknowledge its own existence?

This question matters today more than ever because the struggle against Islamist extremism is not just external; it is deeply internal. The loudest demands for reform often come from the quietest corners, from people who know the cost of orthodoxy in their bones, not in think-tank reports. And here is the point I want the reader to sit with, not judge, just sit with: How can Islamism be challenged meaningfully if we ignore those who have lived its social consequences from within?

The Infidel Within

When the idea of “infidels respond,” first reached me, I paused. Who exactly is an infidel? The outsider who questions your theology, or the insider who questions your hierarchy? And if the word is meant to mark unbelief, what do we make of those who believe but are not believed in?

The Pasmanda experience forces this uncomfortable shift in perspective. Because if “infidel” simply means the one who stands outside the authority of the powerful, then the first infidels of Islam in India were not Hindus, Jews, Christians, or atheists. They were the very Muslims who never enjoyed equality within their own house.

Strange, isn’t it? A system that divides the world into believers and unbelievers ends up creating its own internal unbelievers—not by creed, but by caste. Not by choice, but by history.

No one says this aloud, of course. Public narratives prefer simplicity. They like their conflicts neatly external. It is easier to blame the outsider than acknowledge the fracture lines running through your own foundation. But Pasmanda lives refuse to fit into those clean binaries. Their struggle reveals that the line dividing “oppression” and “faith” often runs straight through the center of the community itself.

This is why their voice unsettles the Islamist mind. Because it is harder to silence someone who critiques from within the fold. You cannot easily dismiss them as “infidels” when they pray beside you. You cannot accuse them of misunderstanding theology when they recite the same verses. Their dissent is built not on the rejection of Islam, but on the rejection of hierarchy masquerading as piety. And that makes them far more dangerous to orthodoxy than any external critic ever could be.

A Civilizational Memory That Refuses to Behave

India, with her maddening pluralism, her porous boundaries between the sacred and the social, her ability to absorb without dissolving, has always produced communities that defy neat categorization. Pasmanda identity is one such stubborn reminder. Even after conversion, the memory of the land stays. The food habits remain. The dialects remain.
The occupational clusters remain. The sense of belonging to a specific geography remains.

It is as if the Indic civilizational code quietly overrides any attempt at homogenization. You can change names, rituals, Saturday afternoons, yet something older speaks through the cracks. And this older voice often whispers truths that a centralized theological system would rather not hear.

Could this be why Ashraf elites are so uncomfortable with Pasmanda assertion? Because it reminds them that Islam in India is not an imported monolith but a lived, negotiated, deeply local experience shaped more by Bharat than by Arabia. Because it exposes that, even within Islam, the most marginalized carry the most civilizational memory. And memory, especially the kind that precedes conquest, has a way of unsettling any authority that relies on amnesia.

The Global Debate Needs These Voices

When the West debates Islamism, it tends to talk in abstractions—jihadism, radicalization, political Islam, reform movements. Rarely does the global reader ask: Who inside the Muslim community suffers first from extremism? Who pays the social cost of purity politics? Who gets silenced so the elite can negotiate grievances with the world?

The answer, invariably, is the Pasmandas of Bharat.

Not because they oppose Islam, but because they expose the hypocrisy hidden beneath its social structures. They interrupt the victimhood narrative that powers Islamism globally. They show that the oppressor-oppressed binary has always been more complicated than the slogans suggest.

This is why I say, gently but firmly: any honest global conversation on Islamism must begin by listening to those who have lived closest to its consequences. Pasmanda voices do not destabilize the community; they reveal the fault lines that already exist. And perhaps that is the real meaning of an infidel: not someone who rejects God, but someone who refuses to bow before falsehood.

Toward a More Honest Future

So where does all this leave us? With a question: Can a community that does not confront its own inequalities ever hope to confront the extremisms that grow in its name? Brotherhood, after all, is not a slogan. It is a discipline. It is the willingness to see the unseen, to confront the discomforts buried under centuries of habit. Without that courage, brotherhood becomes just another ornamental word, useful in speeches, useless in life.

The Pasmanda story is not a war cry. It is a gentle insistence that equality must be lived, not merely proclaimed. It is a reminder that communities are strengthened not by hiding their fractures, but by acknowledging and healing them. And it is a warning that silence is never a substitute for justice. What is suppressed in one generation returns as suffering in the next. But here is the deeper civilizational point: perhaps the most important one. India has always taught us those identities are not erased easily. They fold, they adapt, they disguise themselves, but they endure. We are what we have evolved from—the soft and the hard heritage. Attempts to homogenize them, whether through theology, ideology, or state power, always fail in the long run. The Pasmanda experience proves this in the most unexpected way. It shows that even inside an imported religious framework, the “infidel” sense of self finds a way to breathe.

Maybe this is why the Pasmanda narrative matters today. Not merely because it exposes intra-Muslim inequality, but because it reveals something profound about resistance: the quietest form of rebellion is simply the refusal to forget who you are. And perhaps this is where the global conversation on Islamism needs to begin, not with fear, not with blame, but with the courage to look inward. Every community has its shadows. Every faith has its blind spots. The question is not whether these exist, but whether we dare to name them.

If Pasmanda voices are finally being heard, it is not because they are loud; it is because the world is finally ready to listen to the whispers beneath the rhetoric. Their struggle is not against Islam, but against the hierarchies that disfigure it. It is a struggle for dignity, for recognition, for the simple right to exist without inherited inferiority. And that makes their story not just a Muslim question, but a human one.

So, as we speak of “infidels” responding, maybe it is time to redefine the word itself. The true infidel is not the one who stands outside the faith, but the one who refuses to question the injustices done in its name. And the true believer, perhaps, is the one who dares to hold a mirror to his own house before criticizing the world outside.

In that sense, the Pasmanda story is less an accusation and more a conversation. It is an invitation to rethink what we mean by equality, by community, by brotherhood. And if we accept that invitation with humility, we may discover that the most transformative revolutions begin not on the streets, but in the quiet courage of those who were never meant to speak.

Namaste!

For over a century, the Bengali identity within India has been synonymous with intellectual sophistication. The region has produced a disproportionate share of the nation’s poets, philosophers, reformers, filmmakers, and academics. Bengal’s cultural DNA carries a deep inclination toward synthesis of ideas, religions, aesthetics, and languages. This syncretic impulse historically enriched Bengal, giving rise to its unique literary traditions, devotional movements, and artistic experimentation.

Yet, this celebrated syncretism has also harboured an overlooked paradox: its capacity to obscure the tensions and asymmetries embedded within the society. In attempting to harmonize every contrast, Bengali syncretism often glosses over ideological imbalances and the pressures exerted by more assertive cultural currents around it. What appears as pluralistic openness transforms, at times, into a reluctance to acknowledge threats to the cultural continuity itself. The tragedy is that Bengal’s intellectualism, while proud of its humanism, is increasingly unable to confront forces that do not reciprocate its ideals of coexistence.

Not Understanding the Intolerance Paradox

A peculiar psychological pattern has evolved within the modern Bengali mind: the belief that secularism demands limitless accommodation, even when faced with ideologies that actively reject mutual respect. In embracing a self-image of cosmopolitan tolerance, many Bengali intellectuals internalize a version of secular identity so expansive that it becomes incapable of recognizing asymmetry. When some hard-line Islamist movements assert exclusivist rhetoric or attempt to impose rigid socio-religious boundaries, the Bengali liberal instinct is often to downplay, relativize, or explain away these challenges. The fear of appearing “communal” overrides the need for an honest analysis.

This dynamic creates a profound vulnerability. While most communities across the world maintain clear boundaries around cultural survival, Bengali hyper-secularism often treats such boundaries as unfashionable or regressive. It proudly refuses to see itself as “the other,” even when it is perceived as such by the hard-line outfits. This internalized reluctance to acknowledge the ideological hostility makes the community susceptible to political manipulation, demographic anxiety, and cultural dilution. Instead of a confident syncretism, this becomes a form of naïve openness—a willingness to overlook militant tendencies in the belief that pluralism requires perpetual self-effacement. In striving to be morally superior, Bengal frequently renders itself defenseless.

The Undermining of Indigenous Bengali Culture

The indigenous Bengali culture has always been a mosaic of influences, from tribal folk cultures to the sophisticated Sanskrit traditions, from contemplative Buddhist monasteries on the hills to the devotional Vaishnava temples in the plains. But the contemporary challenge stems from the gradual overshadowing of indigenous elements by an assertive linguistic and cultural Islamization in the region’s eastern half (which became separated in 1947 as the non-contiguous state of East Pakistan and then became a sovereign country called Bangladesh in 1971 by the help of Indian armed forces). Over time in Bangladesh, sections of Bengali literature, terminology, and performative traditions have been subtly ignored or recast under Arabic and Persianized frameworks, often at the expense of the region’s older plural foundations. This has shaped both linguistic usage and cultural aesthetics, especially in Bangladesh, where state policies, educational restructuring, and public discourse have emphasised a more Islamic civilizational identity.

The spill-over effect is felt in India as well. In global forums, “Bengali culture” is increasingly understood through the lens of its Bangladesh-centric articulation—one that is more anchored in Islamic literary tropes, symbolic vocabulary, and socio-cultural priorities. Meanwhile, many indigenous Bengali Hindu practices such as certain folk rites, the Shakta rituals, or Sanskrit literary traditions struggle for visibility. Even within West Bengal (India), the cultural landscape is shifting: expressions of indigenous heritage are sometimes treated with discomfort by hyper-secular elites, who fear that celebrating Hindu components may be seen as exclusionary.

This dynamic affects the language, too. Bengali vernacular registers that once carried a balanced mix of Sanskrit and Persian influences are slowly being reshaped. Younger audiences often absorb mediated cultural content from across the border, reinforcing an Islamized version of Bengali normativity. While exchange between cultures is natural, the asymmetry becomes evident when one heritage is consistently foregrounded while the other is marginalized. This is not a rejection of Islamic contributions to Bengali culture; rather, it is a call to recognize that cultural balance is tipping unevenly, and the indigenous foundation risks erosion if the trend remains unexamined.

“Bengali” is Not Synonymous with “Bangladeshi”

A recurring problem for Indian Bengalis in the global arena is the conflation of their identity with that of the modern nation of Bangladesh. As Bangladesh has emerged as the numerically dominant Bengali-speaking state, global platforms increasingly equate Bengali with Bangladeshi cultural norms, political narratives, and religious identity. This inadvertently sidelines the distinct civilizational experience of Indian Bengalis, whose cultural evolution was shaped by a multi-religious, philosophically diverse, and historically Sanskrit milieu. After August 2024, when several geopolitical and cultural shifts further consolidated Bangladesh’s international visibility, this conflation has become particularly pronounced. Conferences, literary festivals, and cultural showcases often feature Bangladesh as the de facto representative of Bengali identity, even when the subject concerns pre-modern Bengal or pan-regional traditions. The Indian Bengali voices, especially that of Hindu Bengalis, recede into the background. Their contributions in fields such as natural sciences, classical music, literature, and indigenous folklores receive diminishing recognition.

This marginalization has socio-political implications. When Bengali identity is globally perceived primarily through an Islamic majoritarian framework, the plural, syncretic, and Hindu-rooted traditions of West Bengal risk becoming invisible. Indian Bengalis find themselves culturally overshadowed, their distinct traditions absorbed under a homogenized label. To reclaim nuance, it is essential to articulate clearly that Bengali identity extends beyond national borders and religious demography. The richness of Bengali culture lies in its multiplicity, not in the dominance of any single state-sponsored narrative.

The Silent “Bhadralok” + the Fear of Losing the Secular Badge

The Bengali bhadralok’, meaning the “polite class,” has long shaped the intellectual and cultural direction of Bengal. Yet today, this very class, which was once the vanguard of reforms and resistance, often chooses silence when confronting the growth of ideological hardening in certain regions, including some madrasa-networks and militant religious organizations. Their reluctance does not stem from apathy but from a deep anxiety about losing moral legitimacy. To criticize any form of radicalization is, in their view, to risk appearing “illiberal” or “communal.” The bhadralok ethos, shaped by post-Tagorean humanism and Nehruvian secularism, treats silence as a virtue and confrontation as a moral failure.

This creates a paradox: the very class that once championed progressive critique now hesitates to challenge extremist tendencies. This hesitancy emboldens the hard-line networks, which interpret silence as acceptance. Meanwhile, moderate and peaceful people find their cultural space shrinking under the pressure of ideological polarization. The bhadralok’s adherence to prestige-oriented secularism prevents them from defending the plural traditions that define Bengal. The cost of this silence is high. When intellectual leadership avoids difficult conversations, the society beneath loses clarity. Without the bhadralok’s moral courage, Bengal risks drifting into a cultural imbalance where extremist voices disproportionately shape discourse. A healthy, pluralistic society requires honest introspection, not a mere “performative neutrality.”

Why No Political Party Can Solve This Alone

The tensions within Bengali syncretism are not merely political; they are deeply civilizational. As demographic patterns evolve and ideological influences intensify, Bengal’s equilibrium becomes increasingly fragile. Political parties—whether the right-leaning Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the centrist Trinamool Congress (TMC), or the left-wing Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M)—each engage with this issue selectively, constrained by electoral and partisan compulsions. None can address the long-term structural challenge, for doing so would require political risks that few are willing to take.

For the BJP, raising concerns about ideological extremism invites accusations of communal polarization. Their messaging often fails to resonate with the Bengali ethos, which distrusts overt religio-political mobilization. Meanwhile, the CPI-M, shaped by decades of Marxist universalism, struggles to discuss religious radicalization without contradicting its ideological framework. It aims to protect minority rights (which surely is a commendable goal if the “minority” truly is a “minority,” and is threatened—which it is not), but often hesitates to acknowledge how certain extremist groups exploit this very protection. As for the TMC, it has relied heavily on the minority vote-bank, making it politically difficult to confront rising radical networks without jeopardizing their electoral support.

The result is a political stalemate. Each party views the issue through a short-term lens: votes, narratives, and coalitions. But the deeper problem of preserving Bengal’s pluralistic civilization requires cross-party cooperation and civil-society mobilization. The fear among many is that, if demographic and ideological shifts continue unchecked, Bengal could lose the cultural environment that once nurtured its intellectual brilliance. This is not about the emergence of a formal theocratic state; rather, it is about the subtle weakening of the cultural conditions that allow secularism and liberalism to flourish in the first place. If certain Islamist hard-line movements expand their influence in Bengal, both the left and the right will face existential challenges. The left risks losing ideological ground, while the right loses cultural continuity. Both depend on a pluralistic environment for survival.

Thus, safeguarding Bengal’s cultural future cannot be outsourced to party politics. It requires honest engagement from educators, writers, community leaders, moderate religious organizations, and ordinary citizens. This collective responsibility transcends electoral cycles. Bengal’s heritage, its literature, its music, its festivals, its philosophical traditions, are too valuable to be left vulnerable to ideological extremism or excessive demographic pressure. Political parties can contribute, but only society at large can ensure cultural survival.

Jews + Hindus: Learning from Each Other 

The Jewish people offer a powerful model of cultural resilience. Despite centuries of dispersion and persecution, they preserved their identity through language, ritual continuity, education, and community solidarity, without isolating themselves from global culture. Bengali Hindus can learn from this strategic balance: cultural openness must be paired with self-preservation, intellectual confidence with clear boundaries, and pluralism with vigilance against ideological extremism. Conversely, Jews could learn from Bengali Hindus the art of sustaining multifaceted cultural expression of music, storytelling, philosophical synthesis, and ritual aesthetics that draw from diverse sources. Bengali culture had once demonstrated how synthesis, when rooted in confidence rather than self-erasure, can produce extraordinary creativity. The future of Bengal depends on recalibrating syncretism: embracing plurality without surrendering identity. Only then can the region’s intellectual legacy survive the pressures of modern ideological and demographic shifts.

I was born and raised as a Druze in Israel, part of a small community that believes deeply in loyalty, service, and coexistence. Throughout my life, I grew up between cultures, languages, and religions. I learned to respect others, to help whenever I could, and to believe that every human life—regardless of faith or background—has value. As Druze, we are taught not to judge people by their religion, but by their actions, by who they truly are.

On October 7, 2023, that belief—my entire worldview—flashed before me in an instant.

Serving Food, Not Knowing We Were Walking into a Massacre

Before the attack, I came with my brother and our team from Taboonia to serve traditional Druze food at the Nova Music Festival. It was supposed to be a weekend of music, joy, freedom, and peace. We brought the flavors of home—food made with love, tradition, and hospitality. We were proud and excited to be part of something positive, giving people a memorable experience.

None of us imagined that serving food would turn into a fight for survival.

The Moment Everything Changed

At dawn, when the air was still quiet, we heard the first explosions. At first, we thought it was far away—maybe rockets, as we had heard many times before. But, within seconds, we realized it was close. 

Then came the sound of gunfire—continuous, all around us. And then we saw them. Dozens of Hamas terrorists stormed the festival. They were not coming to fight soldiers. They were not coming for political gain. They came to murder civilians—intentionally, calmly, without hesitation. People who had been dancing just moments before became targets.

The terrorists did not care who we were. They did not ask whether we were Jewish, Druze, Muslim, or Christian. They did not care what we believed in or where we came from. To them, we were all the same: people to kill.

Running for Our Lives—Ten Hours of Fear + Death

Within seconds, we understood that we had to run. I yelled to my brother and our team: “Run! Don’t look back!”

Around us was fire, smoke, and injured people, screaming. Thousands tried to escape at once. Cars were on fire. Young people ran barefoot. It was a nightmare.

We ran into the woods, and, from that moment on, we kept running. We ran for ten hours. Ten hours of crawling through trees, hiding among bushes, enduring hunger, pain, and unending fear. Ten hours of gunfire—near and far, all around us.

We heard the terrorists hunting people in the forest, calling out in Hebrew to trick survivors. We heard people pleading for help, then silence.

That day, we lost part of our team—friends, colleagues, people who had been with us from the beginning.

Escaping Hell

When I finally reached a safe zone and saw Israeli soldiers, my body collapsed. My legs could not hold me. My chest burned. My mind felt shattered.

Hundreds were killed that day. Friends, colleagues, people standing in line for our food just hours before. People who came for a festival of peace—not for war. I still don’t understand how I survived.

What it Means to Be Druze after October 7

As Druze, we have always been part of Israel’s defense. We serve side by side with Jews, protecting the country and all its citizens. I have always believed in unity and coexistence. But October 7 taught me something deeper: 

Radical Islam does not differentiate. 
It does not see religion. 
It does not see background. 
It does not see humanity. 
It sees only targets.

As a Druze, the terrorists tried to kill me, my brother, and our team. They did not care who we were.

Carrying the Trauma, Choosing to Speak

Since that day, I have tried to rebuild my life. I opened my restaurant in New York—Taboonia—to continue bringing goodness into the world.

I told myself: “If evil tried to destroy me, I will respond with love, with food, with purpose.” But the fear remains.

The memories are still alive. The nightmares return. Still, I choose to speak.

I choose to tell my story. Not for politics, not for attention, but out of responsibility.

The world must understand: What happened at Nova was not a “conflict.” It was a massacre of innocent people. A massacre fueled by an extremist ideology that does not value human life.

Why I Write This

When I was asked to write about my experience as a Druze confronting radical Islam, I knew I had to say yes. Because my story is not only mine. It is the story of every survivor. Of every family that lost someone. Of every person who saw hatred up close.

Radical Islam tried to kill me. It tried to kill my brother and our team. It tried to murder hundreds in one morning. It did not care who we were. And that is why the world must unite against extremism. It threatens all of us, no matter where we come from.

Hope after Darkness

Despite everything, I still believe in peace. I believe coexistence is possible.

I believe the vast majority of people—Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze—want to live well, raise their children, build—not destroy.

I survived the Nova massacre, and surviving carries responsibility: Responsibility to speak. Responsibility to remember. Responsibility not to let hatred win.

If my story can help someone understand what really happened there, I have done my part.

Growing up as a Druze in Israel is not something you simply “experience”—it’s something you carry. It stays with you like a second heartbeat. On one side, you belong to an ancient, secretive faith that has survived a thousand years by staying small, loyal, and deeply rooted in tradition. On the other side, you are fully Israeli—shaped by democracy, by military service, by the chaotic energy of this country where everyone has an opinion and no one knows how to whisper.

It’s a strange dance: village life versus modern life; old customs alongside a society that encourages you to question everything. Some days you feel like an olive tree planted on a mountain. Other days you feel pulled into the fast current of Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem—into a world moving a hundred kilometers an hour. But that mix, that clash, that fusion—it’s what forms you.

I didn’t always appreciate it like now. Only later—much later, after October 7—did I realize what this identity truly meant, and who was actually standing between us and the darkness.

A Small People in a Dangerous Neighborhood

The Druze are a tiny minority in the Middle East—about one million in total. We’re scattered between Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. But the only Druze in the region who live with real freedom of religion, equal civil rights, and genuine state protection are the Druze of Israel.

That’s not a political statement. That’s reality.

In Lebanon, Druze communities survive by navigating militias and clan politics. In Syria, for decades, Druze lived cautiously under the Assad regime. But, after the regime’s collapse, things got far worse: Islamist factions filled the vacuum, and the Druze suddenly found themselves exposed with no reliable state to protect them.

Meanwhile, Israeli Druze—my people—serve in the IDF, hold government office, run businesses, teach, lead, and speak freely without fear.

Israeli Druze girls send satellites to space; Syrian Druze girls get kidnapped and sold as sex slaves. And, in “Palestine,” they won’t even let us live.

That contrast didn’t fully hit me until I saw what was happening across the border. After October 7: Syria falls apart, and the Druze are hunted again. They tried to literally exterminate them all!

While the world focused on Israel after the October 7 massacre, Syria went through a transformation that most Western readers have no idea happened. The Assad regime finally collapsed under years of war and economic ruin. And into that vacuum stepped Ahmed al-Sharaa, known as Abu Muhammad al-Golani—the former leader of Jabhat al-Nusra, with deep roots in al-Qaeda-linked militias.

Backed by powerful Muslim clans and remnants of ISIS and al-Qaeda, al-Golani took control of large parts of Syria. And, very quickly, the Druze and Christian communities found themselves in the crosshairs.

Quiet villages in the Suwayda and Jabal al-Druze region suddenly faced:

• Extremist militias
• Forced conversions
• Violent raids
• Kidnappings
• Executions
• Pressure to submit or flee

It was the same old Middle Eastern pattern: a minority living peacefully; suddenly Islam goes unchecked, free and in numbers, and, all of a sudden, the other is treated like an obstacle to be removed. It’s religion. It’s the “will of Allah.”

Honestly, New Yorkers should be very careful with your new mayor. Don’t say we didn’t warn you. Everything about him screams Muslim Brotherhood—silent jihad—but I know New Yorkers won’t listen to our warnings—the ones from the Middle East who truly know this danger. Well, at least I’ll know I warned them.

Back to our story. And again, the world didn’t care. No U.N. meetings. No human rights campaigns. No headlines. Silence.

Realizing Who Actually Protects Minorities in This Region

As I watched what was happening to my people across the border, something inside me snapped. I found myself advocating not only for my Jewish brothers and sisters here in Israel, who were slaughtered on October 7, but also for Druze and Christians in Syria—people whose faces I will never know, but whose fate I felt in my bones.

Because the truth became painfully clear: The only Druze in the Middle East who are safe… are the Druze who live under the protection of the State of Israel.

Not because Israel is perfect—not because everything is easy—but because Israel protects its minorities. Actively. Consistently. Sometimes at a heavy cost.

The Day Israel Stepped In

Then came the moment that sealed everything for me. When al-Golani’s forces and allied jihadist groups moved armored vehicles toward Druze communities near Khadr, preparing for a massacre, it wasn’t the U.N. that reacted.

It wasn’t the Arab world. It wasn’t Europe. It was Israel.

Under direct orders from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Air Force struck the armored convoys and disrupted the assault. Israeli pilots flew into Syrian airspace—not for Jews, not for Israeli citizens, but for Druze in a foreign country, an enemy country.

Israel saved them. Israel stopped what would have been the next Yazidi-style genocide. Israel acted when the world shrugged. And that was the day I understood—fully and without hesitation—who stands between my people and extinction.

A Loyalty that Flows Both Ways

People sometimes ask, “Why are the Druze so loyal to Israel? Why do they serve in the IDF in such high numbers?”

The answer is simple: Because Israel is our home. Our country. Israel protects us. We protect it. Not in speeches. Not in theories. In action.

Israel didn’t save the Druze in Syria because they were Israeli. Israel saved them because it was the right thing to do. Because minorities matter here. Because human life matters. And that loyalty flows both ways.

Why I Became a Voice

After October 7, after the rise of al-Golani, after watching the Middle East threaten yet another small minority, I made a decision: I will not stay silent. I will use  my channel on YouTube and other platforms—my podcast; my advocacy.

To be a voice to minority’s in a world where the small are voiceless, the majority play victims, and bully the minority to submission.

Look at Islam worldwide and then go ask New Yorkers who are the victims in the Middle East: they will think it’s Muslims. Ask their new mayor and he will say Israel is the problem—meanwhiles Israel is the solution! We all know it here: we the minorities are the ones who truly need saving.

So CNN won’t cover us; the New York Times will not talk about us; Colombia University will teach its students that the Druze and the Jews are the problem in the Middle East meanwhile protecting the Muslims who are trying to exterminate us. This I can’t allow and I will use my humble platform to advocate for truth and real peace just like the Druze and the Jews have. And that’s a real peace! I know it I feel it.

Not because I’m special—but because I can. Because I live in a country where I am allowed to speak. Because my family is safe. Because my religion survives. Because Israel protects what other countries destroy.

And I felt a duty—an obligation—to use my voice for those who cannot: the Druze. The Christians. The Yazidis. Every small community that extremist movements want erased from the map.

Why I’m Writing This for a Western Audience

The West often misunderstands our region. They think Israel is the powerful bully and everyone else is the victim. But the Middle East is not a story of “strong versus weak.” It’s a story of who survives.

And minorities in this region survive only in one place: Israel. In all the other places, they get systematically erased.

So I write this for Americans, for New Yorkers; for anyone who thinks they understand the Middle East from TikTok videos.

If Israel falls, minorities fall with it. If Israel retreats, extremists advance. If Israel disappears, so do we.

My Simple Truth

I am proud to be Druze. I am proud to be Israeli. And I know exactly who stands between my people and annihilation.

Israel didn’t just give me freedom—it gave my people a future.

Yours,

Mansor Ashkar 
A father 
A YouTuber 
A former officer in the IDF

Who was Hideyoshi—and why he matters now for Japan facing Islam

Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1537–1598) unified Japan after a century of civil war. He governed as a builder, not a zealot: taxes were stabilized, authority consolidated, and public order placed above sectarian power. In 1587, he confronted a religious-political influx of Portuguese Catholics, expelling Jesuit missionaries while keeping trade on terms set by Japan. He also challenged Portuguese slave trafficking, which had entangled itself with missionary influence, and demanded redress for Japanese captives.

The core lesson was jurisdiction. Faiths could be tolerated as long as they were compatible with Japanese culture, but foreign religious leverage would not set the rules of civic life. That posture— clear lines, early—is the point of reference for Japan’s current dilemma.

Thesis: Japan needs a Hideyoshi-like attitude now. Welcome (in reasonable numbers) peaceful, compatible, and competent new residents along with their commerce; hold the civic line through clear, no-double-standard law; decline institutional pressures, from any creed, that would remake public routines. If we fail to do this, we drift toward the European pattern of irreparable damage and unmanaged frictions that accumulated for decades before anyone named them aloud. As Douglas Murray warned, Europe has committed suicide.

Japan’s temperament

Japan’s religious life is practical. Most people mark time by shrine visits, temple rites, and family memorials rather than strict doctrine. Manners and seasonal obligations hold the fabric together. Tolerance here is a habit of coexistence: queue well, keep your voice down on the late train, clean the street outside your home. These are not dogmas; they are the choreography of a diffuse spirituality and nature-rooted civic life. Imagine trying to submit Japanese culture to any monotheistic, dogmatic religious group: it would overwhelm the social fabric in no time.

This temperament has made space for difference, so long as difference does not require the majority to rebuild its routines. Earlier Muslim arrivals generally fit that pattern: families worked, married, prayed in rented rooms, and did not ask institutions to change shape around them. The present phase, however, now feels different in several towns. Non-negotiable obligations in Islamic practice now collide with systems built for a broadly Buddhist-Shintō, secular public: refusal of cremation where cremation is the norm; halal requirements within a one-menu, secular school lunch program; large mosque projects on narrow streets. Many citizens feel a fundamental change is being asked of the majority, and that the ask arrived without due regard for native forms.

Christopher Hitchens put the test plainly: “The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.” The question is not whether Islam is welcome in Japan. The question is whether we can think and legislate in ways that protect civic order while allowing only compatible immigration into Japanese life. The answer should be yes—if we keep jurisdiction steady, speak plainly, and publish the rules. Under no circumstances should Japan be bullied into integrating practices incompatible with its civic frameworks.

What the 2025 election revealed

The most recent national vote made one point unmistakable: many voters are alert to immigration pressures and resent what they perceive as bullying or special treatment by some newcomers. In the July 20, 2025, Upper House election, immigration and foreign-resident policy emerged as central campaign issues; several new conservative parties, such as Nippo Hoshuto and Sanseito, expanded rapidly by running on a “Japanese First” platform, and the government created a cross-agency “control tower” days before the vote to address public concerns about foreigners amid a record 3.8 million foreign residents. After the election, officials even floated debating a cap on foreign residents. Together, these moves show how sensitive the public has become. 

Let us point out specifically how Muslim cases are being debated in this context in Japan recently.

Friction One: Burial

Islam prohibits cremation; Japan has normalized it almost universally. That clash produces recurring fights when ground-burial sites are proposed.

Hiji, Ōita: A Muslim cemetery project advanced, then stalled, then fell when a new mayor refused to sell municipal land, citing groundwater concerns and resident opposition. Officials published technical criteria and international guidance; the answer remained no.

This was not a verdict on Islam. It was a procedural, ecological, and cultural refusal. Anyone seeking residence in Japan should respect such determinations.

Miyagi Prefecture: Despite residents’ apprehensions, the governor floated a dedicated Muslim cemetery to accommodate existing residents and workers, which triggered extensive objections. Over the past year, the proposal has see-sawed—consideration, pushback, even talk of withdrawal. Whether it proceeds or not, the dispute is now a prefectural matter, not a parochial one. 

Burial according to Islamic law is a legitimate religious need. However, in Japan, cremation is the norm. Logic suggests that newcomers either adapt their practice to local conditions or choose a country where such needs are commonly met. The remedy is not panic but precise law and cultural boundaries.

Friction Two: School lunches

Public schools in Japan are secular institutions. When a small number of pupils cannot eat the standard menu because slaughter methods and certification do not meet their law, families already have a straightforward option: bring lunch from home. Despite this option, pressure has mounted in some districts. In 2024, Sakai and Goka (Ibaraki) introduced halal options despite the secular nature of the schools. The debate is now national.

The institutional stance must be clear: one system applied to all. This is how we avoid the drift Melanie Phillips described in Europe: parallel systems growing inside public institutions without public consent. The Japanese Constitution’s separation of religion and state supports that clarity in public schools.

Friction Three: Mosques + neighborhoods

As populations grow, prayer rooms become mosques, and small mosques seek larger buildings. Japan has moved from a few dozen mosques a generation ago to well over one hundred by 2023, with counts around 130–150 today depending on the tally. The trend is clear.

Neighborhood conflicts are not mysterious: parking, noise, fire egress, crowding on narrow streets. Europe’s lesson is that city halls can lose their nerve when confronted by organized religious lobbies. By permitting highly intrusive facilities without firm conditions, some cities allowed the proliferation of spaces where parallel norms took root. Murray’s larger warning, that a civilization can forget to believe in itself, applies as much to permitting as to rhetoric.

The angry case: Kawaguchi + Warabi

Kawaguchi and neighboring Warabi (Saitama), with a high concentration of Kurdish immigrants, became national symbols after two kinds of incidents. First, a mass altercation among mostly Kurdish residents outside a hospital in 2023 disrupted ambulance service and went viral. Second, a Kurdish man who had received a suspended sentence for sexual assault of a minor was later convicted for another sexual assault against a thirteen-year-old and given an eight-year prison term, though authorities did not promptly announce the second case. The sequence hardened public anger and fostered the belief that the system protected an offender more than it protected children because the perpetrator was of Muslim origin, as was the case in the grooming-gang situation in the U.K.

When serious crimes occur, prosecutors and police must move quickly, speak plainly, and seek sentences commensurate with the harm, without the double standards about which many Europeans now complain. Timely, transparent updates prevent rumor from punishing the innocent along with the guilty.

Scale and tempo

Reliable estimates place Japan’s Muslim population in the low hundreds of thousands and rising; foreign residents overall reached about 3.8 million by late 2024. Three decades ago in Europe, a few mosques and modest inflows seemed inconsequential. We know now how rapidly local pressures—reinforced by robust birthrates—can accumulate when institutions hesitate.

Most Japanese are not hostile to Muslims as neighbors, so long as the norms and culture of Japan are respected. Europe’s experience over the last three decades is instructive. The Japanese are understandably anxious about a politics of religious and cultural demand that feels endless. To paraphrase Hitchens: you cannot defend multiculturalism when it is used to erase the host culture. The rule of law requires a confident center and one visible standard.

We need Hideyoshi—before we become Europe

Europe forbade boundary-setting and vilified those who asked basic questions about cultural survival. Phillips saw it early: official multiculturalism, fused with appeasement of extremism, produced a “state of paralysis across British institutions.” Murray’s sharper sentence is a harsh warning, but it should not be a fate. Japan needs to set the lines while numbers are still small and institutions still trusted. In short, we need Hideyoshi, now, before it’s too late. 

And Hideyoshi’s relevance is not nostalgia. It is the model of rationality. Separate faith from leverage. Keep the rules inside the polity. Welcome trade, and accept new residents only on clear terms: respect the host country’s civic spirit and legal norms. Modern Japan is a constitutional republic—and an old cultural entity. If the current government holds the line with steadiness rather than noise, the historical comparison will take care of itself.

Japan should remain what it has been: basically open; non-monotheistic; Buddhist in rhythm; Shintō in feeling; secular in public life. It can be hospitable to people who are not from here and still refuse to surrender the forms that hold the place together. That is not hostility. It is custodianship.

A thousand years have passed since strangers came,
Yet still my homeland bleeds from ancient wounds.

The fire of our fathers dimmed,
Our voice drowned beneath foreign storms.

O Iran, rise again from sorrow—
Your spirit is older than their swords.

In the year 630, Prince Ukaydir was celebrating his 35th birthday when he rode out from Dumat al-Jandal for an early-morning hunt, carrying only a light spear and bow. A Christian Arab prince and ally of Byzantium, he led his brother and his most trusted retainers, men who had hunted with him since childhood.

The desert was cool with oryx grazing in the half-light, as dawn stained the horizon. This ride should have affirmed Ukaydir’s strength and his command of the terrain that encircled his principality. Instead, Ukaydir was the one being hunted.

Weeks earlier, Muhammad had commissioned Khalid ibn al‑Walid (the “Sword of Allah”) to bring Dumat al‐Jandal under Islamic control, securing the northern trade routes into the Arabian Peninsula, and Khalid’s scouts had shadowed Ukaydir’s movements. Before dawn, hidden riders took up position on the ridgelines, and, just as Ukaydir raised his spear toward a grazing oryx, the horizon erupted in hoofbeats. Khalid’s cavalry descended like a storm, cutting off every escape path.

Bound and brought before Khalid, Ukaydir was offered a choice: conversion, death, or dhimmitude, a covenant of surrender that permitted survival under a legal code of subservience and humiliation.

Khalid took Ukaydir’s robe, his ornaments, and his sword as trophies, then sent him to Muhammad in Medina. There, the Prophet ordered his release in exchange for tribute. Ukaydir agreed to pay the annual jizyah on behalf of his people, and to dismantle the crosses that adorned the churches of Dumat al-Jandal.

The prince returned home stripped of sovereignty, his city a frontier post of the caliphate, and its tribute a symbol of subordination.

For the region’s non-Muslim communities, this event foreshadowed a new phase of conquest, and the hunting of infidels would never end.

After the Arab conquests, Islam’s expansion carried it across the Middle East and North Africa, through Spain into France, and all the way in the east to Vienna. The Crusades were not an unprovoked assault on a “religion of peace,” but a coordinated response to centuries of invasion and enslavement. Before the Crusades, Islam was invading Europe from both ends and seemed prepared to tighten the noose.

We forget today that the Middle East and North Africa were once overwhelmingly Christian. The decline occurred through conquest, discrimination, social coercion, and, of course, violence. Under Islamic rule, Christians were permitted to exist, but only if they paid special taxes. They were subjected to rules of humiliation, and violence against them was common. 

Islam sent the message that Christian men are subhumans whose wives could be raped “as that which the right hand possess[es]” (Qur’an 4:24), whose sons would convert to avoid the fate of their fathers, and whose daughters would be made to “marry bearded men” (a policy reflected in works such as al-Mawardi’s Ahkam al-Sultaniyya and noted by Evliya Çelebi’s Travels).

Under the Ottomans, Christian numbers collapsed over time.

In Iraq, just this century, Christians numbered roughly one and a half million; today, fewer than 150,000 remain. In Syria, entire Christian communities once shaped whole cities; today, their population is estimated to be just 300,000.

Turkey entered the twentieth century with a population that was about one-fifth Christian; today, they account for less than one quarter of 1%. Egypt, which historically had a Christian majority, now retains a Coptic minority of about 10%.

North Africa produced Augustine and some of the greatest thinkers of early Christianity. It is now almost entirely Muslim. From Morocco to Libya, the indigenous Christian populations were targeted, generation by generation, until they vanished. By the time European colonialism returned a temporary Christian presence in the nineteenth century, the original communities had been gone for centuries.

In Iraq and Syria, the rise of the Islamic State emptied entire Christian towns. Families who had traced their faith straight back to the Apostles fled. 

In Iran, conversion to Christianity is illegal. Yousef Nour was sentenced to more than 10 years in prison for attending a home church and owning Christian literature. His wife Zahra was fired from her job for refusing to reveal fellow believers. Their children were taken away after authorities confiscated their home. 

Such stories are common. Hundreds of Iranian Christians now worship in secret, knowing that a single knock on the door could end in prison, or death.

In August of 2023, two Christian men in the Pakistani city of Jaranwala were accused of defiling a Qur’an. Within hours, mobs swept through Christian neighborhoods, burning churches and homes. Twenty-six churches were destroyed and hundreds of families fled. One teacher, Shazia, hid under a bed with her children as rioters set fire to her home. She later said “the men outside were laughing as they chanted that this was Allah’s justice.” Few attackers were ever held accountable.

In Egypt, persecution takes both violent and institutional forms. On Palm Sunday of 2017, two coordinated bombings struck Coptic cathedrals in Tanta and Alexandria. More than 40 people were killed as they gathered to celebrate one of their holiest days. A 10-year-old altar boy named Mina died wearing his white robe, proud to serve God. 

While such terror attacks are vivid, the everyday discrimination faced by Egyptian Christians is relentless: abductions, forced conversions, and attacks go unpunished. Coptic families report that building or repairing churches is often blocked by local officials, permits denied or delayed for years.

Across the Islamic, world these stories repeat. In Nigeria, Christians are targeted by Boko Haram and Fulani militants who burn churches and massacre worshippers. In Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen, the few Christians who remain live entirely in secrecy. 

Islamic societies have historically tolerated Christians only as long as they remain silent, hidden, and submissive. Those who speak their faith aloud risk their homes, their freedom, and often their lives.

Though Christians were relegated to second-class status under the dhimmi laws, Jews were often treated even more harshly. From the earliest Islamic expansions, Jewish communities found themselves caught in a cycle of forced submission, mass expulsions, and outright slaughter. 

In 627, much of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza was annihilated in Medina after refusing to convert; the men were executed, and, after a siege at Khaibar a year later, the rest of the tribe surrendered and the women and children were enslaved. This event set a precedent that echoed through subsequent centuries: Jewish existence would be tolerated only at the pleasure of their rulers.

Across North Africa, the Middle East, and the Iberian Peninsula, Jews endured alternating periods of conditional tolerance and sudden violence. 

The so-called “Golden Age” of Spain, often romanticized today, was pockmarked with massacres such as the pogrom of Granada in 1066, when a Muslim mob crucified the Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela and slaughtered around 4,000 Jews in a single day. 

In Yemen, Jews were periodically forced to convert, forbidden to build synagogues, and compelled to wear distinguishing garments long before similar degrading codes appeared in Europe. The notorious 1679 expulsion decree, the Mawza Exile, drove thousands of Yemenite Jews from their homes into the desert. Many died on this death march.

In Morocco, Jewish populations were repeatedly confined to mellahs (walled ghettos), where they lived at the mercy of local rulers. Violent outbreaks such as the Tétouan massacres (1790–1792) left entire communities devastated. In Persia, Jews suffered forced conversions under the Safavid dynasty, and, well into the nineteenth century, Jewish girls could be seized by Muslim men for marriage against their will, without recourse.

The trend continued into the modern era. When Israel declared independence in 1948, nearly 900,000 Jews lived across the Islamic world. Within a single generation, roughly 99% of them had been killed, expelled, dispossessed, or forced to flee. Ancient communities in Baghdad, Damascus, Aleppo, Cairo, Tripoli, Algiers, and Tunis disappeared.

Chants of “From the river to the sea” terrify Jewish people based on a history that taught them—certainly the descendants of those expelled—exactly what Islamic supremacy means for their survival. They have experienced it for more than 13 centuries.

In every region where Islam becomes dominant, Christian and Jewish communities are destroyed, and Hindu civilization has perhaps suffered more from jihad than any other people on earth. 

Beginning in the eighth century, wave after wave of Islamic invasions tore through the Indian subcontinent. Historian Will Durant called the Islamic conquest of India “probably the bloodiest story in human history,” taking perhaps 80 million lives between the eleventh and sixteenth centuries.

The early raids of Muhammad bin Qasim in Sindh, the brutal campaigns of Mahmud of Ghazni, and later the Ghurid invasions left vast regions depopulated. Ghazni alone destroyed hundreds of Hindu temples, including the sacred site of Somnath, whose defenders were slaughtered and whose idol was smashed and taken back to Afghanistan as a trophy of victory. 

Chroniclers from the era record massacres so large that corpses clogged rivers and turned fields to ash.

Under the Delhi Sultanate, Hindu populations were subjected to forced conversions, mass enslavement, and systematic destruction of their sacred architecture. Entire regions saw the abolition of local customs under threat of death. The jizyah was imposed with maximum humiliation, sometimes collected by forcing Hindus to present themselves barefoot before tax collectors.

The invasion campaigns of Timur (1398–1399) were catastrophic. His own writings in the Tuzk-i-Timuri brag about killing 100,000 Hindus in a single day. The Mughal emperor Aurangzeb later oversaw the tearing down of thousands of temples, replacing some with mosques constructed using the original stones. His reinstitution of the jizyah and enforcement of Sharia brought one of the largest non-Muslim populations in the world under a regime of fear and coercion.

Many Hindu communities see modern Islamist movements, including Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and ISIS-inspired cells as continuations of the same historical pattern: a civilizational struggle between jihadist expansionism and a culture that has fought to survive it for over 1,200 years.

We think of intifada as a “struggle” against Israel, and even when we hear “Globalize the Intifada,” we think of it as anti-Semitic.

The word intifadah—a product of Yasser Arafat’s meticulous KGB training—means “uprising,” “rebellion,” or “shaking off,” and it can describe any revolt against perceived oppression, corruption, or occupation, regardless of who the target is. This has, of course, been used against Israel, but intifada is more than that.

Many Islamic scholars define “oppression” based on whether or not societies submit to Allah’s law. Sayyid Qutb, in Milestones, wrote that “when, in a society, the sovereignty belongs to Allah alone, expressed in its obedience to the Shari‘ah… only then is every person in that society free from servitude to others.”

Abul A‘la Maududi echoed the same: “If an Islamic society consciously resolves not to accept the Shari‘a, and decides to enact its own constitution and laws… such a society breaks its contract with God and forfeits its right to be called Islamic.” This framework, shared by movements like Hizb ut-Tahrir, judges the legitimacy of nations solely by their conformity to Sharia. From this perspective, every secular or non-Islamic government, whether in Europe, North America, Asia, or the Muslim world, is viewed as a realm of unbelief (kufr) to be “shaken off.”

And it is not only Christians, Jews, and Hindus who have endured this. 

Buddhists saw their monasteries burned from Afghanistan to Bengal. Yazidis have suffered more than 70 genocidal campaigns, the most recent at the hands of ISIS between 2014 and 2017. Persian Zoroastrians were nearly erased from the land of their birth. Sikhs in India arose in direct resistance to Islamic persecution. Animist communities across Africa are slaughtered by Boko Haram and ISIS affiliates. The pattern is not regional, ethnic, or even political. Jihad is best understood as civilizational conquest. 

Wherever jihad becomes ascendant, religious diversity collapses, and ancient peoples vanish. Every religion but Islam is hunted and slaughtered like wild game. “Globalize the intifada” means “globalize Islam.”

The hunt continues through Europe today, where Islamic scholars and imams claim to be “oppressed” by the corrupt governments of Germany, France, England, Canada, Australia, and various other countries around the Western world. Modern militancy makes the era of spears and ridgelines look like a relic from the past, but the hunt against Christians, Jews, and Hindus does not stop. Open acts of terrorism, whether with knives, vehicles, or bombs, are becoming increasingly common.

Father Jacques Hamel, an 85-year-old Catholic priest, was murdered on July 26, 2016, while celebrating morning Mass at his parish church of Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, near Rouen in France. Two men, Adel Kermiche and Abdel Malik Petitjean, both 19-years-old, stormed the church, taking the small congregation hostage. They forced Father Hamel to kneel at the altar and slit his throat, killing him in front of two nuns and several parishioners. The Islamic State later claimed responsibility, calling the attackers its “soldiers.”

During the 2015–2016 New Year’s celebrations in Cologne, over 1,200 women were sexually assaulted by mobs of mostly North African and Middle Eastern men. In most cases, the men would form a wall around the victim, force her to the ground, and take turns gang raping her.

A German federal investigation found the attackers acted from a collective belief in “male entitlement” and “contempt for Western women.” Western women now count as “that which the right hand possess[es].” Raping them is seen as forcing them to submit, and is exalted (Qur’an 4:24 and 23:5–6).

An English parliamentary debate noted that, “In Rotherham, hundreds of children were sexually exploited between 1997 and 2013. Girls as young as 11 were raped by multiple attackers, trafficked to other towns and cities, and abducted and beaten.” 

One teenager in Rochdale was groomed at 13 and then passed around for sex by up to 18 men at a time. She later told the court that the abuse “destroyed my childhood” and left her grieving “for the little girl I was once, with the world at my feet.” These girls are forced into heroin addiction to keep them obedient.

That story was repeated across England against thousands of young girls, for at least a decade. The authorities knew it was happening and refused to admit it publicly, much less to take action against it, out of fear of looking “Islamophobic.”

If that is what happens to Christian girls in Christian countries, imagine what happens to them once Sharia becomes the law of the land.

A government that cannot protect 11-year-old girls does not deserve to exist. We need to do more.

Innocent Jewish children were killed on October 7, 2023, when Hamas invaded Israel. Hamas did not descend on Israeli towns as an army confronting another army, but as a jihadist movement entering what it sees as a land populated by what Qur’an 98:6 calls “the worst of creatures.” 

Families were murdered in their homes, women raped, and children abducted. Jewish lives were deemed inherently illegitimate in the shadow of Islamic supremacy. At the Nova music festival, 378 young Israeli adults were killed after gathering to hear music.

A 30-year-old DJ at the festival was dancing when the first rocket struck. Within seconds, the ground exploded in terror: music silenced, lights shattered, thousands of young people running and screaming. He survived, but every time he closes his eyes he sees the bodies, and every time he hears a beat, he tastes ash. He became one of the living testimonies of how a night of hope turned into a massacre.

The brutality shocked the world only because we had forgotten the long history behind it, from the Farhud pogrom in Baghdad in 1941 to the expulsions of nearly 900,000 Jews from Arab lands after 1948. To the victims, the massacre of October 7 felt less like the eruption of something new than the resurfacing of a hunt that never ends.

The reaction in the West was equally revealing. Crowds in Western capitals celebrated the attack, praising it as “resistance” while Jewish families buried their dead. This was a response to decades of propaganda portraying Israel as an intruder and as an apartheid state. Qatar—Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood’s chief funder, which the U.S. treats as if it were Japan or Denmark—spends billions spreading such lies throughout the Western world. 

The children killed on October 7 were not victims of geopolitics; they were victims of an ideology that has hunted Jewish people for over a millennium. The world may pretend that such violence is confined to the borders of Israel, but jihad is global. The same hatred that slaughtered Jewish children in Israel is already marching through London, Paris, Berlin, and New York, chanting for an intifada that does not end at the Mediterranean. 

October 7 was a warning of what happens whenever the hunt is allowed to rise again.

These patterns continue for Hindus as well. In Kashmir, targeted killings of Hindu teachers, shopkeepers, and migrant laborers have accelerated in recent years, with jihadist groups vowing to purge the region of its remaining non-Muslim population. 

In 2021, terrorists walked into a school in Srinagar, singled out two Hindu educators by name, and executed them in front of their students. Bombings and attacks on Hindu pilgrims traveling the Amarnath route have become routine, with militants openly declaring such pilgrims fair game under jihad.

In Bangladesh, Islamist mobs have repeatedly burned Hindu temples and villages, including the 2021 riots in Comilla and Noakhali, where dozens of Hindu homes were torched and idols smashed as police stood aside.

Outside South Asia, ISIS-K has explicitly named Hindus as targets, claiming responsibility for attacks on Hindu gatherings in Afghanistan, including the suicide bombing of a Sikh-Hindu temple in Kabul in 2020 that killed dozens. 

In Kenya and Mozambique, ISIS-affiliated groups have murdered Hindu shopkeepers and business owners as part of broader campaigns against non-Muslims. 

Some Islamic scholars in the West present Islam’s expansion into Europe and North America as a moral correction for Western decadence. Yasir Qadhi, an American Muslim academic and unskilled defender of child marriage, has declared that Islam is not a private faith but “a complete system that governs every part of life, including politics and law.” Tariq Ramadan, once celebrated in Western media before being accused of molesting underage girls and recently convicted of rape in Switzerland, has written that the West must accept Islam not as a guest but as a participant in shaping its future.

Muslims believe that Sharia is Allah’s law, given from Allah. They do not believe they need to pass Sharia into law. The law is not what is passed in hallowed halls, but whatever is enforced on the street.

This belief echoes the writings of early Islamic jurists, who divided the world into two spheres: the Dār al-Islām (“House of Islam”) and Dār al-Ḥarb (“House of War”). Those phrases are literal such that if you are not a part of the House of Islam, you are considered at war with Islam (Qur’an 8:39 and 9:29).

Israel is particularly hated, partially because Muhammad felt rejected by Jewish leaders in his day, and partially because Israel stands on ground Islam once conquered that was later taken back. It goes against Islamic Law to ever give land back, and if Israel ever fell, Spain, Portugal, and vast swaths of Eastern Europe would be looked at next. All of that land was once conquered as well, making it, by Islamic law, a part of Dār al-Islām, to be ruled by Islam until the end of time (per Qur’an 2:191).

Sayyid Qutb described Western freedom as an illusion that leads only to moral corruption. His writings remain taught in study circles across the West. The idea is consistent: the West is not tolerated, but transformed.

Islam now shelters beneath the very liberties it condemns, demanding protection from criticism while denying the moral foundations that make protection possible. Its advocates call truth hate speech, even as they press for a supremacy that will one day silence the freedoms they now exploit.

Western governments, anxious to prove their tolerance, have mistaken appeasement for virtue. In shielding Islam from offense, they shield a political theology that seeks to replace them.

This ancient division never disappeared; it only changed form. The struggle between the House of Islam and the House of War has shifted from the battlefield to the courtroom, the classroom, and the public square, but the objective remains the complete submission of all that lies beyond Islam. 

Will Durant once said, “There is always a hungrier tribe still in the bush.” Islam is hungry. We are not. If the Western world will not face this, we will be conquered in time.

The oryx still grazes in the half-light of the Arabian desert, as it did on Prince Ukaydir’s 35th birthday, but the horizon that trembles with the sound of approaching hooves is now our own.

I was born in a village in southern Sudan, growing up without knowing that there was any other kind of society in any other part of the country—or any other religion. As a toddler, I didn’t know what Arabs were or that I, as an African Shilluk, looked different from them. But, by the time I learned how to speak, the first thing we children learned as part of becoming people who know the world was running from the Arabs.

The adults in my village had heard stories of how Arabs had come down from the north and burned other villages to the ground, those who could get away running for their lives, forced to leave the elderly, sick, and wounded to die. Every year they heard these stories, this cycle of terror: the Arab army would come and raid the villages, burn them down, and then come back to see what was left—who had survived and if they had rebuilt again. There was no way to know if this would happen to our village, but, as a child, it wasn’t my responsibility to worry about it.

Sudan had become independent from the British on New Year’s Day 1956, but fighting had broken out between the mostly black, Christian south and the Arab, Muslim north the summer before. The Arab government in Khartoum wanted to force the African tribes of the south to become Muslim and adopt Arabic culture. But the people in the south, whether they were Christian or believed in the ancient tribal religions of the Nile region, wanted to remain the way they were and have political autonomy. 

Then, one day, the Arabs came. And they did exactly what the rumors said they would. They swarmed into the village shooting everywhere. My family and I didn’t know what was happening until we heard the shots coming from every direction. I was nine-years-old.

We had to run, but the Arabs followed us, and they killed two of my friends who were running away with me. We didn’t even know where we were running, but we ran until these screaming figures firing guns disappeared. We children hid in the bush and tried to sleep as night came, but we were too terrified and had no idea if the Arabs would come back.

The next day, we walked back the way we came and somehow found the village—which was completely destroyed. But, miraculously, my family had survived. Not long after, my father, remembering those stories from other villages, decided that it was pointless to stay and rebuild. Instead, he brought us to the capital of Upper Nile state, which was the town of Malakal.

Malakal was a mixed place, with both Africans and Arabs living there. In fact, there was an Arab family which lived near us, made up of brothers who came from other regions in both the north and the south. One brother was named Abdullahi, and, one day, he asked me to help him bring his luggage onto a steamer which was waiting to cross the Nile. It was the rainy season, when the main type of transport is the ferry, and we lived close to the river, so I was happy to help him. He seemed kind, and not like the other Arabs who had burned down our village and killed my friends.

He told me to sit next to his luggage on the steamer, because he was going to buy things at the market near the riverbank. Without even thinking that anything bad could happen, I took his word and stayed waiting for him to come. He didn’t show up right away, until the time that the steamer started moving out from the dock. I became terrified and I started screaming, and, just in time, he came running and made it onto the boat before it left.

He calmed me down, telling me that the boat had left the dock. There was no way they could turn it back, since it was one of the biggest steamers and ferries have tight schedules. He told me that we had to wait until the boat got to its destination, which was Kosti, capital of White Nile state in northern Sudan—almost 260 miles away down river. He would then help me get on the steamer coming back the other way to Malakal.

There were hundreds, maybe even thousands, of people on the steamer, and Abdullahi was the only person I could trust. I was lost in the middle of the Nile for the first time in my life. My life was now in his hand. I had to trust him in everything.

Finally, we reached Kosti. There, it turned out that Abdullahi had also kidnapped three other black boys before me, and they were waiting for him. I was the youngest. He brought me and two older ones to the market, which was divided into stands based upon where the sellers lived, with each stand corresponding to a different village. There was a line of trucks ready to take these people home, and we got into one of them. We didn’t know how to count the hours it took or how many miles it was.

The truck dropped us off in a village called Fashishoya, north of Kosti. In Fashishoya, Abdullahi was greeted happily by his family, which was really just a branch of maybe six or seven families. Part of why his relatives were so happy was because Abdullahi come back from southern Sudan and brought “slaves” with him. We didn’t know what the word “slave” meant, let alone that we were going to end up becoming slaves. In fact, Abdullahi’s family was so happy to receive slaves that a dispute broke out among some of the men over who would get the older boys, since they looked stronger and more useful. Eventually, they compromised: one larger part of Abdullahi’s family would get the oldest boy, the smaller one the younger.

Then, like the others, I was given away, too. A female relative of Abdullahi’s had only one son—meaning their household didn’t need one of the stronger, older boys—so Abdullahi gave me to them. As a gift.

I asked them where Abdullahi was, and said that he’d promised me that he would help me get on the next boat back to Malakal, but they said that I belonged to them now and I wouldn’t see Abdullahi again. I cried, but I was punished for crying, and ordered to keep silent. But how can you be silent when you are now being told that you will not see somebody who promised that he will send you back to your loved ones? How can you be quiet when you’re being told that you were given away as a gift?

After the tears finished, I spent two and a half years as a slave—carrying heavy containers of water, sleeping in the same place as the farm animals, doing household chores, and being beaten. I eventually escaped when my “masters” moved closer to Kosti, and—thank God—some people from my Shilluk tribe saw me outside the new house and then helped me slip away.

I had survived that war, which ended in 1972 with the Addis Ababa Agreement, after up to a million and half people were killed (with no one counting those enslaved). But what most people don’t know and no one in the West knew then was that what the media called a “civil war” was actually a jihad—just like the one which had brought the Arabs to Africa in the first place, enslaving millions of Africans and killing tens of millions more.

In 1983, the Arabs got sick of being at peace with my people. Again, they said that all of Sudan must submit to Islam and accept Sharia law, and went back to war. When the Muslim Brotherhood took over the government of Sudan in 1989, that regime declared a formal jihad against the south on paper, but both “civil wars” were one jihad which began when the Arabs first invaded Africa almost 1,400 years ago. It is true that the Arabs hated the peoples of the south because they were black, and wanted their green, oil-rich land, but they also hated us because they believed in jihad.

I was living in Egypt when the 1989 coup happened, and that was when I escaped again (legally) to America. But, about six years after I came to New York City, something very strange happened. In 1993, I had met a Jewish man from Boston named Charles Jacobs who had learned about slavery in Sudan and wanted to do something about it. With a black Mauritanian Muslim diplomat named Mohamed Athié and another South Sudanese man named David Dechand, we founded the American Anti-Slavery Group. More than a year later, when Andrew Cooper, the editor of The City Sun, a black Harlem newspaper, saw Charles and Mohamed on Tony Brown’s Journal, a black community talk show, he asked Sam Cotton, one of his part-time reporters, to see if it was true that Arabs still owned African slaves. In the winter of 1995, Sam published the first of a series of articles showing that there were tens of thousands of other people enslaved just like I had been—but, we found out, there actually were black people who wanted to stop him spreading the truth.

I had never heard of the Nation of Islam, but their members were the ones stealing as many copies of The City Sun as they could so that other black people couldn’t read Sam’s article. Louis Farrakhan’s spokesman, Abdul Akbar Muhammad, then started saying that slavery did not exist in Sudan and that the CIA, FBI, and Israel had made it up. Akbar even went onto Tony Brown’s show with Sam and personally blamed Charles—just because he “is Jewish”! That was funny, because Jews like Charles cared about me when even some black Christians didn’t, and Israel had secretly helped the South Sudanese during the first war against the Arabs. Akbar’s “evidence” that slavery was CIA propaganda was that the Sudanese government had taken him on a trip around the country and he hadn’t seen any slavery—and that his organization had written a book, called The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, about how Jews (and not Muslims) supposedly ran the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

As the Western media (reluctantly) began to cover slavery in Sudan a bit more, Farrakhan and his thugs eventually talked about it less, but the fight they put up was both disturbing and disgusting. These were people who were so proud of being “black,” and loved to take trips to Africa, but they were defending and actually helping the Arab killers who had enslaved me to kill and enslave more of my people. They behaved like—but worse than—the black Sudanese intellectuals I met who didn’t want South Sudan to become independent, as well as the Sudanese Africans who had converted to Islam centuries before and “become” Arabs—many of whom made up the militias who burned down villages and kidnapped slaves. But Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam were even worse than that, because they were like dhimmah: the people who did not convert but submitted to Islam and became slaves in all but name, and did everything they could to please their Arab masters. To me, the Nation of Islam boys were just slaves—but, unlike me, they were proud to be slaves, and wanted all other black people to be just like them.

But, as time went on, I noticed that a form of the insanity which had turned some black Americans into ignorant Farrakhan worshippers who didn’t want to listen to me was infecting the rest of the stupid Western world. The Nation of Islam is not actually Islam, but their jihadist friends were taking over America.

When 9/11 happened in New York, people learned what “terrorism” was, but not jihad. A few people remembered that bin Laden had lived in Sudan under government protection between 1991 and 1996, and that Sudan was involved in helping the people who planned 9/11, but they were mostly national security analysts. Also, Sheikh Omar Abdulrahman, the man who planned the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, was given asylum by Sudan when he fled Egypt, and then came to America from Sudan in 1990. Even people like President George Bush—a man who was sensitive to the fact that Africans were being enslaved, and signed the Sudan Peace Act in 2002 to try to stop the killing—didn’t know what jihad was, and did almost nothing to wake the country up to the real threat.

It is true that America did help stop the war in Sudan, which ended, if you count the “first” one, after almost exactly half a century, in 2005, after perhaps four million people were killed, seven million forced from their homes, and 200,000 enslaved (just the second time around). Then, in early 2011, there was a referendum on whether the south would have to stay inside Arab Sudan, and nearly 99% voted to leave. South Sudan, with all of its horrible problems, then became independent later that year.

But, unlike South Sudan, America didn’t vote to kick jihad out of its borders. It let jihad take over Dearborn, Michigan, the Twin Cities in Minnesota, and universities like Columbia, Harvard, and UCLA. It let Qatar buy up Washington. It let Iran build nuclear weapons. And it let Zohran Mamdani become mayor of my city of New York—the place to which I had come to escape jihad.

I have been speaking about my experiences for more than 30 years now, which was difficult at first, because, in South Sudanese culture, being a slave is a disgrace, and when you talk about it and explain it, you open up the wound. But, because of God, I am a free man, and that’s why I’m speaking: on behalf of those who are not free.

As of now, I live in a free world, and that free world fought a war to end slavery, but it wasn’t easy. In America’s case, hundreds of thousands of people died, to end this practice of one people dehumanizing another. But the West and America won’t fight a war to end jihad. Jihad is new to people here in the West, but it isn’t new, and certainly not to we survivors of Islamization and Arabization.

When I began my mission to tell the world what I left behind, I remember that I was told by one elected official here in the United States that “You are just being paranoid” when I talked about jihad and slavery in Sudan. My response to that gentleman was, “It is not because of what happened to me. It is because I wasn’t a Muslim. If I were a Muslim, I wouldn’t have been victimized. I was being victimized because my people rejected being slaughtered; because they rejected the policy and ideology of Islamization.” That gentleman didn’t understand what I told him, even when I mentioned bin Laden and Sheikh Abdulrahman.

Jihad has come to America, and America isn’t fighting it. It enslaved me and hundreds of thousands of South Sudanese people, and I have spent more than 35 years warning the West what’s coming.

This evil started small, but—mark my words—a decade from now, America, you are going to be surprised. Ten years from now, you will ask yourself, “How did that happened?” The answer is it happened because you didn’t take the words from the mouths of the victims seriously.

I served in Gaza, Judea, Samaria, and Lebanon in the 1990s. I patrolled the alleys of Gaza, manned checkpoints across Judea and Samaria, cleared roads of explosives in Lebanon, and stood face-to-face with young jihadists who threw stones and firebombs at us long before the world demanded the creation of something called a “Palestinian state.”

I packed up the last IDF base in Gaza City under the Oslo Accords. Today, during this war, I’ve spent nights on the hilltops of Judea protecting Jewish communities so there won’t be another October 7-style invasion.

This experience is why I view Trump’s new “path to a Palestinian state,” now adopted into a U.N. Security Council resolution, with deep concern.

Because whether Trump intends it or not, the message it sends into the Arab Muslim world is unmistakable: Mass murder works. Terrorism pays. Kill Jews, and the world will reward you.

Trump may be trying to bring “stability” to the region; but jihadist movements do not interpret signals the way Western diplomats do. They interpret them the way a 1,400-year-old ideology teaches them to: Concessions = weakness. Diplomacy = victory. Recognition = divine approval.

Even a conceptual path to statehood, filled with impossible conditions, is read as vindication, because they live to wait patiently and try to kill us and destroy us on another day.

The Western Misunderstanding: I Watched it for Decades

When I patrolled Gaza in the 1990s, the youth attacking us weren’t reacting to “occupation.” They were raised on jihad. Raised to hate Jews. Raised to believe that killing us was a sacred obligation.

I saw the same thing in Shechem. In South Lebanon. Everywhere I served. And the data today are even clearer: Majorities of Arab Muslims in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria openly support the October 7 atrocities. Not fringe elements. Not “radicals.” Majorities.

There are endless videos from UNRWA schools of children dreaming of becoming martyrs. Schools named after suicide bombers. Hamas terrorists calling parents on October 7 to brag about killing Jews—and the parents celebrating.

As we’ve heard directly from the hostages who returned from Gaza, the fantasy of “innocent civilians” simply does not exist there. The people of Gaza were not bystanders. They participated in the atrocities of October 7, they celebrated the slaughter, and they assisted in the captivity and torture of our people. Not a single Gazan came forward to claim the $5 million reward offered for information about even one hostage. Not one. Instead, the streets filled with cheering crowds—men, women, and youth, beating our captives, whether dead or alive, and proudly parading them through Gaza like trophies.

This is the truth the world refuses to confront: a society that raises its children to hate Jews, glorifies murder, and participates in terror is not a population of “innocents.” It is a population complicit in evil. Only when we stop pretending otherwise can we truly protect ourselves, speak honestly, and defeat this jihadi enemy once and for all.

This is not a population ready for peaceful coexistence. It is a culture built on a genocidal ideology the world keeps funding.

So what does a “path to statehood” communicate? “Your strategy is working—continue.”

What No One Wants to Admit: Only Israel Will Disarm Hamas

International forces will not disarm Hamas. Arab states will not disarm Hamas. The U.N. will not disarm Hamas. The United States will not send soldiers into the tunnels. And we don’t want anyone else to do it anyway.

Only the IDF will do this job. Which means one thing: Israel will inevitably have to return to all of Gaza militarily, permanently. And not just Gaza.

Hezbollah has made it clear it will never disarm voluntarily. Even with American pressure, the Lebanese government cannot and will not disarm Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. Which means: Israel will eventually have to return to Southern Lebanon as well, and remain there permanently.

And Iran, the command center, is accelerating its war build-up in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, and at home. None of those fronts are over. 

Trump talks about peace in the Middle East. But the Middle East is preparing for the next war. And the jihadists see Trump’s plan not as diplomacy… but as opportunity.

The Story That Reveals Everything: From Tzvi Yechezkeli’s Book “I Told You it’s Jihad

After the U.S. captured Baghdad, General David Petraeus sat inside Saddam Hussein’s former palace, now an American military headquarters. U.S. officers were confident. They believed they had won decisively. Then an Iraqi Muslim leader walked in and asked a simple question: “Who won the war?” The Americans were stunned: “What do you mean? We won.” The Iraqi was genuinely confused. He explained: “In our worldview, victory means expelling a population and taking the land. Tanks entering a palace means nothing.”

Years later, after the U.S. withdrew and Iraq collapsed into chaos, American officers saw this Muslim militant leader and admitted: “You were right.” He admitted that the U.S. never understood the region—let alone the man’s religion. And today, Western leaders still don’t.

A Real Path to Peace: Not the Fantasy Being Sold

A real path to peace would say:

• Gaza will never again be a terror launching pad.
• Hamas and all jihadi supporters will be uprooted entirely.
• Gaza will remain permanently demilitarized.
• Israel will remain in control, forever.
• Jews will resettle Gaza again, as they did for centuries before the modern State of Israel.
• Jihadist aggression will result in loss of land, not political reward.

This is the only language understood in the Middle East, because it is the only language that works in the jihadi Muslim world.

The Part the West Still Refuses to See

The jihadi Muslims threatening Israel are of the same ideology destroying Western countries: Europe collapsing from within. Canada swallowed by imported jihadist networks. The United States dealing with jihadists embedded in universities, politics, media, NGOs, and even in local, state, and federal politics. It is the same 1,400-year war, just in different stages and different languages.

Israel is not fighting a “local conflict.” Israel is the frontline of the entire freedom-loving world. And here is the truth no Western politician wants to admit: Money, diplomacy, and business deals cannot stop a worldview whose explicit goal is global domination in the name of Allah.

If the West wants to survive—if America wants to remain America—it must support the one nation standing between civilization and barbarism.

That frontline is the Jewish State of Israel. Supporting Israel is not charity. It is self-preservation for the free world.

It didn’t start on the seventh of October and it didn’t end after. Every rocket, every attack, every name on the news tears another piece of normal life away from us.

When I woke up, it was 8:00 a.m. Nothing in the air hinted that in just a few moments, my life—and that of all of ours—was about to change completely and forever. I was pleased it wasn’t too late, and I suggested to my father that we go to the mikveh together on the way to synagogue. We were standing at the entrance to the house when I suddenly heard something. It was distant, and it sounded like a siren—but I wasn’t sure. Then my father said, with strange certainty, “It’s a real alert.” (Later we would discover that just 12 kilometers away, in the heart of Jerusalem, my late grandmother had said the exact same words—“A war has broken out”—to her aide, at that very moment).

The way he said it made me run upstairs to my home office, where WhatsApp Web was always open on the screen. I saw just one image—a white Toyota pick-up truck full of Hamas terrorists in the center of Sderot—and I understood everything, instantly. I didn’t need a second look. I rushed back downstairs, already stuffing items into my army duffel bag along the way. I leaned over to whisper in my wife’s ear so the kids wouldn’t wake: “Hey, Honey. Chag sameach. A war has started. I’m going down south to kill them all. I’ll be back, don’t worry.”

Naama jolted awake: “What?! Why would you say that? You’ll scare the kids!” But my head was already somewhere else. I muttered something like, “They need to know. This is a big war. But don’t worry—it’ll be okay. I have to go.” Now she was fully awake, and she and my father were rushing around, helping me pack things for the road. I grabbed my tefillin, cold water, some snacks, and quietly kissed the kids goodbye while calling A.

A is always two steps ahead of me—sharp and professional. A good friend, in life and in the army. He knew the commander of the Lotar unit well and suggested we join up with them.

At this point, only two things were crystal clear to me: In the strategic chaos that had just begun, big plans were pointless. We needed to move fast—get to the south (and the north) and eliminate every terrorist as quickly as possible. And I wanted to stick with A while doing it.

A answered right away, with his trademark sarcasm: “Where are you, Ansbacher? The war’s almost over. You’re gonna miss all the terrorists.”

I arrived at the unit; the base was fairly quiet. Vehicles started arriving, but it was clear that the surprise we had been caught in was perfect. I found A, gave him a short hug. “What’s up?” He smiled, “As usual, we’re going to save the country and all that. “

 I went to get ammunition, but the door to the storage area where it was kept was locked. An indifferent soldier was wandering there and said something like, “No permission to take ammunition,” and I almost pushed the soldier physically out of my way. It was exactly like a scene from 1973 again, I told myself. 

I grabbed a full crate of 5.56 ammunition and shoved it into my vehicle. Better safe than sorry. That ammo later served all the counterterrorism teams around us in the first days. I looked for a vest and a weapon, and the combat soldiers offered me to take, for now, the equipment of D, the unit’s Operations Officer, who was already down south. We were supposed to link up with him. My eyes sparkled when I saw the upgraded tactical vest loaded with magazines. The weapon was excellent too—a shortened M-4 with a new optical reflex sight. 

I muttered something about handing over the gear to him but vowed to myself not to give that equipment to anyone at that moment. I didn’t have grenades, nor did anyone else at that stage, and that was very troubling. We were promised they would arrive later. The unit commander was rightfully hurrying. He organized an improvised convoy of jeeps, armored vehicles, and civilian cars, and glanced inside our vehicle: “Okay,” he said after a brief look, “vehicle of characters, you’ll follow behind me, move out, shoot.”

We set off. The destination was basically south. It was clear that more information would come later. Counterterrorism combat soldiers had already been involved in serious firefights since the morning hours. One squad found itself in a confrontation in central Sderot, and another sniper team that reinforced the Nahal Oz outpost was awakened by the sound of automatic fire accompanying the infiltration of dozens of terrorists into the outpost and fought them at point-blank range. Both squads fought the battle of their lives while simultaneously reporting the events to the unit commander on WhatsApp. 

The commander decided to send one force toward Sderot and personally go to rescue the snipers from Nahal Oz. That’s how the day began. We arrived at the Sderot junction. We began to see things on the road. Many strange things. The horizon was full of smoke columns. Suddenly, we saw wrecked vehicles on the sides of the road. Every war has a “welcome to war” image, some kind of scene you see that suddenly plunges you into a new reality. It’s always sudden with no warning. In the Second Lebanon War, I remember passing by a burned Merkava tank. But in this war—it was a completely bullet-holed family car. Someone worked on it with a machine gun. We stopped, unloaded weapons quickly, looked inside. There was no one left to save. Inside my mind, there was an internal conflict because I know this is war and a major event, but my body still functioned as if it was an isolated terror incident. 

Then I looked up and saw the entire road filled with such vehicles. Like a kids’ room where the mom entered, accidentally stepped on a toy car, and in anger kicked it scattering all the cars everywhere. Not one vehicle was in a normal position, and certainly not in the center of the road. You start recognizing details—a baby stroller, Kalashnikov magazines, documents, clothes, bodies. On the road and inside vehicles. Also quite precise clusters of bullet holes near bodies, meaning shattered windows at close range. I also began recognizing various weaponry—RPGs and the like. The radio was on; the IDF spokesperson said there were 60 Israeli fatalities in the south. A said to me, “Nonsense. It won’t end with less than a thousand.”

“What?” I was shocked. “Why do you say that?” Instead of an answer, he just motioned toward the burning, smoking horizon. This is the south of the country, but different. This is the south like a Hollywood movie or a ridiculously well-made video game. 

Right next to the bus stop, on the road, lay a dead elderly police officer. His eyes were open. All his IDs and credit cards were scattered around, along with a family photo. The combat soldiers were mostly engaged in fighting and had no time or particular desire to deal with him. Suddenly I had a strange feeling, as if someone, or rather some force, was pushing me toward him. Instinctively, death repels you. You don’t want to get close, lest you catch it. You also don’t want to expose yourself and your memory to harsh sights. So I recoiled, but the force kept pushing. I believe that force was the entire nation. The people of Israel now and of all generations pushed me from behind and whispered in my ear: “Don’t worry, Yair, you are now a mitzvah-bearer. You are here at this moment and time, our envoy. Take care of his honor, he is one of us.” 

I bent down to him, gathered his belongings, placed them neatly on his chest, closed his eyes with my hand, and covered him with a piece of cloth. I prayed a brief improvised prayer for the elevation of his soul. I don’t remember what I said, only that I felt how strange it was. Here I am, at forty, in the independent State of Israel, forced to do the same mitzvot my grandfather Mordechai Ansbacher, of blessed memory, did when he was a boy in the concentration and extermination camps of the Holocaust. Unfortunately, that officer, may G-d avenge his blood, was only the first. Later, the young guys from the counterterrorism unit would call me every time they found a body, “Hello, Rabbi! Rabbi! Come here!” I wasn’t a Rabbi, not at all suited for this role, but I had a beard and tzitzit, and there, at that place and time, that was more than enough.

On the way south, we passed near a base. A white pickup truck tore through the fence and entered inside, and gunfire was heard from within the base. We hesitated for a moment – should we stop and deal with it or continue driving toward the kibbutzim? After a few moments of hesitation, we quickly dismounted from the vehicles and entered the base. The combat soldiers gathered near a two-story command building. A asked me to place the drone in a convenient spot for takeoff and signaled me to do so in the middle of an open kill zone a few meters away. I was already familiar with the routine. This wasn’t the first or second time. I ran toward that spot hoping not to get shot and laid the drone on the ground, unfolded and ready for takeoff. A soldier standing on the second floor of the building shouted something like, “Hey! Watch out, they’re shooting at you!” and I, still in “cheer everyone up” mode, said something like, “They’ve been shooting at me for two thousand years.”

 Honestly, I felt like an older brother to these young guys. I remembered well the feeling of being a young soldier in the Second Lebanon War, and how good and important it felt back then to know we had experienced reservists with us. This time, that was my role. We stood near the building’s wall, and A activated the drone, which began buzzing above us. At one point, I saw a very senior officer whom I had met before. He looked completely stunned, wandering around like an ordinary soldier with no clear purpose or objective. I gave him a Chinese-made enemy radio I found on the ground and told him to pass it to the 504 unit. He nodded but wasn’t really functioning. Suddenly, a wounded guy appeared shirtless; his hand was bandaged improvisationally and bleeding. A few moments later, a female soldier in a similar condition showed up. I think I, together with another fighter, helped cover her.

Suddenly, a grenade rolled toward us. Someone shouted “grenade,” and everyone quickly moved back under pressure. A and I took a symbolic step backward. There was indeed an explosion—not a particularly big one. Grenades made in Gaza. We both smiled at each other and continued on. That was the terrorist’s last act. Now, thanks to A’s drone, we knew exactly where he was. On the ground near us lay two dead terrorists—Kalashnikovs and full combat vests still with them. After the third one was eliminated, it became clear that we had to move on. With us were guys from the General Staff’s Negotiation Unit, excellent people and good friends. They went down to the lower floor of one of the buildings that housed an observation command post that had been attacked and eliminated the terrorists remaining there. There, they also found several female soldiers who had been killed by the terrorists.

We collected the terrorists’ weapons, disassembled them, and headed back to the vehicles. 

Later, we watched footage from the GoPro cameras recovered from the dead terrorists. One thing stood out very clearly. The moment they encountered IDF fire, they scattered and became disoriented. All the members of the squad—about ten terrorists—kept calling out the name of their commander, over and over again, waiting for his direction to know what to do next. Their ability to show flexibility and adapt to what happened once the original mission went off course was virtually nonexistent. Right up until the bitter end—the moment a precise shot rang out, and the GoPro camera (along with the head it was strapped to) dropped to the ground. 

This is likely what happened to Nasrallah as well. He awoke to a new day in which everything he had known was no longer relevant. Instead of quickly adapting to the new circumstances, he froze—and lost everything.

Excerpted from Dr. Yair Ansbacher’s Like a Lion, He Shall Rise: The War We Failed to Foresee, the Devastating Price We Paid, and the Miracles That Saved Us.

Weapons are to defend life, not to destroy it recklessly. It is not just a code. It is part of our Jewish identity. We are taught to sanctify life even when surrounded by enemies who glorify death.

As part of my training, my commanders and the army itself stressed the importance of being a good person: it was a priority.

I hereby give testimony,
To things I’ve done

To thoughts I’ve thought,
And songs unsung

Hate resides in my heart,
But not in my action

Been touched by desire,
And fell for distraction

Who among us is pure?
In deed and deeper?

Not the warmonger,
Nor the peacekeeper

And I’ve seen too much,
Jaded my core

And felt not enough,
So I embellished the score

My punishment’s been harsh,
Realigned my path

That’s the blessing,
To see through the wrath

I take refuge in Truth,
In the firing line of libel

Still, I demand justice,
While I swear over the Bible

At least I’m honest,
Recognizing my faults

Only to be used as their ammo,
Then accused of assault

For the words I’ve used,
And the Hope I hope

A cartridge of adjectives,
Against an ancient trope

If that deems me guilty,
Guilty I am

But not silent or weak,
Nor a sacrificial lamb

We will never return to the innocence of October 6—but we can still choose to show up for one another. Only we can safeguard our children’s future.

Two years since Hamas launched the largest ever terrorist attack against Israel, the war has yet to end.

It is impossible to describe the cruelty of an enemy that hides behind the innocent, using women and children as shields. Each time, my heart broke, but my determination grew stronger.

On October 7, I was supposed to go to the Nova festival. I had a ticket from a friend who worked there at the bar. I had some friends who went there, but I decided not to go because my father wanted me to stay for Sim’chat Torah in the morning.

I have a few unusual marks on myself. These can seem to be from a variety of situations—but their actual history is a short honest-to-God war story about self-sacrifice that gives me the knowledge that there is a God and that He does care about us.

Historian Will Durant observed in The Lessons of History that for a civilization to endure, it must hold fast to at least two of three social bonds: a shared religion, a shared culture, and a shared language.

I have often said that the less there is a God, the more we need one, and this is a metaphysical truth grounded not in religion but in the necessity of those social bonds. We need a shared language so we can communicate clearly, and, somewhere between religion and culture, we need to find a shared moral framework. Religion can be particularly helpful, as it places that moral framework above mankind, protecting society from moral relativism and the resulting moral rot.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are often grouped together as Abrahamic faiths, but they are not all variations on the same moral theme. Islam, at its core, produces opposite outcomes, built on a fundamentally different image of God and a vision of morality and human purpose utterly incompatible with that of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Where the Torah says, “The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself” (Leviticus 19:34), the Qur’an commands, “Kill them [the unbelievers] wherever you find them…” (Qur’an 2:191). The moral contrast could not be more stark.

This is not a piece about which religion is “true.” It is not an argument over revelation, spiritual experience, or salvation. It is a moral analysis, focused on the civilizational consequences of two radically different belief systems.

Nor is this an apologetic. The polite view of Islam is to treat its foundational texts as irrelevant, as just another cry to a “fictional sky god.” But that is not honest critique; it is secular evasion. Religions are built on texts, not impressions, and while atheistic intellectuals may scoff at what those texts demand, believers do not. Therefore, I begin with the assumption that the devout will act out their faith.

This is also not a commentary on Arabs as an ethnic group, or Muslims as individuals. Many self-identifying Muslims are kind, sincere, and morally upright. But just as a devout Christian is expected to grow more Christ-like as their faith deepens, so, too, a devout Muslim is expected to become more aligned with the tenets of Islam, and of Muhammad, its corresponding central figure. It is those tenets, found in the Qur’an, the Hadith, and the life of Muhammad, that form the basis of this critique.

The Judeo-Christian tradition, forged through the convergence of Biblical revelation and Greek reason, gave rise to a civilization built on freedom, conscience, love, and moral accountability. Islam, by contrast, emerged as an intentional inversion—a system that replaced grace with law, love with power, and voluntary faith with enforced submission.

The word Islam predates the formalized religion of that name. In Arabic, “Islam” means “submission,” specifically submission to the will of Allah. 

According to Islamic doctrine, humanity is divided into two broad groups: Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (the House of War). The House of Islam contains those who have submitted. The House of War contains those who have not submitted and are therefore in a state of opposition to Allah’s rule.

“House of War” is literal: one of the central tenets of Islam is that it is in a perpetual state of war with everything else. The name of that war is, of course, jihad.

To Islam, the only thing separating the world from paradise is impure belief. If all who disbelieve in Allah, or believe imperfectly, are either converted or killed, then pain, suffering, hunger, and disease will vanish. Everything bad will cease to exist (Qur’an 8:39, 9:33, 24:55).

Unlike Christianity, which makes no attempt to dictate how a state should be structured (in fact, Christ Himself explicitly separated spiritual authority from political power, saying “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” in Matthew 22:21), Islam presents itself as a comprehensive political, legal, and religious system. The Qur’an is not merely a book of spiritual wisdom; it is presented as a complete and binding code of divine law for all of mankind. According to Islamic doctrine, the world suffers not because man has fallen short of moral virtue, but because man has failed to fully submit to the laws of Allah (Qur’an 5:3, 33:36).

This distinction is critical. The Judeo-Christian God is rooted in love. God creates out of love, redeems out of love, and grants free will as a reflection of that love, even when it allows for rebellion (Genesis 2:16–17, Deuteronomy 30:19, Ezekiel 18:30–32, I John 4:8). Islam, by contrast, is rooted in submission (Qur’an 3:19, 3:85; Sahih al-Bukhari 7142). Its conception of God is not as a relational Father, but as a sovereign (slave) master whose decrees are absolute, final, and beyond question.

Islam does not simply encourage obedience, but demands it under threat of death. The Qur’an repeatedly calls for the punishment and terrorizing of those who disbelieve (Qur’an 4:89, 8:12, 9:73), who abandon the faith (Bukhari 6922; Sunan an-Nasa’i 4034, 4059), or who believe incorrectly (Qur’an 5:33, 9:29). As a result, Islam cannot be peaceful—even within itself. The moment Muhammad died, with no clear succession plan and no tolerance for dissent, the religion fractured instantly into Sunni and Shia sects, and these internal divisions were not mere theological refinements but power struggles wrapped in divine justification. These groups have remained violent toward one another for over a millennium, and, as Islam continues to splinter into sub-factions, its internal compulsion to purge impure belief risks turning it into a global suicide cult.

The Ridda Wars that followed Muhammad’s death were not defensive. They were a campaign to slaughter or subjugate any tribe that strayed from obedience. Islam has never been peaceful, not even among its own.

Moderates within Islam are often branded as apostates by their more devout peers, since to challenge orthodox interpretations is to question Allah Himself, for Allah has “perfected for you your religion” (Qur’an 5:3). This dynamic doesn’t remain isolated to theological debate, but quickly manifests as legal and political enforcement through Sharia.

This ideological rigidity has direct political consequences, as Sharia becomes the mechanism through which enforcement escalates and dissent is punished. This is why Islamic populations tend to become more, not less, devout over time. In nations where Islam takes hold, the pattern is consistent: what begins as coexistence becomes confrontation, then coercion, then enforcement. This is not a perversion of Islam, but its natural trajectory.

There is a belief in the West that Sharia needs to be passed to be enforced, but understand that, in the Qur’an, Allah already passed it and all that is needed is the power to enforce it. The basis of this religion is to make the entire globe either submit or die, and though Muslims as people may have a preference between those two things, the Qur’an does not.

Islam, at its core, is not merely an alternative moral system. It is a deliberate inversion of the Judeo-Christian ethic. Where Judaism and Christianity teach that God is love and that morality flows from His unchanging goodness, Islam teaches that Allah is pure will, and that whatever He commands is moral by definition. In Judeo-Christian tradition, God gives man free will and calls for personal responsibility. In Islam, man must submit entirely, without question—let alone responsibility:

One need not believe in the Judeo-Christian God to believe in love (even of enemies), free will, conscience, forgiveness, grace, and the primacy of secular governance, but these are the values that have defined the Western world, and they stand in sharp contrast to Islamic principles.

Muhammad, incidentally, did not misunderstand Judaism or Christianity. He saw their civilizational influence and created a new version in direct opposition to them and as a vehicle for domination. He absorbed Judeo-Christian language and reversed the meaning. Islam is not a sibling faith. It is a counter-religion: one whose founder sought not holiness, but sovereignty and control. That inversion lives on in every doctrine that commands conquest, every law that mandates submission, and every punishment aimed at the soul that dares to question.

This is not just an indictment of Islam, but a warning to the West.

If the West does not re-anchor itself in the moral clarity of its own tradition, it will not survive the challenge of Islam. This is not because Muslims are inherently dangerous, but because the ideology that governs the devout is structurally incapable of coexistence with liberty. It does not negotiate. It does not even tolerate. All it does is to convert, conquer, command, and kill.

Unless we are willing to name that inversion and reject it outright, we will be absorbed by it—not as martyrs, but as infidels.

Ironically, those who say that criticizing Islam is “Islamophobic” (and who have no problem with criticism of other religions) are creating a tremendous threat to decent, non-observant Muslims, as the first person Islam calls to kill is not the infidel, but the incorrect Muslim (Qur’an 4:89). In Islam, a non-Muslim has not been taught the truth and can thus possibly be converted, but the incorrect Muslim was taught the truth and rejected it, and there is no redemption for that (Qur’an 4:137).

Islamic doctrine does not merely tolerate violence and exploitation in the context of jihad. It actively sanctions it. Acts that Western civilization regards as criminal or immoral, such as rape, torture, theft, and even murder, are explicitly permitted when committed in the service of spreading or defending the faith.

The Qur’an permits Muslim men to have sexual relations with captive women, even if those women are married. Qur’an 4:24 states: “[Forbidden to you are] married women except those whom your right hands possess.” This verse was revealed after Muslim fighters expressed hesitation about raping women taken as slaves in battle, and especially those who had husbands (Sahih Muslim 1456-A). Rather than forbidding the act, the Qur’an explicitly legalizes it. This is further reinforced in Muslim 1438-A, where a companion of Muhammad reports:

[We] took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

The concern here is not about consent or morality, but about preserving the women’s resale value as sex slaves. The rape is taken as a given. Only the logistics are discussed.

Qur’an 23:5–6 reinforces this: “They guard their private parts, except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed.”

By contrast, Deuteronomy 21:10–14 establishes rules that would make the idea of marrying a captive woman deeply unappealing to brutal or impulsive men. The captive must be brought into the home, have her head shaved and nails trimmed, remove her captive clothing, and be allowed to mourn for a full month before marriage. If the man later rejects her, he must let her go free: “You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.” The process deliberately delays gratification, strips the woman of aesthetic appeal in the short term, and imposes legal and moral obligations turning what might have begun as lust into responsibility or nothing at all.

Torture is also sanctioned when deemed expedient. In Bukhari 6899, we read that Muhammad “ordered to cut their hands and feet, and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, and then he threw them in the sun till they died.” This describes Muhammad’s treatment of a group of men whom he had advised to drink camel milk and urine, then who apostatized and stole said camels. They were mutilated and left to die of exposure. Another account from Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah recounts that, after the siege of Khaybar, Muhammad tortured Kinana ibn al-Rabi’ by lighting a fire on his chest to force him to reveal the location of hidden treasure, before ordering his execution. This is not fringe behavior. It is foundational history, and treated as exemplary by Islamic sources.

Theft, or more accurately, loot as divine reward, is codified in the doctrine of ghanimah (war booty). Qur’an 8:1 opens the discussion: “They ask you about the spoils of war. Say, ‘The spoils belong to Allah and the Messenger.’” Later, Qur’an 8:41 clarifies: “And know that anything you obtain of war booty—then indeed, for Allah is one fifth of it and for the Messenger…” This is not condemnation of looting, but a divine directive to divide the spoils, including enslaved people, among the victors. Muhammad himself received one-fifth of all plundered goods, including captives (Bukhari 3124).

Leviticus 19:11 forbids theft outright: “You shall not steal, you shall not deal falsely, you shall not lie to one another.” In contrast, the Qur’an institutionalizes what can only be described as a religiously sanctioned protection racket. Qur’an 9:29 commands Muslims to “fight those who do not believe in Allah… until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” This is not a tax for services rendered, but a penalty imposed for disbelief. The conquered are forced to fund their own subjugation, with the express goal of humiliation.

Further, the traditional Jewish understanding of the Eighth Commandment, Exodus 20:15 (“You shall not steal”), is that it refers specifically to the stealing of people. Theft of property, as aforesaid, is strictly prohibited elsewhere in the Torah. As allowed by Qur’an 47:4, Hamas, an Islamic jihad organization, did just that on October 7, 2023, when it stole 251 innocent human beings as hostages.

Most disturbing is Islam’s explicit authorization to kill non-believers for the crime of disbelief alone. Qur’an 9:5 instructs: “Then, when the sacred months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them, capture them and besiege them and lie in wait for them at every ambush.” These are not contextual footnotes, but final-stage revelations in Surat at-Tawbah (9), chronologically among the last chapters of the Qur’an, and therefore considered binding and unambiguous in classical Islamic jurisprudence. Indeed, Qur’an 2:106 enshrines the doctrine of abrogation, where Allah “bring[s] forth” a revelation “better than” the earlier one when convenient to a new situation.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, such acts are sins. In Islam, when done to advance Allah’s rule, they become sacred duties. This is the ultimate inversion, not only of Judeo-Christian morality, but of universal ethics. A system that grants moral license to rape, torture, plunder, and kill, so long as it advances submission, is not merely incompatible with Western civilization; it is its theological and moral antithesis.

Truth, in both Judaism and Christianity, stands as the hallmark of divine authority. Deuteronomy 18:22 declares: “When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come to pass or come true, that is a word the Lord has not spoken.” Christ further affirms that “you will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16), grounding spiritual legitimacy in honesty, integrity, and transparency. By contrast, Islam permits lying when it serves the faith (Qur’an 2:225, 16:106, 66:2), a doctrine known as taqiyya. Qur’an 3:28 instructs Muslims not to take unbelievers as allies “unless you are guarding yourselves against them,” legitimizing deception in dealings with non-Muslims. While Christianity demands that truth reveal the prophet, Islam allows concealment of truth to protect the mission. One treats truth as sacred; the other as strategic. Muhammad condensed it to three words: “War is deceit” (Bukhari 3029).

The Torah, in Numbers 23:19, presents truthfulness as intrinsic to God’s nature: “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind.” In stark contrast, Qur’an 3:54 celebrates Allah’s cunning: “And they deceived, and Allah deceived, and Allah is the best of deceivers.”

To call Allah “the best of deceivers” echoes Revelation 12:9: “And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world…”

Muhammad may have even deceived himself, dying in precisely the way Qur’an 69:44–46 says he would were he were a false prophet: “[If Muhammad] had made up about Us some [false] sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand; Then We would have cut from him the aorta.”

How did he die? Bukhari 4428 and other Islamic sources document that, “in his [Muhammad’s] ailment in which he died, [he] used to say, ‘O ‘Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.” The story of Khaybar is significant in this context, as it was a battle where Muhammad and his followers massacred, enslaved, and raped the last remnant of Arabia’s Jews.

One of the Jewish widows, Zainab bint al-Harith, offered poisoned mutton to Muhammad and his warriors, saying “If you were a prophet, it would not harm you; but if you were a king, I should rid the people of you” (Sunan Abu Dawud 4512).

Muhammad preached that women are worth less than men in testimony and inheritance (Qur’an 2:282, 4:11); citing the “deficiency of a woman’s mind,” that they are half as intelligent as men (Bukhari 2658); that they can be beaten for “rebellion” (Qur’an 4:34); and that they make up the majority of hell (Bukhari 29, 304, 3241). He then taught that Muslims must “fight against” and “kill” all Jews (Muslim 2922)—only to die in agony, four years after Khaybar, failing a Jewish woman’s test of true prophethood.

ISIS may hold apocalyptic beliefs that some Muslims find extreme, but, in terms of doctrinal purity and fidelity to Islam’s original texts, it is arguably the most literal and consistent expression of the religion today. Its acts, including burning prisoners alive, beheading captives, and enslaving women, are not fringe distortions. They are the logical and textually grounded outcomes of Islamic jurisprudence when followed without reinterpretation or restraint. This is precisely why thousands of Muslims from Western countries have supported or joined ISIS: not in spite of its theology, but because of it.

Islam was not revealed; it was reverse-engineered. It is not the fulfillment of divine truth, but its calculated inversion. Islam is not even a religion so much as a tool for conquest wrapped in the language of faith. 

Where the Judeo-Christian ethos lifted civilization through love, conscience, and self-sacrifice, Islam enslaved it through fear, obedience, and blood. And, in every place it gains ground, the first casualty is not unbelief, but freedom itself.

A religion that sanctifies rape, glorifies theft, mandates lies, and punishes conscience with death is not holy. It is not even human. It is a machine for the destruction of souls, built in the image of power, not of God.

To tolerate such a thing in the name of pluralism is not virtue, but suicide, and, if we, who have inherited a civilization built on the freedom to think, speak, and believe (or not), cannot find the courage to name this evil and reject it outright, then we are not defending the West. We are digging its grave.

For reasons that are historic, political, and racial, the trans-Atlantic slave trade has remained a key topic of discussion in the Western world, and especially in the United States. Those discussions have included everything from the Juneteenth holiday to slave reparations to ethnic studies curriculum. As intense as those talks can be, one thing is certain: the trans-Atlantic slave trade of Africans—led by African, Arab, and European slave traders—began in the 1500s and ended in the 1800s. It lasted about 250 years.

Yet there is another slave trade of Africans that began long before the former, and has continued long after. It is known as the trans-Saharan slave trade, started by Arab Muslims as a key feature of imperial, colonial Islam in the seventh century. From Eamonn Gearon’s article “Arab Invasion of Africa: The First Islamic Empire” in History Today:

When Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, died in 632 the new religion had already gathered a number of impressive victories on the battlefield. The armies of Islam quickly and easily conquered the Arabian peninsula before moving on to take the homelands of their various neighbours. Marching out of Arabia in 639 they entered non-Arab Egypt; 43 years later they reached the shores of the Atlantic; and in 711 they invaded Spain. In just 70 years they had subdued the whole of North Africa, instituting a new order. This conquest, from the Nile to the Atlantic, was more complete than anything achieved by previous invaders and the changes it wrought proved permanent.

Within the Arabic language, black Africans are referred to as abid, “slaves.” It is a generic word that describes one’s color, ethnicity, or social status (or lack thereof). Throughout the history of Islam, it has been generally accepted that non-Muslims who were conquered and enslaved could gain their freedom by converting to Islam. For no other ethnic group has this proven to be false more than Africans. From the time of Muhammad until now, African Christians, Jews, Muslims, and peoples of other religions have been enslaved, raped, slaughtered, and displaced en masse by Arab Muslims.

Anti-Black attitudes go back to the beginning of Islam, with Muhammad purchasing an enslaved Arab man who wanted to join his army with two of his own Black slaves (Sahih Muslim 1602); saying that a Black man who denied his prophethood looked like the devil (Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 243); and relating a dream in which a Black woman with messy hair was a symbol of a deadly plague of fever (Sahih al-Bukhari 7039), amongst other things mentioned in the Muslim sources.

Because Muhammad, whom Qur’an 33:21 says is every Muslim’s perfect pattern of conduct, owned Black slaves and insulted Black people (Bukhari 7142), then that is considered acceptable by and is part of Islamic law (Sharia). Islam considers anything Muhammad did to be good and exemplary; therefore, owning and taking slaves, which he did, is permitted. The Muslim sources actually describe Muhammad as “white” on many occasions, and he is said to have owned perhaps six people of African descent out of between 20 and 40 slaves.

Qur’an 3:106 even speaks of how “On the Day [some] faces will turn white and [some] faces will turn black. As for those whose faces turn black, [to them it will be said], ‘Did you disbelieve [i.e., reject faith] after your belief? Then taste the punishment for what you used to reject.’” Not just Muhammad but Allah says that to have black skin is a disfiguring punishment.

In fact, one of Islam’s most beloved books outlining Muhammad’s teachings, Ash-Shifa by the scholar Qadi Iyad (1083–1149), goes so far as to say the following (in Aisha Bewley’s translation): “Ahmad ibn Sulayman, Sahnun’s companion, said that whoever says that the Prophet was black is killed. The Prophet was not black” (p. 387).

An enslaved Black Arabian poet who wrote under the nom de plume Suhaym (“Little Black Man”) spoke of the deep racism of his host culture. As quoted in Bernard Lewis’s book Race and Slavery in the Middle East (p. 28), he says, “If my color were pink, women would love me / But the Lord has marred me with blackness,” and “Though I am a slave my soul is nobly free / Though I am black of color my character is white.” He wrote these words in the decades just after Muhammad’s death. In the end, Lewis says, Suhaym was “killed and burned by his owners [about the year 660] because of his attentions to their women” (n. 2, p. 113).

Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406), one of the most revered Arab writers of all time and often called the father of modern sociology, says that Black people are literally subhuman. As quoted by Lewis (p. 53):

Therefore, the Negro nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because [Negroes] have little [that is essentially] human and have attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated.

By Ibn Khaldun’s time, Arabs controlled all of North Africa, and slave raiders penetrated deep into the continent, dragging women and children off to slavery. The women and little girls became concubines and the little boys—if they were lucky—became goatherds. Other boys were brutally castrated for use as eunuchs in Muslim rulers’ harems, with most of them dying as a result of the “operation.” The half-Black babies which resulted from masters’ abuse of their Black concubines were often murdered. Nothing like this happened universally as part of the trans-Atlantic slave trade—that is why the Black American, Brazilian, and Caribbean diasporas exist today. In Turkey, there are almost no dark-skinned people who identify as Black, even though millions of slaves were sent there. As British historian David Starkey says, the trans-Saharan slave trade can be described as “a genuine genocide.”

A clear majority of the maybe 25 million enslaved Black people transported from Africa between the eighth and nineteenth centuries (perhaps 14 million) were traded to the Islamic world. While the West had the moral courage to end this atrocity and then feel ashamed of it, the Muslim world has never done any such thing. In fact, the atrocity continues to this day.

In Mauritania, light-skinned Arabs and Berbers own Black Africans—all of whom are Muslim like them—as chattel slaves. According to the Global Slavery Index, 149,000 people are still kept in bondage as of 2023. Anti-slavery activists are even thrown into prison and, the U.S. State Department says, are victims of Arab police brutality on an increasingly regular basis.

In Sudan, the Arab government has restarted its racist war against the Black peoples of the western Darfur province, after having killed around 200,000 of them during the first genocide a generation ago. CNN reported in 2025 that “Those with a black or African tribal identity are being systematically hunted and killed by Arab militias like the RSF (Rapid Support Forces).” The BBC, too—no friend of countries in which people of African descent are not hunted and killed by the majority population—has covered these massacres. As part of the slaughters, Black women have been dragged off into sexual slavery. Even the politically driven United Nations, which often enables such abominations, has documented this:

The UN human rights office (OHCHR) expressed alarm… over reports that in Sudan, women and girls are being abducted, chained and held in “inhuman, degrading slave-like conditions” in areas controlled by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Darfur.…

Survivors, witnesses and other sources have reported that over 20 women and girls have been taken, but the number could be higher, said OHCHR Spokesperson Liz Throssell.

“Some sources have reported seeing women and girls in chains on pick-up trucks and in cars,” she said.

But this is not new. Between 1955 and 1972 and again between 1983 and 2005, the Arabs in the north of Sudan fought a genocidal jihad against the Black Christians of what is today South Sudan. In addition to killing millions, Arab raiders enslaved hundreds of thousands of Black women and children.

Simon Deng, a former slave from Sudan now living in New York, was one of those children, and has traveled the world telling his story:

I will not forget that day when Arab Sudanese government troops came and raided my village. We didn’t know what was going on until we heard gunshots from every direction. I was only 9 years old, but the militiamen were shooting anybody they saw, including children.

Myself, my family, and five of my friends had to run. But the Arabs ran after us: While we were running, they shot two of my friends. We ran wildly, not knowing where we were running. We just wanted to get away from these men, and the bullets, chasing us.

Simon goes on to explain how he was befriended by an Arab man (Abdullahi), sold as a slave by that man, and given away to an Arab Muslim family in the north:

I left with that man and his family for their farm and I never saw Abdullahi again. Three days later, I stupidly asked the family where Abdullahi was, since he was the way I was going to get back [home]… to my parents. For that question I was beaten terribly. Bleeding and in pain the man told me that I should never ask anything about Abdullahi again, since he had given me away as a “gift.” In other words, I was now a slave.

By the grace of God, using donated money, the aid organization Christian Solidarity International—assisted by the American Anti-Slavery Group’s courageous fundraising campaigns—has managed to buy the freedom of around 160,000 souls like Simon since 1995. CSI believes some 35,000 still remain enslaved in the north.

After the Western-led coup against Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, the vacuum of power in Libya was filled by warlords who opened up slave markets reminiscent of the seventh century. In 2017, Michael Mpeirwe Katungi submitted testimony for the African Union Commission:

An immoral trade proliferates in total indifference in a Libya devastated by war and which tends to become a sort of new Gore’e for migrants.

Sub-Saharan migrants are exchanged for between $200 and $500 and then assigned to work in Libyan homes.

Others are sequestered, tortured and forced to call their families to pay for their release.

In Libya, (the international organisation for migration) said in a statement, are hundreds of sub-Saharan migrants and migrants are publicly sold in markets or garages.

Even more graphically, that same year, CNN obtained actual video of a night-time slave auction in which two African migrants were sold for the equivalent of $400 apiece.

Algeria is another Arab Islamic nation in Africa where slavery is commonplace, with the Global Slavery Index estimating a total of 84,000 people held in bondage. As Reuters reported in 2018:

Dozens of Africans say they were sold for labor and trapped in slavery in Algeria in what aid agencies fear may be a widening trend of abusing migrants headed for a new life in Europe.

Algerian authorities could not be reached for comment and several experts cast doubt on claims that such abuses are widespread in the north African country.

The tightly governed state has become a popular gateway to the Mediterranean since it became tougher to pass through Libya, where slavery, rape and torture are rife.…

The scale of abuse is not known, but an IOM [International Organization for Migration] survey of thousands of migrants suggested it could rival Libya.…

“The first time they sold me for 100,000 CFA francs ($170),” said Ousmane Bah, a 21-year-old from Guinea who said he was sold twice in Algeria by unknown captors and worked in construction.

“They took our passports. They hit us. We didn’t eat. We didn’t drink,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation. “I was a slave for six months.”

It was in Algeria that former Black Panther Eldridge Cleaver saw black slaves for the first time. It shocked and dismayed him, as Cleaver, like so many young revolutionaries of the 1960s and ’70s, believed the deception that Arab Muslims were the true allies of Africans and people of African descent, and that Whites and Jews were their enemies. Slavery in Algeria was the beginning of Cleaver’s reformation that would eventually see him denounce Communism and Islamic terrorism and become a Black supporter of Israel.

In Nigeria, thousands are murdered by Islamic terrorists each year in what is now the greatest genocide of Christians in the world—more than 62,000 since the year 2000. In early 2024, Nigerian Stephen Enada, president of the International Committee on Nigeria (ICON), wrote in Newsweek:

A struggle today for Africa launched by Islamic terrorists is something Western elites wish to ignore, even as thousands of innocents are being brutally murdered, raped, burned alive, and taken captive. It is mostly a war waged against black Christians by African Islamists—and therefore an awfully sensitive subject. The recent Christmas attack against Christians in Nigeria claimed the lives of almost 200 people, yet it was mostly ignored in the mainstream press.

Some took notice when this centuries-old religious conflict flared in 1989, as Sudan’s jihad slaughtered Christians and enslaved perhaps 200,000 more. It ended only in 2005, when the U.S. helped broker a peace deal; in 2011, the south succeeded and become South Sudan, the world’s newest nation. More recently, Islamist attacks have spread where Islamic and Christian societies intersect: Mozambique, Niger, and Mali. In Darfur, there is a bit of a twist: Arab jihadists are slaughtering and enslaving Black people who converted to Islam long ago, but refuse to adopt Arab culture and language and who, in addition to being thought of as racially inferior, are not considered real Muslims.

Mali and Niger are part of the Western Sahel region of Africa along with Togo, Benin, Chad, and Burkina Faso. Burkina Faso has been in the international headlines as its young leader, Ibrahim Traoré, took power in the fall of 2022 and is making sweeping changes. Traoré is a devout Muslim whose grandmother was a devout Christian, and he is attempting to save his country from the Islamic terrorism of al-Qaeda, ISIS, and others. In fact, resistance to Islamic terrorism in Africa is part of the rallying cry during a new era of pan-Africanism. Traoré has been joined by the leaders of Mali and Niger, and their collective top priority is national security and the safety of their people.

But many Africans are not safe. Over the past decade, tens of thousands of African women, mostly from Nigeria and Uganda, have been lured by false promises of good-paying, legitimate jobs into traveling to Arab countries where they are forced into domestic and sexual slavery. The oil-rich Gulf states, over which the U.S. fawns so much and so inexcusably, are the worst perpetrators. In 2020, Tolulope Akande-Sadipe, chair of Nigeria’s parliamentary Committee on Diaspora Affairs, announced that as many as 80,000 Nigerian women were living as slaves in Lebanon, Mali, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The following year, Ugandans were grief-stricken to hear that Milly Namazzi, a young woman trafficked to Saudi Arabia to work as a maid, was murdered by her master when she asked to go home. Her body was returned to Uganda mutilated.

I remember a conversation with a young Nigerian Christian from the Igbo tribe. He and his family immigrated to America when he was about 10-years-old. He described the violence he saw against his people at the hands of Arab Muslims and called it Sharia—Islamic law. “It was rough, Pastor Dumisani. I don’t ever want live anywhere near that again,” my young friend said. 

Every American, every Westerner should understand that, no matter what propaganda one hears about what Sharia is, Sharia’s ultimate application in Islamic nations is wanton violence against non-Muslims, and against Africans regardless of whether they are Muslim. The genocides and slavery in Nigeria, Algeria, Mali, Niger, Sudan, Libya, and beyond should serve as warning signs accompanying the Islamic quest for Sharia cities emerging in places like Texas and Michigan. And when the inevitable slander of “Islamophobia” is hurled at people who hold these legitimate concerns, the testimonies of Simon Deng, Stephen Enada, Eldridge Cleaver, and others should be shouted from the rooftops.

The onus should remain on proponents of Islamic rule to explain why 1,400 years of precedence is not an accurate prediction of where the West is headed. The ongoing trans-Saharan slave trade should tell every thinking person that this is precisely what Sharia advocates have in mind for Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Baltimore, and every city and town in America.

Skeptical? I challenge anyone to list the number of Arab Muslim abolitionist organizations out there. Where is the “Islamic Anti-Slavery Group”? The fact there are none is further proof positive that political rule based on Islam is the opposite of freedom.

Yes. The trans-Atlantic slave trade had a beginning and an ending, the latter led by Black and White abolitionists. The trans-Saharan slave trade is alive, thriving, and, in the context of championing Sharia law, celebrated by Muslims who either participate or refuse to condemn it. Western leaders—Christians, Jews, and Muslims—had better find the moral courage to tell the truth or forever lose the privilege to do so.

The table was set with the finest linens and silverware,
A buffet of assorted delicacies selected, chef’s choice.
House rules codified,
Preparations fixed for the arrival of the most honorable Guest.

A chair was imported to impress,
Security tight, garden manicured,
The house sparkled with anticipation.

The other guests signed confidentiality agreements,
Some came prepared to seek His glare even for one glorious moment.
Some memorized a famous quote, others brought gifts, everyone donned their favorite attire.

His expected appearance made everyone and everything around Him better.

The neighborhood buzzed,
Children climbed poles to catch a glimpse of His caravan,
Even the weather behaved.

The moment arrived,
It was glorious,
All felt protected and holier as His reflection shined on them.

The host waited to greet Him,
Outside as He emerged from the entourage,
Inadvertantly passed over while the Guest of Honor was rushed inside.

A slight was perceived,
Righteousness became infected by indignation,
Goodness redefined,
While His nemesis crept in the opened backdoor,
Then pardoned in its wake,
And took His prestigious seat at the table.

The people still clamored for their moment with His replacement,
Some recognized the affront but cared not,
Rules amended then fortfied by the mob.

They replaced Him with what He despised,
Enticed by Bilam,
A remnant of Ba’al,
The attraction toward debaseness,
Compromised their soul.

If a piece is sacrificed, is it all damned?

The newly crowned guest saddled his Trojan Horse,
Dismounted and dismantled,
The efforts that proceeded,
While the onlookers cheered and chanted in his name.

Erased, was every mention and quote uttered by and about the Guest,
Curriculums edited,
Statues demolished and replaced,
“God is dead,” they declared.

“This is not how you treat an invited Guest,” One spoke up,
Rejected and discounted,
He suffered alone, not due to His embarrassment,
But that for his host and all others.

But shame had already exited quietly, defeated,
While the disrespected Guest impatiently waited for His Name to be cried out once again,
And for another invitation to arrive.

Jihad, a permanent Islamic institution, is intrinsically linked to enslavement, which explains the extensive and enduring nature of slavery in Muslim societies.

How does an indigenous population returning to its ancient homeland become settler colonialism? And how do Jews, persecuted for 3,000 years, become genocidal oppressors?

Traditionally progressive causes like environmentalism, feminism, and LGBT rights have now taken a backseat to Islamism, being fully subsumed in the name of “Palestine.”

Trump’s decision, taken at the height of Israel’s impressive campaign, literally saved the Ayatollahs’ regime, called by the U.S. State Department the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, 39 years in a row, since 1984.

Hamas is made up of the same people, acting on the same colonizing and imperial motivations, who enslaved me and murdered 4 million of my black brothers and sisters.

Bangladesh’s slide into becoming an Islamic state was inevitable. Its creation owed to the disgruntlement of undivided Pakistan’s Bengali Muslims against the ruling Pakistani elite, which was—and is—overwhelmingly Punjabi Muslim.

In 2024, around the world, 4,476 Christians—more than 12 a day on average—were “killed for faith related reasons.” Another 4,744 Christians were arrested or illegally detained, and 7,679 churches and other Christian institutions were attacked, often destroyed.

Overall, the global persecution of Christians has reached unprecedented levels. “More than 380m Christians suffer high levels of persecution and discrimination for their faith,” according to the World Watch List 2025 (WWL) published earlier this year by the international human rights organization, Open Doors.

Every year, the WWL ranks the top 50 nations in which Christians are the most persecuted for their faith. The data are compiled by thousands of grassroots workers and external experts. The latest edition of the WWL covers October 1, 2023, to September 30, 2024.

According to the WWL, around the world, one in seven Christians (14%) is persecuted. In Africa, that number grows to one in five (20%). In Asia, it is a shocking two in five—meaning 40% of all Christians there are persecuted.

The list categorizes three levels of persecution: “extreme,” “very high” and “high.”

The top 13 of the 50 nations on the list are characterized by the worst form of persecution: “extreme.” They are: 1) North Korea, 2) Somalia, 3) Yemen, 4) Libya, 5) Sudan, 6) Eritrea, 7) Nigeria, 8) Pakistan, 9) Iran, 10) Afghanistan, 11) India, 12) Saudi Arabia, and 13) Myanmar.

The form of persecution experienced there ranges from assault, rape, imprisonment, or even murder on being identified as a Christian or attending (usually underground) churches.

Coming in as #1 is North Korea:

If your Christian faith is discovered in North Korea, you could be killed on the spot. If you aren’t killed, you will be deported to a labour camp and treated as a political criminal. You will be punished with years of hard labour that few survive. And it’s not only you who will be punished: North Korean authorities are likely to round up your extended family and punish them too, even if your family members aren’t Christians. There is no church life in North Korea. It’s impossible to gather for worship or prayer, and even secret worship and prayer is at great risk. Official spies could inform on you, if they have any indication that you are a Christian, and so could your neighbours or teachers.

Not surprisingly, most of the “extreme persecution” meted out to Christians in nine of these 13 worst nations continues to come either from Islamic oppression, or occurs in nations with large Muslim populations. Significantly, this means that approximately 70% of the absolute worst (“extreme”) persecution around the globe takes place under the aegis, or in the name, of Islam.

This trend affects the entire list: the rest of the “very high” or “high” levels of persecution that Christians experience in 37 of the 50 ranked nations (or 74%), also comes either from Islamic oppression or occurs in nations with majority or large Muslim populations. Many of these nations are governed by some form of shari’a (Islamic law). Those enforcing the persecution can either be the government or society or, more frequently, both, although societies—particularly family members outraged by relatives who have converted—tend to be more zealous in the application of shari’a.

This means that although the persecution in North Korea is worse, there is at least a light at the end of the tunnel: the ill-treatment of Christians is entirely connected to the regime of Kim Jong-un. “Recognising any deity beyond the Kim family is considered a threat to the country’s leadership,” notes the report. Once the Kim family is gone, which is inevitable, North Korea may well become like South Korea, where Christianity is flourishing.

Conversely, the persecution of Christians by Muslims is perennial, existential, and far transcends this or that ruler or regime. Persecution of the “other” in Islam is part of its history, doctrines, and socio-political makeup—hence its tenacity and ubiquity. Brief summaries of the dangers of being Christian in the nine Muslim nations where “extreme” levels of persecution occur include:

Somalia, #2, where only a few hundred Christians are believed to exist,

…following Jesus is a matter of life and death. Al-Shabab, a violent Islamist militant group… enforces a strict form of Sharia (Islamic law) and is committed to eradicating Christianity from Somalia. They have often killed Somali Christians on the spot. The dangers have increased over the years, as the militants have increasingly focused on finding and eliminating Christian leaders.

Yemen, #3:

The country is now divided into territory ruled by three different [Muslim] powers, as well as some areas held by al-Qaeda and the so-called Islamic State. None of the powers involved are sympathetic to Christians, and the official constitution upholds Sharia (Islamic law) and no freedom of religion. The 1% of Yemenis from minority religions are severely marginalised. Relief aid is mostly distributed through local Muslim groups and mosques, which are alleged to be discriminating against anyone not considered a devout Muslim. If someone is reported to be a Christian and or involved in Christian activities, they could face severe monitoring, arbitrary detention, torture, ill-treatment and even murder.

Libya, #4:

…following Jesus is a huge risk for anyone. Libyan Christians with a Muslim background face violent pressure from their families and communities to renounce their faith. Foreign Christians, especially those from sub-Saharan Africa, are targeted by Islamist militant and criminal groups. These groups kidnap and sometimes brutally kill Christians. Even if they avoid such a fate, sub-Saharan Christians face harassment and threats from radical Muslims. Christians who openly express their faith or try to share it with others risk arrest and violent opposition.

Sudan, #5:

Sudan was on a path towards religious freedom, but a coup and devastating war dashed these hopes. Christians are once again in danger… [T]he conflict has given Islamist extremists more opportunity to target them. More than 100 churches have been damaged so far, and Christians have been abducted and killed. Sudanese Christians who have come to faith from a Muslim background face severe backlash from their families and communities. These believers tend to keep their faith secret, even from their own children. Christians are also experiencing exceptional hardship in the hunger crisis because local communities discriminate against them and won’t give them support.

Nigeria, #7:

Jihadist violence continues to escalate in Nigeria, and Christians are particularly at risk from targeted attacks by Islamist militants, including Fulani fighters, Boko Haram and ISWAP (Islamic State West Africa Province)…. The attacks are shockingly brutal. Many believers are killed, particularly men, while women are often kidnapped and targeted for sexual violence. More believers are killed for their faith in Nigeria than anywhere else in the world. [A total of 3,100 Nigerian Christians “paid the ultimate price for their faith” in 2024.] These militants also destroy homes, churches and livelihoods. More than 16.2 million Christians in sub-Saharan Africa, including high numbers from Nigeria, have been driven from their homes by violence and conflict. Millions now live in displacement camps. Christians living in northern Nigerian states under Sharia (Islamic law) can also face discrimination and oppression as second-class citizens. Converts from Islam often experience rejection from their own families and pressure to renounce their new faith. They often have to flee their homes for fear of being killed.

Christian carnage is so endemic to Nigeria that, only recently, on April 13, 2025—Palm Sunday—54 Christians were slaughtered following church celebrations in one village alone. And as bad as it is in Nigeria, “Sadly, more Christians were killed outside Nigeria, many in sub-Saharan Africa countries like DRC, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Niger.” The report continues.

Multiple countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have seen a rise in violence against Christians. Currently, 8 of the top 10 deadliest places for Christians are in Sub-Saharan Africa—and all of them (except Nigeria) have more faith-based killings than they did during the 2024 World Watch List reporting period.

Pakistan, #8:

Pakistan’s notorious blasphemy laws are often used to target minority groups, but Christians are disproportionately affected. Indeed, roughly a quarter of all blasphemy accusations target Christians, who make up just 1.8 per cent of the population. Blasphemy laws carry a death sentence. While this is seldom carried out, people accused of blasphemy are vulnerable to attack or murder by mobs. In June 2024, an elderly man was killed by mob violence after being accused of desecrating the Quran.… Historical churches …are heavily monitored and have been targeted for bomb attacks. The number of Christian girls (and those from other minority religions) abducted, abused and forcefully converted to Islam (frequently backed by lower courts) is growing…. All Christians suffer institutionalised discrimination. Occupations that are deemed low, dirty and degrading—such as cleaning sewers or working in brick kilns—are reserved for Christians by the authorities. Many are referred to as ‘chura’, a derogatory term meaning ‘filthy’. Christians are also vulnerable to being trapped in bonded labour.

Iran, #9:

Unrecognised converts from Islam to Christianity face severe religious freedom violations, primarily from the government and, to a lesser extent, from society and their families. The government views these converts as a threat, believing they are influenced by Western countries to undermine Islam and the regime. Both leaders and ordinary members of Christian groups are often arrested, prosecuted and given long prison sentences for ‘crimes against national security’. Recognised historical communities such as Armenian and Assyrian Christians are state-protected but treated as second-class citizens. They face many discriminatory legal provisions and are not allowed to worship in Persian or interact with Christian converts. Those who support converts can also face imprisonment.

Afghanistan, #10:

Most Afghan Christians are converts from Islam, which makes it basically impossible to practise their faith openly. In Afghanistan, leaving… and conversion is punishable by death under Islamic law. This has been increasingly enforced since the Taliban took control of the country in 2021. If converts are discovered, the family, clan or tribe may try to preserve its ‘honour’ and deal with the convert through pressure, violence or even murder. If a convert’s faith is discovered by the government, many Afghan believers have no other option but to try to flee. Women and ethnic minorities experience additional oppression. Christians among these groups live under unthinkable pressure.

Saudi Arabia, #12:

It’s very risky to become a Christian in Saudi Arabia. Not only is it illegal to leave the Islamic faith, new believers will face intense opposition from their families and communities as well…. Because of this, most Saudi Christians tend to follow their faith quietly and secretly. This extends as far as not even telling their own spouse or children about their faith, for fear that extended family members or school staff could discover that they have left Islam. There are no legal church buildings or meetings…. The majority of the Christians living in Saudi Arabia are temporary workers from other countries. They are forbidden from sharing their faith with local Saudis, and gathering for worship is restricted. Breaking these rules can get them detained and deported.

Notably, the nine “extreme” persecuting Muslim nations listed above are different in many respects—racially, socially, economically, and governmentally: some are rich (Saudi Arabia), while others are unimaginably poor (Somalia); some are advanced (Iran), while others are far from it (Yemen); they are represented by a variety of governments (republics, monarchies, theocracies); and various different races are represented—Arabs, sub-Saharan Africans, Pakistanis, Persians, and Afghans. The only commonality they all share, the common denominator, is Islam.

The variety grows when looking at the full list of 50 nations, which also includes Sinic and Turkic nations—such as Maldives (#16), Uzbekistan (#25), Turkey (#45), and Brunei (#48)—all of which share little in common other than Islam. Kyrgyzstan, which has not made the top 50 list since 2013, made a dramatic return at #47:

There was a sharp increase in violence against the church, many registered churches and Christian institutions were forced to close, and pressure on Christians increased in almost all spheres of life.

Beyond the Muslim world, however, hostility for Christianity has, in fact, become pandemic. As the report notes:

Several countries on the World Watch List saw an increase in anti-Christian violence. While the contexts were different, either tightly controlled autocratic states, or countries that are unstable due to weak government or civil war, the result was the same: targeting of Christian communities, destruction of lives, homes and churches, and immense pressure on believers.

A rise in Hindu nationalism has made India (#11) a hotbed of persecution:

In India, Hindu extremists view all Christians as outsiders and aim to cleanse the nation of Islam and Christianity, often using extensive violence. This hostility is often driven by Hindutva, an ongoing Hindu nationalist belief among some extremists that Indians ought to be Hindu—and no other faith will be tolerated. This mindset has led to violent attacks across the country and impunity for the people who hold these beliefs, especially where the authorities are also Hindu hardliners. In such places, Christians who attend house churches risk attack by extremist mobs who target services. Additionally, 12 states have passed anti-conversion laws, which threaten religious freedom for individual believers.

Even in Buddhist Myanmar (#13), the last nation to make the top 13 offenders, Christians experience “extreme” levels of persecution:

Since the military coup in February 2021, Christians have encountered greater violence and tighter restrictions. Believers have been killed and churches have been indiscriminately attacked. This includes those in predominantly Christian states…. More Christians than ever have been driven out of their homes and have found refuge in churches or displacement camps. Some are even forced to flee to the jungle where they are often deprived of access to food and health care. Government forces have continued to disproportionately attack Christian villages and churches. They have also killed Christian aid workers and pastors, often in aerial attacks. Beyond the conflict, converts to Christianity find themselves persecuted by their Buddhist, Muslim or tribal families and communities because they have left their former faith. Communities who aim to stay ‘Buddhist only’ make life impossible for Christian families.

Even in nations that would appear to be friendly or at least neutral to Christianity, such as Cuba, Nicaragua, and Mexico, Christians are being abused for their faith, by a variety of actors and for a variety of reasons.

In communist Cuba, #26:

Church leaders and Christian activists who criticise the regime can face interrogation, arrest and imprisonment. They also suffer smear campaigns, travel restrictions, and harassment (which can include physical violence and damage to church buildings).

Although not communist, in Nicaragua, #30:

Hostility toward Christians continues to intensify: those who speak out against President Ortega and his government are viewed as destabilising agents. …Christian leaders have been harassed and arrested, Christian properties seized, Christian schools, TV stations and charities closed, and churches monitored and intimidated.

In Mexico (#31), drug cartels target Christians, especially if they speak out against their activities or try to lead the youth away from them; in southern Mexico, especially “in some Indigenous communities, those who decide to leave ancestral and traditional beliefs to follow Jesus face ostracism, fines, incarceration and forced displacement.”

Perhaps the most disturbing trend is that the persecution of Christians continues to grow every year, and has nearly doubled since 1993, when the WWL was first issued. Then, only 40 nations scored high enough to warrant sufficient tracking. Today, nearly double that number qualify, though the list only ranks the top 50.

How long before this ongoing trend metastasizes into even those Western nations once hailed for their religious liberties?

The article was originally published by the Gatestone Institute. Reproduced with permission.

Islam may be history’s most prolific vehicle for cognitive disruption, as Muhammad’s followers only ever went forth to nations outside the Arabian Peninsula to plunder their wealth and force them to submit—yet we are obliged to refer to Islam as a “religion of peace.”

Nick Fuentes has built a digital empire around irony, extremism, and racial nationalism. But there’s nothing ironic about what he means when he says “America First.” It’s not just a slogan—it’s a brand he’s tried to monetize, and a banner he raises while praising Adolf Hitler as “cool” and misunderstood like Vladimir Putin.

This isn’t a distortion of the phrase. It’s a return to form.

When “America First” first entered public consciousness in the late 1930s and early 1940s, it wasn’t a cry for unity or protection. It was a shield for isolationism, anti-Semitism, and fascist apologism. The original America First Committee (AFC), founded in 1940 by Yale students (yes, Yale) and backed by prominent businessmen and public figures, gained a following of over 800,000 members before it was disbanded in 1941—four days after Pearl Harbor (the same day, incidentally, that Hitler declared war against the U.S.).

Among its most famous spokesmen was Charles Lindbergh. In a now-infamous September 11, 1941, speech, Lindbergh said: “The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish, and the Roosevelt administration.”

He warned of Jewish influence in Hollywood, finance, and foreign policy, and accused Jews of dragging America into a war that wasn’t ours to fight. At the time, many mainstream voices condemned Lindbergh’s remarks as anti-Semitic and un-American. But they also revealed the true undercurrents of what “America First” meant to many of its adherents.

This story sounds eerily familiar

Fast-forward 80 years, and a new class of influencers has resurrected the phrase with eerily similar undertones. They use different memes, but the message rhymes: keep the borders closed, trust no outsider, blame the Jews when convenient.

Fuentes is just the most explicit. Others hide it in post-ironic punchlines, white Christian nationalism, and shallow contrarianism masquerading as bravery or “just asking questions.”

What binds them together isn’t strategy. It’s scapegoating.

“America First” then + now: a pattern of exclusion

Why it still matters

When Jewish Americans see “America First” trending again, it’s not paranoia to raise a red flag. History has shown us that when this phrase gets popular, it’s rarely because of actual patriotism. It’s because someone is looking for someone else to blame.

They blamed us then. Some are blaming us now.

How do we defeat it?

You don’t defeat fascism with think pieces or TED Talks. You defeat it with fortitude, clarity, and better memes. With American flags in one hand and tefillin in the other. You do it by being exactly what makes them nervous: loud, proud, sharp, trained, and unashamedly Jewish and American.

You mock their aesthetic. You remix their talking points. You flood the timeline with images of Jews lifting Torah and dumbbells in the same breath while lecturing everyone on the greatness of Ted Williams and Frederick Douglass. You put Jewish dads in plate carriers and young Jews like Shabbos Kestenbaum on debate stages. You remember that every gaslighting post and “red-pill” thread is a paper tiger compared to a people who have outlived empires.

As I wrote in “The Jewish-American Birthright”: being Jewish in America isn’t a compromise. It’s a power-up. And that power doesn’t come from being accepted. It comes from being undeniable.

You don’t fight hate by playing defense. 

You fight it by owning the damn court.

So, the next time someone like the Hodge Twins call you a “damned Jew” while pivoting to the screed of “America First,” smile. And ask them which version? The version of “America First” predicated on ignorance, hate, and believing literally anything you read on the Internet? Or the version of American values first, predicated on freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and personal responsibility?

Because putting American values first does not need anybody’s permission. It just needs a basic understanding of what it means to be American. Something about which the “America First” cadre doesn’t know the first thing.

We’re taking back our country, America, because we—the Jews to whom George Washington sent letters to all the way back in 1790—are as American as apple pie and baseball.If we are going to be Americans—proud, strong, bold—we better learn the full story of who’s been claiming that label. Because, if we don’t name the pattern, they’ll keep naming us.

The division of American politics into two camps of political thought that are opposed to meaningful dialogue is not just unpatriotic, but a precursor to tyranny.

Tucker’s shift into woke identity politics is neither a reaction to losing his throne at Fox nor a clever business ploy but an unveiling of sorts—a Kafkaesque metamorphosis into Tucker’s true self.

As a young man, I was invited to dinner at the home of a senior professor at a respected liberal arts college. A man of conservative views and polished manners, he was cordial and witty. After dinner, he took me into his well-appointed library filled with the volumes that represented glories of Western art and literature from several hundred years. He sat me down for a serious conversation about culture—or, perhaps better put, Culture. Here were the plays of Racine, the Memoirs of General Lafayette, essays by Jacques Barzun, tomes on art history, and gilded 19th century editions of classic works.

The professor was European by birth, spoke a variety of languages, and was well published in history and literature. But, as he warmed to conversation, he suddenly became confidential. This started with questions about how I, as an anthropologist, could explain the fall of once flourishing nations and empires. They really were just the precipice from which he was about to launch his own explanation:

Because of the Jews. It was the Jews who ruined Spain in revenge for Ferdinand and Isabella expelling them in 1492. Contrariwise, England rose to its status as a world power because Cromwell in 1655 readmitted Jews after a 400-year ban. The Jews everywhere pulled the strings, punishing their persecutors and rewarding their benefactors. But even the benefactors eventually suffered from Jewish duplicity.   

I listened, in astonishment for more than an hour of this before excusing myself. It was the first time I encountered such a frank—and highly intellectualized—expression of anti-Semitism. And, for many years, it stood out to me as a singular experience. 

In the 1950s, William F. Buckley, Jr. rose to prominence in a newly refurbished conservative movement. One of his most important steps was to expel the anti-Semitic conservatives, which is why my conversation with the professor in his library struck me as a strange aberration. Late in his life, Buckley drew the same line again when he rebuked Patrick Buchanan for calling American Jews a “fifth column” for Israel and other such Jew-baiting pronouncements.

That was then. Today, the conservative movement has become a tree with many branches. There is no Buckley figure ready to saw off the diseased limbs. So, we find ourselves with figures such as Tucker Carlson, who currently inhabits a space similar to Buchanan’s. Five or six years ago, Carlson was best known for his Fox News show, where he opposed the Black Lives Matter movement, criticized U.S. interventions abroad, and supported Trump. He was seen as a mainstream conservative, at least by other conservatives, and as an “extreme right-wing figure” by the left-wing press. But he was not seen as anti-Semitic by either group. What changed this, cementing his new reputation as an anti-Semite, was his two-hour interview on September 2, 2024, with Daryl Cooper, a Hitler apologist and Holocaust revisionist. Carlson was unctuously complimentary to Cooper, calling him “the most important popular historian working in the United States today.” Cooper, in fact, is an amateur history writer and podcaster who indulges in strange theories and has never published a book.

Carlson, led by his eagerness to take up contrarian ideas, has waded into the swamp of pseudo-history and pernicious representations that is the vestibule of full-blown anti-Semitism. He has been hanging out there at least since his October 6, 2022, interview with Kanye (“Ye”) West.  The performer indulged in some outlandish fantasies to the effect that:

Black people are the descendants of ancient Israelites and are therefore the true Jews. But the Jews that everyone else calls Jews are a manipulative lot who seek unlimited power and money.

Carlson cut much of West’s unhinged rant from the interview broadcast, but the rant soon found its way into circulation. The Washington Post commented that Carlson sought to present “a very specific version of Ye to his viewers, a Ye that mirrored Carlson’s rhetoric on race and politics and didn’t go much further.” 

Carlson responded to the ensuing controversy by inviting Candace Owens to his show to discuss the “White Lives Matter” shirts that both West and she wear. As Philip Bump put it in The Washington Post:  

[Carlson] wants his viewers to hear that their sense of victimization is valid and that Black Lives Matter is about their own subjugation, not the systemic constraints of race. He wants to present Candace Owens and Ye, Black celebrities, as the faces of such messages.

Somehow, one step led to another. Beginning as an opponent of unrestricted immigration and national policies, by 2024, Carlson was criticizing Israel’s actions against Hamas and attacking Christians who supported Israel’s actions in Gaza. In addition, he disparages American aid to Israel and apparently attributes no value to the vast intelligence and technological partnerships that the United States gains from its relationship with Israel.

Perhaps Carlson’s worst obvious offence is giving a platform to figures such as Cooper, West, and Owens. The most damning thing about Carlson’s verbal maneuvers is that they map out a space where anti-Semitism can flourish, seen but unseen, hidden in the pronouncements of evident cranks.

Candace Owens may be the most problematic of anti-Semitic cranks. Pastor Dumisani Washington, the Founder and CEO of the Institute for Black Solidarity with Israel (IBSI), addressed the dangerous impact of Owens’ public anti-Semitism last year in a JNS Top Story interview with Jonathan Tobin:

The danger of someone like a Candace Owens, who has such a large following, who is not careful with her words, who has not disavowed things like her friend Kanye West, what it does is that it normalizes more and more that type of Jew-hatred, especially coming now again from the right and coming from self-proclaimed Christians. 

On March 22, 2024, CNN ran Oliver Darcy’s hard-hitting headline, “Ben Shapiro’s The Daily Wire severs ties with Candace Owens after her embrace of antisemitic rhetoric.” Darcy pointed out that: 

Since the 10/7 Hamas terror attack on Israel, Owens has repeatedly waded into antisemitic waters as she fiercely criticized Israel, suggesting the Jewish government was committing “genocide” in Gaza and claiming there is a sinister “small ring” of Jewish people in Hollywood and Washington, DC involved in something “quite sinister.” 

Tucker Carlson continues to praise his friend Candace Owens as one of the kindest persons he knows.

A similar double game appears in Joe Rogan’s podcasts. Rogan was a professional comedian and actor before turning, in 2009, to his hugely successful venture of long-form interviewing. Like Carlson, he chose to interview an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, Ian Carroll, who seems to be known only for promoting absurdities. On Rogan’s podcast, Carroll argued that “the Jews did 9/11” and he explained to Rogan that Jeffrey Epstein was a Mossad agent whose mission was to trap prominent Americans in blackmail-ready deeds.

Because Rogan gets about 14 million monthly listeners, it behooves us to know what they are hearing. Anti-Semitism isn’t a ubiquitous feature of Rogan’s commentary, but it isn’t hard to find either. Most notoriously, he defended Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s characterization of Jews, “It’s all about the Benjamins,” by declaring:

That’s not an anti-Semitic statement; I don’t think that is. Benjamins are money. The idea that Jewish people are not into money is ridiculous. That’s like saying Italians aren’t into pizza, It’s f*cking stupid. It’s f*cking stupid. 

Rogan played to the age-old stereotype of Jews as exceptionally greedy, unprincipled, and materialistic, and he normalized this as just commonsense. This isn’t the anti-Semitism of the professor, or the cultural critic. It is rough-and-tumble street talk projected on a truly mass scale.

Nor were the Carroll and Omar episodes the whole of Rogan’s flirtation with anti-Semitism. He hosted a series of figures who attacked Israel’s conduct in its war with Hamas. On April 10, 2025, Rogan hosted both Dave Smith, a harsh critic of Israel, and the British commentator Douglas Murray who supports Israel. Murray lit into Smith for pronouncing opinions uninformed by any personal observation of the facts, and also confronted Rogan for allowing his enormous media platform to tilt in favor of people like Smith, who opined about a complex situation from a position of ignorance. Murray was in turn attacked by Rogan supporters who found his views “elitist”—a verdict Rogan endorsed. In effect, Rogan took a stand that confused willful ignorance with authenticity, and distanced himself from basic standards of truthful journalism on the grounds that “old media” are irrelevant to his audience. Apparently, actually knowing things about Israel or Jews disqualifies an observer as disconnected from “real” people.

Carlson and Rogan are well-known media figures. If one goes searching for anti-Semitism on the political right, the path gets slippery and the figures stranger. One figure who stands out as especially bizarre is Nick Fuentes. He actively promotes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, denies the Holocaust, and seeks a “holy war” against the Jews—and has assembled a cult following who call themselves the “Groypers” or the “Groyper Army.” The name refers to a green cartoon toad that the movement uses as an insignia. The movement is usually characterized as “alt-right” and it bundles anti-Semitism together with other fringe causes. Fuentes is a self-proclaimed “incel” who calls on young men to avoid heterosexual relations. He presents himself as a “Christian nationalist” and a “white nationalist” who favors an “integralist” approach that would impose the Catholic faith on all aspects of society. And he is the leader of an organization called the America First Political Action Conference (AFAPC).

It can be a bit difficult to say what AFAPC stands for, as its agenda shifts with Fuentes’ fluid crazes, but the Anti-Defamation League offers this summary:

Fuentes and his America First adherents vocally support the closure of the U.S. borders to immigrants, while opposing “liberal” values such as feminism and LGBTQ+ rights. Fuentes views these societal changes as the “bastardized Jewish subversion of the American creed.”

Fuentes tries hard to gain traction among other conservatives by attending mainstream events and inviting prominent figures to attend his own events. He also picks fights with public figures such as Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, for failing to espouse his particular causes.

A clever opportunist, Fuentes has found a political and social niche by appealing to lonely, alienated young men by giving them an imaginary world in which they can feel powerful and united to a cause—berating anyone Fuentes designates as an enemy of the Groypers. This movement of social misfits would be easy to set aside as merely sad, but doing so would underestimate both the damage the movement inflicts on young men and the currency it gives to virulent anti-Semitism.   

Fuentes has found that anti-Semitism plays well for him. At a 2024 event in Detroit, according to The Intercept, he warmed up the crowd with the declaration, “‘Everybody’s making a hard turn for ‘Fuck off, Jew.’ It’s a hard right turn.” The crowd ate it up, chanting back ‘Fuck off Jew, fuck off Jew [sic].” Fuentes shook his head, grinning. “No, but that’s only a joke!” He went on to explain that his real goal is a version of “America First” that demonizes Israel.

Despite their boldness, Fuentes and his crew have since then come under withering criticism. Substack essayist Christopher Brunet posted a “33,000-word exposé” that: 

draws on leaks, public records, and interviews with ex-girlfriends, ex-employees, streamers, FBI informants, catboys, police chiefs, and a Catholic priest, to uncover 50 interconnected Groyper scandals ranging from grooming, child pornography, revenge pornography, and pedophilia to swatting, doxxing, drug trafficking, crypto scams, tax fraud, rape, brainwashing, mental illness, mass shootings, election interference, foreign interference, and domestic terrorism. 

Verdict: Fuentes is a menace, albeit not likely one who will grow much beyond the nasty alcoves of the Internet where he currently resides.

Another figure in the world of “social influencers” who dislikes and degrades women, attracts a cult following of confused young men, and has found a place in his repertoire of crudities for anti-Semitism, is the British-American kickboxer Andrew Tate. He appeals to much the same audience as Fuentes, but on a vastly larger scale. He is said to have some 10 million followers. (The number of Fuentes’s followers is obscure but perhaps resides in the range of a few tens of thousands.) Whereas the part-Mexican Fuentes parades as a white supremacist, the bi-racial Tate focuses most of his rhetorical fury on women. He is an apostle of rape—and a practitioner. In Romania, he is under several criminal investigations, including human trafficking, trafficking of minors, rape, and sexual intercourse with a minor. In the United Kingdom, Tate is facing charges of sex crimes and sexual misconduct.

How this led him to anti-Semitism is unclear. In October of 2022, Tate claimed to have converted to Islam. After October 7, 2023, Tate came out as a supporter of Hamas, especially its “masculine spirit of resistance.” He also expressed his doubts about the Holocaust: “If they lied to us about Gaza and Israel… Do you think they lied about [the Second World War]?”

Calling Tate a “conservative” stretches beyond my bounds of how that word should be defined, but he plainly belongs to the universe of the “alt-right.” Or perhaps better, the alt-alt-right. The alt-right itself focuses on white identity, but, in a looser sense, it is a cluster of extremist beliefs centered on group identity and rejecting traditional standards of law and morality. The alt-right has no use for the concepts of ordered liberty and respect for the rights of others. Tate’s alt-alt-right carries this to an outright embrace of barbarian sensibility. Fuentes and Tate exist in a world far from mainstream conservatism but not all that far from figures who have a more mainstream presence.

The public figure who most reminds me of the professor in his book-lined study some fifty years ago is Ron Unz. Unz is a wealthy technology entrepreneur, a one-time candidate for governor of California, former editor of The American Conservative (2007–2013), and current publisher of The Unz Review. While born to a Ukrainian family of Jewish descent, he is as ardent a supporter of anti-Semitic causes as can be found anywhere in American arts and letters short of Kanye West.

Not surprisingly, Ron Unz is a Holocaust denier. As reported by MEMRI:  

American writer Ron Unz said in an interview aired on Channel 4 (Iran) on January 18, 2023, that “Holocaust worship,” which he said is also known as “Holocaustianity,” has replaced traditional religion in American society. He said that “Jewish-dominated” Hollywood is partly responsible for this, and when asked by show host Arash Darya-Bandari (also known as Blake Archer Williams) about how many Jews “actually” died in the Holocaust, Unz replied that the number was no more than a “couple hundred thousand.” He also said that once the American people start to doubt the Holocaust, they will start to doubt other things that were “suppressed” by the media, such as the JFK assassination or the events of 9/11.

Unz is a ready publisher of the view that Israel orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, and a proponent of such views himself:

The vast weight of the evidence clearly points in a single direction, implicating Israel and its Mossad intelligence service, with the case being overwhelmingly strong in motive, means, and opportunity.

He also denies the mass murders committed by Hamas in Israel, suggesting instead:

As few as 100-200 unarmed Israeli civilians may have been killed by the Hamas fighters, in many cases inadvertently, while all the rest died at the hands of Israel’s own trigger-happy military.

In his view, Orthodox Judaism takes the position that “Jewish lives have infinite value, and non-Jewish ones none at all, which has obvious policy implications.”

Unz is a prolific writer on topics other than Judaism, but his pronouncements on Judaism are especially bitter and very frequent. I suppose the most important points are that he writes well, he controls his own well-financed press, and has gathered a stable of other quite capable anti-Semitic writers to amplify his themes. He lacks the mass audiences of Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan and the cult followings of Nick Fuentes and Andrew Tate. He lacks the weird appeal of goofball politicians such as Ilhan Omar and Marjorie Taylor Greene. But he brings something far more insidious: a cogent form of anti-Semitism that presents itself as the product of reason and skeptical examination of the evidence.

Only someone willing to go deep into the details can mount the arguments needed to refute Unz’s rationalistic anti-Semitism, which he presents as a defense of Western civilization. Though his audience may be relatively small, I would not want to underestimate the power of his narratives to seduce intellectuals and academics. Some of what he writes is framed as faux sympathy for the Jewish people:

European Jews have been prone to paranoia, perhaps the inevitable outcome of having spent more than a thousand years living as small, often highly exploitative minorities among generally hostile host populations.

These sorts of deeply-rooted paranoid tendencies can quietly simmer beneath the surface, then suddenly erupt into uncontrollable spasms of terror and rage, ignited by a large or small spark. Many of these agitated individuals may be completely unaware of the true facts of the situation that had provoked them, let alone the underlying historical circumstances.

This becomes, in the course of six further paragraphs, a full-on attack on Zionism:  

And given their apparently wholehearted support for Israel and the cause of Zionism, I think that’s a good place to start.

It is an absolutely undeniable historical reality that without the crucial patronage of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany, the Zionist enterprise probably would have failed. The Nazi-Zionist economic partnership of the 1930s was vital for Israel’s creation, and even after World War II began, one of the smaller right-wing Zionist factions led by a future prime minister of Israel repeatedly sought to enlist in the Axis Powers, seeking to join the military alliance led by Hitler and Mussolini. 

This is the anti-Semitism that has taken root in in some quarters of American conservatism that are perfectly content with the left’s pro-Palestinian symphony of Jew-hatred.

Anti-Semitism in present-day America is largely an enterprise of the radical left and is conjoined with its hatred of the West. But the right has its own anti-Semites, and they shape their hatred to fit a variety of psychological and moral frailties.

Anti-Semitism is a social pathology that takes many forms and has been subject to a great deal of analysis. Robert Spencer’s recent Antisemitism: History and Myth offers the latest overview of “the world’s longest hatred.” My concern in this essay has been to put only a small piece of it on the table for inspection, but even that small piece shows considerable variety. There is the anti-Semitism of the professor and the anti-Semitism of professional entertainers, pundits, politicians, and ideologues, all of whom claim some kind of identity as conservatives. The common thread, if there is one, is their need for scapegoats. Jews are often more a target of convenience: a category on whom it is “safe” to project fury. Certainly, that seems to be the case with the legions of “anti-Zionist” college students post-October 7. The mere thrill of being part of a mass movement that revels in self-righteous hatred of the “other” is enough to turn blithely ignorant undergraduates into a violent mob. All these other forms of anti-Semitism are mere tributaries, since the fury of these mobs is more directly a leftist efflorescence.

Most American conservatives recognize Israel as a vital ally of the United States and would never think of abandoning it. But it is important to realize that anti-Semitism is a seed that can take root almost anywhere. Parts of the contemporary conservative world in the U.S. have proved fertile soil for it.

A version of this article was first published at Doc Emet Productions’ blog section. Reproduced with permission.

I. Politics and Power

In state theory, a revisionist country is one that seeks to change the status quo balance of power between nations. In the context of the international system, to revise is not to ponder or to ask questions, but to alter power relations.

What power is Tucker Carlson trying to revise?

When, in 2023, Carlson decided to host on his show a toothless former crackhead and convicted con artist who told unverifiable stories about having sex with Barack Obama, that was not a case of “following the leads” or considering alternative history. It was a political statement. Carlson’s interview took place the month after Tablet published a blockbuster interview with Obama biographer David Garrow that exposed, as one detail in a lengthy exposé, Obama’s confession in a letter to a college girlfriend that he had recurring fantasies of sex with men. A national media cycle ensued and, at that point, Carlson jumped in.

The Tablet interview, like the biography that inspired it, was revisionist. It revised the standard account of Obama’s character and motivations in a way that challenged the reigning state ideology and its leader’s control over the Democratic Party. Carlson, however, chose not to interview the Pulitzer-winning biographer Garrow or the journalist, David Samuels, who had done the work that put Obama back in the news. Instead, he gave a national audience to an unreliable and easy-to-dismiss ex-crackhead whose three-decade-long rap sheet is littered with crimes of deception like fraud and forgery. The lurid stories of drugs and gay sex aired on Carlson’s show were not flattering to Obama, but they merely insulted the former president; they did not challenge Obama’s power.

It is an obvious lie that Carlson’s decision to promote a revisionist podcaster’s claim that Winston Churchill is the chief villain of the Second World War has anything to do with “history” or “free speech.” Carlson did not rise to become the most popular media personality in the U.S. by engaging in scholarly inquiries or by remaining oblivious to the political implications of his own segments.

So what was the point?

One theory holds that Carlson aired the show so close to the presidential election because he wants Donald Trump to lose and expected to cause a scandal that would hurt his campaign. This may overstate the case. Rather than trying to sabotage Trump (and certainly there are more effective ways if that was the intention) it’s more likely that Carlson, the most influential Trump-aligned media figure in the country, was trying to establish a new normative politics for the Trumpist movement.

If Trump were to win, Carlson would have made it so the White House would be intimately connected with someone who advocates greater sensitivity to the German cause in WWII. Having placed Trump and his associates in a compromising position—condemn him now and make him a martyr or refuse to do so and signal tacit acceptance—Carlson would gain leverage to pursue other goals and a unilateral power to dictate what is acceptable within Trumpist politics. If, on the other hand, Trump were to lose, then Carlson’s “brave” willingness to reject the sinister post-war consensus and “ask questions” would set him up as a successor and voice of the true, suppressed MAGA movement.

This is not so far-fetched in light of the private texts Carlson sent disparaging Trump in the months around the 2020 election that were later made public in the lawsuit against Fox. For instance, these are the messages Carlson texted to his staff on January 4, 2021:

• We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights. I truly can’t wait.
• I hate him passionately.

“No,” say people who know Carlson, “he is not so calculating as all that.” And they offer an alternative explanation for his revisionist turn. They say that, at heart, Carlson is still a prep school kid and a dilettante. He chases new ideas and attitudes and then gets bored and moves on. These very qualities made him stand out as a magazine journalist with a flair for profiles of rogues. But something changed after Carlson was fired by Fox. His impishness and lack of discipline, which once seemed inseparable from his willingness to challenge the establishment, became more erratic and embittered. With new funding sources backing him, the independent Carlson’s revamped show on X left one media ecosystem but entered another, where it focused on new villains—villains he avoided naming but began to circle. In this view, Carlson is not a calculating Machiavellian plotting against Trump by promoting cryptofascist memes. He’s only following his undisciplined instincts and that latest thing to catch his attention. In which sense, it might be true to say that Carlson is just having conversations. Freed from the restrictions imposed by a corporate boss, his conversational instinct is to keep insinuating that there is an arch-villain behind every evil, one who he is too coy or too cowardly to name.

Perhaps both versions contain elements of truth. What is glaringly obvious is that none of the relevant interview has anything to do with the subjects it is supposed to concern, such as “history,” “censorship,” “freedom of speech,” and “Winston Churchill.” To pretend that what is going on here is an “historical debate about WW2” is to prop up a fiction on a level with other obvious and destructive lies such as: Joe Biden was running the U.S. government during his presidency.

It follows, unfortunately, that the well-intentioned efforts to correct the historical record by debunking the revisionist claims risk reifying the political aim of the phony debate. No one who needs to be convinced that Churchill was not worse than Hitler will be swayed by a recitation of historical evidence.

As part of their charade, Carlson and his guest, whom he introduced as “the most important popular historian in the United States,” discussed the Weimar period in Germany as if it were a forbidden subject. One of the great books on the period is Walter Laqueur’s Weimar: A Cultural History. Laqueur describes a culture on the inter-war German right that was unmoored and undisciplined. Beset by defeat, humiliation, rapid social and economic change, the Weimar right turned against reality by spurning primary distinctions. This made it prone to indulging blatant fraud and chicanery, which it confused for wisdom and bravery. It was “fragmented,” Laqueur writes, by “right-wing sectarians [who] were profoundly convinced, like some sixteenth century alchemists or astrologers, that they had discovered the philosopher’s stone.”

Carlson’s revisionist has also unearthed that philosopher’s stone that explains all things. It can be distilled to a simple formula: The Nazis were not so bad and the Zionists are the real Nazis. Contained within this meme, an entire implicit worldview can be gleaned. For instance, why do decent Western people believe the absurd Churchill fairytale and accept the wicked slander about Germany’s guilt in WWII? Because they have been tricked into believing it by The Zionists. And look! When you peel things back, it was the Zionists who started the war in the first place by financing Churchill. See how it all fits together?

What was the point of this in relation to the American political scene in 2024?

It appears that Carlson wanted to revise Trumpism, a movement over which he exerts real influence, by turning his followers against those members of the Trumpist coalition, Jewish and Christian alike, who support the designated enemy, “Zionism.” It must infuriate Carlson and his revisionist guest that Donald Trump himself continues to uphold the will of the majority of Republican voters—for now still the majority of American citizens—by supporting the nation of Israel. I suspect they believe that Trump, like the mass of his followers, is suffering from a kind of false consciousness that causes him to misunderstand his own movement. True Trumpism will repudiate Israel. No one is saying that Israel has to be destroyed; it will be enough for now to see the Zionists humbled. To make America great, it is necessary to sever the “Judeo-Christian” tentacles and their hold over Western historical consciousness and American foreign policy.

But the American right that wants to revise the U.S.-Israel relationship is in deep denial. It cannot confront the fact that its real challenge comes not from the “Israel lobby” (which, despite its legendary omnipotence, couldn’t even shut down campus protests) but from American voters. Unlike the “based” intelligentsia trying to educate them, Trump supporters in particular remain attached to the broad concept of a Judeo-Christian heritage with all its implications for Jewish-Christian relations, the moral lessons of the Second World War, and the state of Israel.

Do normal American voters care about the Churchill revisionism debate? No, and neither Carlson’s interview nor anything his revisionist guest said had any effect on the popular vote, but that was not their aim. Carlson is not appealing to the reason and common sense of voters by making an argument about the U.S.-Israel relationship. Rather, he is engaging in a more modern form of mass persuasion by repeatedly airing certain memes so that they can ramify through public discourse, and, by propping up characters like Candace—“I would stake my entire professional reputation on the fact that Brigitte Macron is in fact a man”—Owens.

The revisionist exercise of power avoids direct argumentation in favor of coy innuendo, emotional narrative, and in-group messaging. It introduces memes—Zionist financiers—to activate ideological cadres and digital swarms while also making gestures of reasonableness (not all Zionist financiers) that they know will have no effect on the swarm but provide the revisionists with a way to deny the obvious meaning of their own actions. The swarm is not a bloc of voters, it is the ultimate pressure group. It harasses and terrorizes both normal people and powerful decision makers who are equally susceptible to its tactics, in an effort to impose, by digital force, a new consensus.

The current status quo balance of power within the Trumpist coalition is surprisingly broad and inclusive. Whatever one thinks of Trump, his support has risen among minority voters who are defecting to his Republican Party in record numbers. Many analysts correctly predicted historically high levels of Jewish support for the GOP candidate in the 2024 election.

Odd, then, that, at the very moment when Trumpism becomes the new home of a broad civic American party, there should be the rise of a highly visible campaign of demonization against American Jews. A number of the leading figures in this campaign—the European atheist pimp reborn as a Muslim America-first spokesman and other wild-eyed charlatans—have been guests on Carlson’s show. Their attacks on “Zionism” and “Frankism” also got louder the closer we got to the election.

Carlson’s revision follows the strategic model of the Obama-era Democratic Party. It aims to make Trumpism more fragmented and sectarian. The Democratic Party-state pioneered the imposition of purity tests on its members. A Jew who wishes to also be a “good Democrat” finds his or her provisional acceptance in the party conditioned on first disavowing Zionism. The revisionist right, visibly frustrated by Trumpism’s refusal to accept the Obamaite view of Israel as the main obstacle to world peace, now seeks to import this model.

Some revisionists may believe their memes about Zionist financiers and Jewish domination are mere instruments to achieve particular goals. Perhaps they see no other way to reform U.S. policy. It doesn’t matter. Sectarianism, as I wrote in another context in 2017, has a logic of its own:

Once you condone and normalize forms of collective guilt and racial original sin you can’t keep them from spreading. It doesn’t matter how many graduate seminars you hold, how many diversity consultants you hire, how many “dear white men” explainers you roll out. It doesn’t even matter if you don’t really mean it and you’re only denouncing those white cis males because it’s a form of social currency among your rich white friends. Once you start to traffic in blood myths you can’t keep them quarantined and they will poison your multiethnic democracy. 

II. History

A number of smart and reasonable people have rallied to support the revisionist podcaster who appeared on Carlson’s show. They insist that he is being smeared and that a fuller accounting of his output reveals an intelligent and sensitive mind. 

One popular defense holds that, despite the glaring moral symmetry between the revisionist’s charity toward Hitler’s forces and his dogmatic hostility to the Israeli army, and despite his repeated public attacks on Jews as demonic, if one only listened to his lengthy podcasts, his enlightened attitude would become so apparent as to invalidate any notion that he is motivated by crass prejudice.

Here the revisionist’s defenders are making a category error that conflates the performance of emotional affect with principles and beliefs. They are enacting what Alasdair MacIntyre describes in After Virtue as the “emotivist” bias of the modern world, which elevates feeling over truth and confuses the subjective feeling of experience with reality. There is no reason to doubt that the revisionist is a talented storyteller who can give his narratives a roundedness that makes them resonant and effective. But the ability to engender sympathetic emotional responses is not the same thing as an idea, much less the truth of a given matter. Nor is general intelligence any indication of genuine historical knowledge.

The kind of person who rises in the present public arena is a skillful manipulator of feelings. This describes quite well Carlson’s revisionist guest whose public persona has been emotive to the point of being histrionic. Wielding moral suasion in a felicitous style, he has pushed a large audience into imagining arguments and knowledge where there is mostly atmospherics, ideology, and emotional blackmail. This is what makes it funny to see the revisionist’s defenders scold his critics for being intemperate. The person they are defending specializes in manipulative hyperbole.

The best account so far of the revisionist controversy was written by Matthew Walther and deals with the subject of history. While history is a subject (that is, a place), it is also a profession and a discipline that was once obliged to follow certain rules, which tended to become corrupt and self-serving but also imposed standards that kept out certain kinds of nonsense. Only now the historical profession has collapsed along with every other domain of expert knowledge. Walther writes that the Churchill controversy is

symptomatic of a larger problem: the epistemic gulf between the current consensus—however broadly defined—of practicing historians on any given subject and the attitudes of the ordinary person of general education. This holds true, as far as I can tell, across all subject areas.

The collapse, in other words, is not only professional but social and epistemic; it affects how we acquire knowledge and form the shared basis of truth. The slow accretion of historical fact in a process of claim, counterclaim, and review, which has been fundamental to the advance of Western civilization is, for the moment, dead. It cannot survive in the crosscurrents of ideological sectarianism and despair. In a word, it cannot survive the Internet.

The infinite “now” of the digital world has no patience for history. It revives a culture of orality that thrived in the Middle Ages before being wiped out by the printing press. Memes such as “the future is female”; “white tears”; “It’s okay to be white”; and “my grandmother is older than Israel” are medieval technologies impervious to print-age liberal reason. The swarms mobilized by the memes are more similar to medieval mobs than to the “masses” of the twentieth century. The culture of orality transposed into a planetary communications network leads to all-consuming propaganda war, which accurately describes the real conditions of both society and historical debate in the present moment.

A version of this article originally appeared on the author’s Substack. Reproduced with permission.

I. From Revolution to Fashion: The New Mask of Anti-Semitism

Once, it was the face of Che Guevara; now, it’s the keffiyeh scarf. The fashion of rebellion has changed costumes, but, beneath the new fabric, lies an old disease. Anti-Semitism, long thought relegated to the ash heap of history, has returned—not in jackboots, but in hashtags, lecture halls, and pop festivals.

The shift is not accidental. In recent years, anti-Semitism has been repackaged as a flavor of resistance, a badge of anti-colonial virtue. And it is being consumed eagerly—not only by the embittered, but by the entitled. By professors with tenure, by artists with grants, by students whose sense of justice has been curated by algorithms and performance activism.

Once, to be an anti-Semite required either indoctrination or hatred; today, it only requires fashion.

II. The Aestheticization of Hatred

Consider the recent Coachella festival: among the sequins and flower crowns, the keffiyeh was draped not as cultural homage, but as declaration. Not out of solidarity—but of alignment. Its wearer may not speak Arabic, may not know the difference between Hamas and hummus, but they know it “feels right.” The keffiyeh, like the Che shirt before it, has become a symbol emptied of its context and filled with performative rage. The aesthetic of resistance has triumphed over the reality of suffering.

III. Mutation of an Ancient Hatred

But, unlike the Che shirt, which gestured vaguely toward revolution, the new chic flirts with something far more ancient and malignant: the targeted hatred of Jews. To don the scarf in such moments is not merely political theatre—it is a shrug toward the unthinkable. And worse: it is an invitation to repeat it.

This new anti-Semitism is not confined to whispers in art installations or theoretical syllabi—it is shouted from podiums, projected in protests, and celebrated in digital mobs. It no longer hides; it flaunts. It does not need to burn synagogues to threaten their meaning—it can chant openly for their erasure, and be applauded.

What we are witnessing is a mutation. Anti-Semitism is no longer the stench from the past—it is the scent of the moment. It has been glossed in progressive language, swaddled in virtue signals, and given a stage by those who consider themselves too educated to hate. And yet, hatred thrives most easily where self-awareness has been traded for self-congratulation.

IV. Japan and the Global Drift into Nihilism

Even in Japan, far from the geography of this conflict, the echoes are loud. In elite university circles, students who have never met a Jew now take sides in a battle they barely comprehend. They chant slogans like “Stop the genocide, Zionists!” without knowing that Israel is the only country in the region where Jews, Muslims, Christians, and atheists vote in the same election. These students mistake borrowed grief for conviction, mistake clickbait for conscience. And their professors, many of them disillusioned former leftist activists, recycle slogans that once meant something, now rendered hollow by repetition and convenience.

This contamination of thought is not limited to one nation. Anti-Semitism is the extension of anti- humanism, anti-Enlightenment, anti-reason, and anti-Western culture. And, curiously, Japan— though not Western in origin—has long upheld many Enlightenment values: reasoned debate, civil society, scientific inquiry, constitutional democracy. It is precisely because of this philosophical kinship that the current drift is so alarming. Even here, the dark seduction of nihilism has found its way into the minds of the young and the disillusioned. Not through doctrine, but through aesthetics. Not through belief, but through boredom and frustration.

V. Slogans, Memory, and the Collapse of Moral Judgment

Orwell would not be surprised. In 1984, he warned of the way slogans overwrite memory. Today, terms like “Zionist oppressor” serve the same function as “thought criminal.” In the mouths of the fashionable, they erase complexity. They enable the celebration of violence when it aligns with the narrative of the day. The pigs have become the farmers. The scapegoats are chosen not by faith, but by trend.

VI. Cruelty as Spectacle: From Foucault to de Sade

William Golding’s Lord of the Flies offered us a psychological parable for how this happens. The boys on the island do not become savages because they are inherently evil, but because their structures of restraint dissolve; because cruelty is easier—and more thrilling—than ethics. There’s a strange kinship between “fascination” and “fascism,” and, in that echo, we find today’s enthusiasm for collective punishment. What happens to Piggy happens now to Israeli victims. The spectacle of their suffering becomes secondary to the thrill of belonging to the tribe.

Foucault—once lionized for deconstructing power—has been embraced by those who refuse to recognize power when it takes the form of rockets aimed at civilians. His relativism, divorced from ethics, has licensed a new elite: fluent in post-structuralism, blind to slaughter. What began as critique has metastasized into complicity. He gave them the tools to analyze everything—and the license to feel nothing.

Even the Marquis de Sade, whose writings reveled in cruelty as a form of aesthetic and philosophical provocation, did not claim moral superiority. He embraced transgression. But the modern inheritors of this mindset do not confess—they posture. They chant for the destruction of Israel while claiming to oppose violence. They tweet in solidarity with murderers and call it empathy. This is not nihilism in despair—it is nihilism in glitter.

VII. October 7: A Pogrom Celebrated

October 7 was not a geopolitical flashpoint. It was a pogrom. It was not resistance. It was a festival of annihilation. A spectacle of humiliation and extermination, livestreamed with glee. The worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust—and it was met not only with silence, but with applause.

VIII. The New Orgy of Ignorance

The carnival of hatred has modern DJs now. It has faculty sponsors. It has press releases. The chants of “From the river to the sea” echo not from mosques but from ivy-covered walls. Anti-Semitism, once a shadow, now wears eyeliner and curated playlists. It has a marketing strategy. It has hashtags. It trends.

What’s most horrifying is the ease with which the truth has been unmade. Videos of atrocities are dismissed as propaganda. Survivor testimony is reframed as political convenience, even deliberate disinformation. The intellectual class does not ask what happened. It asks whether the victims deserved it. Statements like “context is everything” now serve not to illuminate but to obscure. They are used to flatten the deliberate torture, mutilation, and murder of civilians into a political abstraction. As if a raped woman or a beheaded child requires footnotes. As if the obliteration of the human requires dialectics.

IX. A Reckoning, Not a Plea

But there are still those who refuse. Who do not trade their conscience for applause. Who do not dress up hatred as solidarity. Who know that the line between speech and blood is thinner than we think.

This essay is not a plea. It is a reckoning. When the keffiyeh replaced the Che shirt, we should have asked: replaced with what?

The answer, increasingly, is cruelty mistaken for conscience. And the cost is being paid—not in discourse, but in bodies.

Never again was not a metaphor. It was a warning. It was meant for now.

X. Standing against the Cult of Death

And those who remember must do more than mourn. They must stand. They must endure. They must answer cruelty not with silence, but with the fierce, unwavering defense of life itself.

Standing today does not always mean grand gestures. Sometimes, it means refusing to chant when the crowd demands it. Sometimes, it means speaking an unpopular truth in a classroom, publishing a poem others wish erased, protecting a memory others would rather see drowned.

It means teaching history faithfully when falsifiers call it a crime. It means defending complexity against slogans, and humanity against mobs. It also means recognizing that the stakes are no longer clever banter; no longer the spewing of facile opinions on superficial podcasts by comedians with their manufactured outrage.

The stakes are life and death: not merely for Israel, not merely for the Jews, but for the very possibility of civilization itself—for a world rooted in life, decency, and responsibility, against the

rising cult of death and the orgy of pleasurable ignorance.

In Tel Aviv, in Tōkyō, in Paris, in New York—wherever the thin light of civilization still flickers—standing is no longer optional. It is existential.

There is a shadow
Of the darkest shade,
Lurking in every corner

Infects my dreams,
Wails from the souls
Sitting shiva with the mourner

This is our lives
Since that Day in October,
And every day after

When instead of consolation
Or condolences,
We heard screams and laughter

Do you know who am I?
What I think?
Or give a damn?

Would you remember my name?
Mock and ignore me?
And feel no shame?

Does my existence bore you?
Annoy you?
Oh, you prefer the silent Jew?

Then you best prepare,
For volume
And judgment

One thing you’ll never grasp,
Our collective soul and
Our strength feeds off your hate

Have you noticed your reflections?
Not what you expected?
I’m just asking questions

So continue on your quest,
It’s haunted by ghosts,
Ghosts of indifference

They’ve always been there: those on the radical right who embrace Christianity—at least on the surface—and try to weaponize it into an extreme movement. They oppose globalist elites, distrust mainstream media, decry nation-building wars, seek to prioritize domestic problems rather than foreign aid, and are skeptical of traditional U.S. alliances—particularly when it comes to Europe and Israel. Many of these figures have held anti-Semitic beliefs, but certainly not all of them.

This grouping of the conservative movement, however, particularly its most radical members, was often seen as something of a fringe aberration—exaggerated by the Democratic Party to smear the MAGA (“Make America Great Again”) movement and Republicans as a whole. Yet, over the past several months, and certainly since February of 2025, something has changed with what has come to be known as the “Woke Right.” Rather than the pendulum-stopping return to common sense that many American voters desired last November, this Woke Right embraces the very grievance-based identity politics it claimed to shun from the Woke Left—posing a grave danger to our democratic republic, and Western civilization as a whole. 

The Woke Right’s main representatives are a host of people from differing professional and ideological backgrounds. Podcast hosts and political commentators such as Tucker Carlson, Darryl Cooper, Joe Rogan, the Hodge Twins, Candace Owens, and Jackson Hinkle. Comedian Dave Smith and various social media personalities can also be added to the list. But one must ask: how could such a diverse array of characters come to represent and broaden such a fringe movement? In particular, how can a former “Bernie bro” like Joe Rogan, a one-time establishment-friendly Fox News reporter like Tucker Carlson, or even a social media attention addict like Candace Owens, embody anything having to do with wokeness? Perhaps it is because some of them came from the Left, yet I think the issue runs deeper. Author Vivek Ramaswamy warned in his 2022 book Nation of Victims: Identity Politics, the Death of Merit, and the Path Back to Excellence that a certain segment of the Republican Party was subconsciously embracing woke ideology. This time, however, the perennial “victim” is not a Muslim transwoman of color, but rather straight, Christian white men. Rather than using Woke Left language, such as “my truth” or pronouns, the Woke Right is, as Owens regularly says, “just asking questions.”

Historical revisionism has become popular, too: whether through The 1619 Project or suggesting that the real villain of World War II was British Prime Minister Winston Churchill—let alone that the Holocaust occurred because the SS were “completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war.” Identity politics is another shared worldview, even if from opposing sides. Elements of the Woke Right have taken their opposition to gender ideology to an entirely new level—the rejection of equality for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Radical Christians among the Woke Right have been lambasting gay conservative activists like Dave Rubin, Douglas Murray, and Scott Presler. In place of “black lives matter” or “trust the science,” Woke Right slogans like “Christ is King” and “Deus vult” are used to virtue-signal and harass Jews, liberals, or anyone else seen as an enemy. Rather than being an expression of faith, such people weaponize these words to rally the gang, using these words almost as a tribal chant.

As is the case with the Woke Left, foreign policy is perhaps an oversized concern among the Woke Right. The evildoers for adherents of wokeness on both sides of the political aisle are, of course, “Western imperialism”—specifically NATO, which, according to this narrative, egged on Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Another shared feature is an aversion to foreign entanglements and free trade policies embraced by both major political parties for decades. Increasingly, the Jews and the State of Israel are also somehow blamed for the world’s problems. To avert World War Three, both far-left groups like Code Pink and pro-Putin talking heads like Tucker Carlson suggest that Volodymyr Zelenskyy must receive no American support of any kind. The alternative is the threat of nuclear war.

 That the Woke Left would adopt such viewpoints is no surprise—a good section of them are communists nostalgic for the days of Soviet power “resisting” capitalism. Yet it is truly mind-boggling that anyone on the right would support Russia. Ukraine consists of various groups, yes, but it also is a strongly Christian and relatively conservative society. For all the legitimate arguments about Ukrainian corruption, the Kremlin is infinitely more so. Moscow’s constant nuclear threats during the war—none of which have materialized—are still somehow seen as credible, despite the West’s own nuclear deterrence. Russia’s numerous military failures and catastrophic losses on the battlefield are discounted in favor of a lazy narrative that Kyiv is incapable of victory. Somehow, Russia’s declining economy and “no-limits partnership” with China are not to be taken seriously; Kremlin apparatchiks will be a trustworthy, useful ally against Beijing, and should be courted as such. Vladimir Putin, the Russian dictator who paid bounties for the deaths of U.S. servicemembers in Afghanistan, has appealed to these America First isolationists by, at varying points, slamming the Woke Left, oppressing the LGBT community, and praising Trump while appearing next to Russian Orthodox patriarchs. Yet Russia has one of the lowest church attendance rates in the world, alongside an incredibly low fertility rate and a very high abortion rate. If the Woke Right wants to emulate a Christian Fatherland, modern Russia is clearly not what they’re looking for. And yet, that is who they are supporting. 

It isn’t just the Russians, though. Tucker Carlson’s bizarre interview with Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani was just one noticeable shift toward radical Islam that some on the Woke Right are embracing. This may have started years ago, with Andrew Tate’s promotion of, and conversion to, Islam. Tate, a wanted sex offender, criminal, and misogynist, has espoused anti-Semitic views as he gained more popularity online. Carlson—who warned President Donald Trump not to attack Iran during his first term in the White House—has now done so again, urging diplomacy to avoid a war he believes the U.S. cannot afford and will lose. The details don’t matter; nobody is floating the idea of an American ground invasion of Iran, and Iran’s economic and military capabilities have been seriously degraded with Israel’s destruction of its defenses and decapitation of Hezbollah. 

When it comes to Iran, Carlson’s anti-war rhetoric has to do with promoting Doha’s narrative of avoiding regional upheaval. Carlson designated a large portion of the interview with al-Thani toward advocating against fighting Tehran, then promptly tweeted out his position just as the U.S. was warning of a strike on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilities. Carlson also suggested that Qatar—which has funded terrorist organizations under the banner of the Muslim Brotherhood while spending billions of dollars buying influence in foreign countries—is unfairly scrutinized by Western media outlets and watchdogs.

Another interview conducted by Tucker Carlson allowed for the intersection of the ongoing Ukrainian and Israeli wars, and the Woke Right’s position on them. Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff praised Qataris as “generous” people, displayed an incredible ignorance and naïveté about Hamas’ terrorist tactics, and whitewashed Russia’s imperial designs on Ukraine. Other podcasters, such as the Hodge Twins and Joe Rogan, have also expressed skepticism about supporting Israel and Ukraine. One of Rogan’s friends and guests, Dave Smith—himself Jewish—likened the Gaza Strip to a Holocaust concentration camp in an embarrassing display of ignorance while debating author Douglas Murray. Indeed, it seems the Woke Right is copying the Work Left by courting “AsAJew”s. 

Candace Owens and Jackson Hinkle, meanwhile, have falsely accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza and promoted regular anti-Semitic canards under the guise of “Christ is King” and ancient blood libel. Hinkle—who calls himself a “MAGA communist”—has visited Lebanon and Yemen to pal around with Hezbollah and the Houthis, encouraging them to resist the American “empire.” That is, when he wasn’t too busy mourning the downfall of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad or cheering on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Incredibly, Hinkle still claims to be “America First,” but expresses this viewpoint by supporting China in the ongoing trade war with the U.S., encouraging American sailors not to strike the Houthis, and rooting for every one of Washington’s enemies. As disturbing as all these developments are, it could get even worse in the years to come. As foreign policy experts gradually shift their attention to the Indo-Pacific, it is not hard to imagine the Woke Right advocating to abandon Taiwan and other regional allies of the West to the Chinese Communist Party.

There are, of course, some valid points worth bringing up here. Aspects of free trade deals that have been struck between governments have depleted blue-collar industries and impacted scores of Americans. Nation-building initiatives should not be irresponsibly pursued. And genuine diplomacy—though not endless rounds of talks—is almost always preferable to heading to war. The issue with the Woke Right is that it doesn’t “own the libs” by dismantling the Woke Left’s arguments. It simply flips them around like an Uno reverse card.

Rather than embracing true diversity and merit, the Woke Right created a new class of victim. Instead of using diplomacy responsibly, it calls for appeasement and surrender in a cowardly act of betrayal toward American allies. Instead of negotiating fair trade deals or trying to come up with a new economic doctrine, the Woke Right engages in endless arguments only about the failure of the current system. Back in the 2024 election, after economic malaise, perhaps a scandal a week, and woke identity politics from the progressive left, many Americans simply wanted to shut the door on wokeness forever. They wanted a strong, respected country—ruled by common sense instead of nonsense. They wanted to stop the swing of the pendulum from one extreme to the other. The danger of the Woke Right is that the pendulum will swing back even harder to the Woke Left. Sadly, instead of learning the lessons of the 2024 defeat, the Democratic Party has seemingly doubled down on radical left-wing ideology. Bernie Sanders and the Squad are empowered and going on speaking tours to rally the activist base. It is true that the establishment wing of the Democratic Party is partly to blame for this outcome, full of ineffective octogenarian leaders who lied about President Joe Biden’s mental faculties and continue defending a failed political doctrine. But the Woke Right empowers the Woke Left even further. It gives fodder to left-wing arguments that “the right is home to the real anti-Semitism,” or that the MAGA movement is hostile toward minorities, the LGBT community, and women. Then, of course, there’s the revival of the “Trump loves Putin” argument. It is true that President Trump has shown far too much lenience toward the Kremlin for avoiding a ceasefire in Ukraine, but the Woke Right’s cheerleading for Moscow gives even more credence to this tired talking point.

There is a more responsible way forward that conservatives, liberals, and MAGA should pursue. Not the complete eradication of elites or experts, but teaching diverse points of views, and including diverse voices in academia, high culture, and government. This means fostering the creation of a new mainstream media, where talking heads and analysts aren’t always getting it wrong simply because they have TDS or are wedded to the politics of 1995 rather than 2025. It means shoring up America’s genuine security concerns at the border through real immigration reform and strenuous screenings. It means encouraging our allies, especially in the West, to contribute more to fair trade, Ukraine, and to collective security without bending over for tyrants like Putin or the CCP. It means knowing when it is time to end pointless conferences, galas, and talks, and start acting if a goal is not achievable by diplomacy. Perhaps, most of all, it means true economic reform and environmentally friendly initiatives that go beyond meaningless platitudes or performative-yet-expensive goals that simply aren’t realistic. The back-and-forth arguments of the woke, on both right and left, only degrade America’s image and potential—while indulging in the worst historical aspects of Western civilization. The pendulum swing only leaves Washington more vulnerable to outside threats, such as radical Islam, which is clearly trying to buy its way into both extremes of the political aisle.

There’s no telling just how popular the Woke Right’s views have become. Surely, some of those on social media are bot accounts, and many influencers have likely been paid off to parrot the tropes of some foreign regime or other. However, there is also good news: many in MAGA, or even beyond it, are challenging the Woke Right. After the homophobic attacks on gay conservatives and amid rampant anti-Semitism by figures like Candace Owens, there was significant pushback and calls for “a new beginning” for conservatives that is genuinely inclusive and friendly to people of all backgrounds.

The sway that Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson may have once held on large swathes of the Republican Party seems to be diminishing, and may yet still further, at least slowly. But common sense requires vigilance; this is a problem that must be nipped in the bud if the American experiment is to flourish and thrive once more. And it’s a problem that the wider West and all civilization needs to squash before the tyrants waiting in the wings can swoop down and pick us off, like a hawk with a distracted rabbit.

If MAGA wishes to survive as a movement, and make President Trump’s second term thrive in its “golden age,” more must be done. It is especially concerning that undue influence has been given to isolationists within the administration, such as Tulsi Gabbard and Steve Witkoff. Not only is Witkoff unqualified to serve in the role he does, but had himself admitted to being “duped” by Hamas in the ceasefire-for-hostage negotiations in Gaza. Even more troubling are his personal business ties to Qatar. Not to be outdone, Gabbard has tried staffing the administration with Israel-skeptics who are averse to any armed action against Iran, should it be necessary. Gabbard and Witkoff are among those who are encouraging President Trump to sign a nuclear deal at any cost with the Islamic Republic. Vice President J. D. Vance is also among these people, and it is notable that the vice president has Tucker Carlson’s son, Buckley, among his staffers. Recently, Carlson questioned what an “ally” is when Piers Morgan mentioned the strategic alliance between Washington and Jerusalem. Yet, on Megyn Kelly’s podcast, Carlson claimed that Qatar—both a Muslim Brotherhood haven and direct agent of Iran—is one of the U.S.’ “closest allies.” Both a woman and an ally should be equally easy to define consistently. 

Elsewhere, MAGA has showed enormous disdain for the Canadian Baby Boomers who voted for the anti-Trump Mark Carney to become the next prime minister in Ottawa, mainly because this has consigned future generations to a potential crisis when it comes to quality of life. Yet isolationism brings the same risks—as we have seen countless times throughout history. Signing a bad deal with actors like Hamas, Russia, or Iran, for the sake of “peace and stability,” will only lead to a bloodier conflict in the future that will be shouldered by America’s youth. Should that occur, the legacy of President Trump and his political revolution will be severely tarnished—by the resulting wars.

MAGA must make clear that “America First” does not have to mean “America Only,” or “America Only Now.” It means that America must be strong again, as the president has repeated numerous times.

November 2024, or perhaps January 2025, was supposed to introduce America to a new golden age. But this can only be accomplished by forever shutting the door on woke—no matter from which side of the aisle it rears its ugly head.

The right began to go woke as early as 2010 when the Tea Party ousted so-called “RINOs” (Republicans in name only) from the GOP in the belief that they were crypto-liberals who were conspiring with a closeted Muslim president to unmake America. Still, the GOP gave lip service to traditional conservative values and principles for a few years more. Then, in the midst of a growing birther movement, under the guidance of Steve Bannon, what had been the Tea Party became the MAGA movement—the “home, sweet home” of the woke right.

To be clear, leading figures within the woke right are connected, often in surprising ways, but the woke right, like the woke left, is more a conspiracy theory-laden, post-truth politics than a discrete group of individuals working toward a common and well-defined goal. The goal, for lack of a better word, is to encourage a mistrust of American institutions, particularly those associated with elites, and to engender a level of political chaos not seen since President Barack Obama repurposed the Executive Order(EO) so that it could be regularly used to bypass Congress and even the judiciary.

We can be assured that Bannon saw the partisan power value in Obama’s flurry of largely domestic policy-related EOs (he issued 276 over eight years) and encouraged his boss to blitz the opposition with deregulatory directives. But it isn’t chaos that defines the woke right; no, chaos is simply their preferred habitat. The woke right is made evident by its habit of giving serious consideration to any conspiracy theory that can be used to further invigorate MAGA and radicalize it against institutions that need to be restored, not torn down.

I should point out that no one is identifying as a member of the woke right in the way that Richard Spencer, Andrew Anglin, and their fellows self-applied the term “alt-right.” Still, the woke right is exemplified by a tendency toward “trutherism,” or the promotion of a Manchurian Candidate-like schema for which there is there is little or no evidence. The woke right then uses those theories to justify what MAGA has done and continues to do in the name of border security, combating activist judges, ending the war in Ukraine, etc.

The mother of all woke right conspiracy theories is that the U.S. government possessed advance knowledge of 9/11 and may have even facilitated those terrorist attacks so that they could be used to justify the invasion of Iraq, the global War on Terrorism, and the domestic surveillance that followed. The belief is also that both things were done at the behest of the State of Israel and in service to the “Greater Israel Project”—a separate but related conspiracy theory which holds that Israel is engaged in a project of regional hegemony and conquest. Some may be surprised to learn that 9/11 trutherism is not the brainchild of some Wikipedia-editing basement dweller, but originated instead with Curt Weldon, a 9/11-era Republican congressman. His theories have been kept alive and embellished by the likes of Laura Loomer, a close ally of President Trump. But it was Tucker Carlson, the godhead of the woke right, who did the most to give new life to 9/11 trutherism by hosting Weldon on his show while painting him as a patriot and hero.

Regardless of whether one is contending with the truther journalist shtick of Tucker Carlson or the syphilitic think pieces of Candace Owens, the trope of hidden Jewish control appears again and again in the woke right narrative that has done so much to invigorate MAGA. The danger in all of this is that the woke right will continue to shape the culture of MAGA and, in so doing, will have an increasingly deterministic effect on the policy demands of the MAGA movement. The woke right has already begun to succeed where the alt-right failed in its effort to insert its racial and religious nationalism into the nation’s Overton window. And it could be that the intentional and unrelenting chaos of MAGA has so desensitized us to what the woke right has pushed into the Overton window that we can barely parse out its meaning.

A Tucker Carlson who had just gained his freedom from the censors at Fox News said this of Ukraine’s President Zelensky on Twitter: “Sweaty and rat-like. A comedian turned oligarch. A persecutor of Christians. A friend of Black Rock.” Here, Carlson resurrects an anti-Semitic trope first made popular by the Nazis while making a reference to the CEO of BlackRock, Larry Fink. Fink is proudly Jewish, enormously wealth, largely apolitical in so far as he does not bend the knee to either major American political party. Therefore, he is, for all of those reasons, the subject of a host of right- and left-wing conspiracy theories—including that Fink promotes “climate alarmism” so that he might then profit from the “greening of the economy” at the expense of the American taxpayer and worker. Another conspiracy theory is that Fink did the most to bring about the 2008 financial crisis and positioned himself to profit from it. The latter theory was promoted without proof by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the current Secretary of Health and Human Services, who, for that reason and others, belongs to the woke right. 

Speaking of RFK, Jr., the problem is not just that the woke right is quickly replacing the best parts of traditional conservative culture with its siege mentality. No, the real crisis is that said mentality is now deciding national policy. Much attention has been given to Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency or “DOGE,” but few know that both are a puppet and extension of self-described Christian nationalist Russ Vought and his Office of Budget and Management (OMB) inside the Trump White House.

It was Vought who first said that “America’s renewal” is dependent upon the defunding and dismantlement of the deep state. According to Vought, that state within a state is a network of federal departments and agencies whose partisan leaders and staff work tirelessly to undermine the self-government of the people and demoralize them vis-à-via the steady promotion of an amoral and corrosive politics. As corrupt and wasteful as the administrative state may be, Vought’s theory that it is home to a plot against America is no less woke than any theory being promoted by Carlson.

Vought’s schema for this defunding and dismantlement was laid out by him in his contribution to the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, blandly titled, “Executive Office of the President of the United States.” In that document, Vought argues that the independence and power granted to “expert authorities” (bureaucrats who lead agencies like USAID) amounts to tyranny. Vought goes on to say that the power wielded by these authorities must be returned to “America’s families, faith communities, local governments and states.” In other words, all be well when America and her government are Christian once more.

While he waited to return to his role as Trump’s chief strategist in a second administration, Vought pursued what he calls a “Christian nation-ist agenda” by writing policy and strategy at the Center for Renewing America, the think tank he founded. The Center’s website describes its mission to restore “a consensus of America as a nation under God with unique interests… that flow from its people, institutions and history….” The following can be found on that same website: “The Center… was created to confront the woke and weaponized agenda of the ruling class and replace it with one that puts God, country, and community at the center of the policy debate in Washington.” 

It should also be said that the woke right is a vehicle for white nationalism due in no small part to the fact that the Christian nationalist movement is a fundamentally white phenomenon that often resorts to racism in response to the racism of the far-left.  Evidence of this can be found in the behavior of another woke member of the Trump White House, Darren Beattie.

Beattie first served Trump as a speechwriter and policy aide, but was promoted to the role of acting Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs at the U.S. Department of State in 2025. Beattie recently posted these words to X: “Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work.” Beattie also said this of his woke left equal-opposite, Ibram X. Kendi, a black man: “Ibram Kendi needs to learn his place and take a knee to MAGA… Learn his proper role in our society.” Just as concerning is the fact that it is Beattie’s job to advise the president on extremist threats at home and abroad. Because Beattie is able to broadcast his hatred without fear of consequence, it is safe to say that he won’t be shining a light on far-right actors like Patriot Front, America’s most active white supremacist organization, or Generation Identity, the group that appears to be most responsible for the radicalization of the Christchurch, New Zealand, mass shooter.

Just as worrying (albeit more confusing) is a small contingent of Jewish woke rightists who were or are members of Team Trump and who, in spite of their Jewishness, promote anti-Jewish conspiracy theories or the racial nationalism of the far-right, a hotbed of those same theories. Exhibit A: Michael Benz, a member of the first Trump administration who was revealed to be “Frame Game,” a popular anonymous far-right content creator who promoted, among other things, the “Great Replacement Theory,” which posits that powerful Jews are engineering sudden and massive changes to the demographic makeup of the U.S.—all in an effort to turn Anglo-Americans into a minority group. Exhibit B: Stephen Miller, Trump’s current Deputy Chief of Staff for policy who, in emails leaked by a former editor at Breitbart, provided that editor with talking points taken from white nationalist websites, to which Miller linked the editor, and encouraged her to use them in anti-immigration articles being written under the direction of Miller and at the behest of her boss, Steve Bannon.

No discussion of the degree to which right-wing wokeism has shaped the presidencies of Donald J. Trump and MAGA would be complete without touching on the work of Steve Bannon. Bannon is infamous for embracing the alt-right, a conglomerate of neo-Nazis and Christian nationalists, while he was still new to Trump’s inner-circle. To be clear, Bannon didn’t just nod to the alt-right, he actively platformed them on Breitbart News, the network he headed. Bannon’s guiding principle has always been to “flood the zone,” which is to say, blitz his opponents and the general public with messaging, directives, and executive orders and thereby force an acquiescence to those things.

Bannon’s game was then a dangerous one—to push the boundaries of what was politically acceptable while engaging in double-speak with regard to what any reasonable, non-partisan observer would interpret as expressions of support for an anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, and ultimately anti-American worldview. In an interview with Bloomberg’s Michael Lewis, Bannon stunned readers by saying, “I don’t think the alt-right is anti-Semitic at all.”  Contrast that with the “race realism” of this article published by Richard Spencer’s National Policy Institute and republished by Breitbart:

Immigration is a kind of proxy war [white nationalists believe that lax immigration policies are part of a Jewish conspiracy to replace white majorities with non-white ones]—and maybe a last stand—for white Americans, who are undergoing a painful recognition that, unless dramatic action is taken, their grandchildren will live in a country that is alien and hostile.

To that I should add that many of us heard the neo-Nazi and white nationalist chant “Jews will not replace us” for the first time while watching news footage of Richard Spencer’s “Unite the Right” rally—held in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017.

I remember well the confusion that followed President Trump’s response to that two-day event and to the death that punctuated it. Not to put too fine a point on this, but the rally itself was already the subject of a national news story when one of its participants murdered a young woman who came to Charlottesville to protest against such a blatant show of white supremacy, racial aggravation, and anti-Semitism. Rather than condemn Spencer, his woke following, and their message, President Trump said this to the American people: “What about the alt-left that came charging at, as you say, at the alt-right? Do they bear any semblance of guilt? …[N]ot all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me.… The press has treated them absolutely unfairly.”

In retrospect, that response, like so many other things about Trump and the MAGA movement, makes perfect sense in light of what was being planned and what those plans required—namely the support of a woke right political class that had only just begun to find its strength and to sow the political chaos on which Trump’s brand thrives.

Classical liberals and cosmopolitan Jews beware: There are ideological winds whiplashing around you, blowing from opposite directions. Exposure to such elements comes with considerable risk. Just ask Europeans who are fleeing the continent. The politics of extremism and grievance has staked out their positions. And, as per usual, you find yourselves the bull’s-eye of everyone’s resentment.

The woke world has, improbably, widened. Its cultural virus has discovered new pathogens, and even a new host. Strange bedfellows have had their collective consciousness awakened with the same realization that others are to blame for their misfortune. And this awakening has caused them to adopt similar strategies in undoing power structures that are racist to one, and un-American to the other. 

Yes, you read that right: the ultra-nationalist, uber manly, and shamelessly fascistic alt-right has now, suddenly, found its woke groove.

Just in time for summer.

The sick joke about the existence of a more multifaceted woke, manifested in both the extreme left and right fringes of the political spectrum, is that these antagonists have nothing in common other than a shared conviction that liberalism is abundant in elitists and globalists, Jews are irredeemably evil, and Israel is a pariah state that should be no more.

We should have all seen this coming—the revenge of the embittered left and right—but at the same time!? Mainstream Democrats and Republicans—what Bill Clinton once mobilized into a triangulated center—now must contend with legitimate threats from their farthest most fringes. That’s what it means to be “primaried.” David Hogg, the Democratic Party’s vice chair, is threatening his own incumbents with that very thing. It’s what makes Chuck Schumer so spineless while emboldening the ambitions of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Both major parties are suffering from separate crises of identity, which, ironically, puts a new spin on the politics of identity. 

So many features of the liberal order have been under attack since Barack Obama’s dismissive eliding of American Exceptionalism. The passing of the progressive torch was reclaimed by Bernie Sanders, who deftly relayed it to AOC who, given this hot potato, tossed it to the Black Lives Matter movement, which put its flame to good use by setting fire to police cars and precincts. The same thing happened to businesses whose owners were made to suffer the consequences of their white privilege.

The politics of nihilism and terror was on, led with violence and fury by the progressive left. Pro-Hamas agitators adopted these now normalized uprisings to magnificent effect—except they now added masks, burning flags, and the takeover of buildings and common areas. Universities and public spaces have never been the same. 

The Age of Donald Trump conjured the MAGA movement. When the 2020 election didn’t go well, its most extreme elements revealed themselves on January 6, flashing their most unflattering features. It put America on alt-right notice after the 2017 Charlottesville reprieve. The January 6 melee fell short of an insurrection but made felons out of 900 Capitol-crashers. That’s more than can be said for the George Floyd rioters, who participated in a larger and more wide-ranging display of anarchy. All of them escaped scot-free.

Now we face a new realization. MAGA Americans may, to some, be nothing more than Red State hillbillies, NASCAR petrol-polluters, and twangy country music fans. But they are not the enemy. They are faithful Trump supporters, but there’s no crime in that even though those red baseball caps have led to its very own derangement syndrome. You might disagree with MAGA Nation, but just because they are socially conservative, God-fearing, patriotic Americans who oppose abortion, marriage equality, and gender-neutral bathrooms doesn’t make them satanic.

I’m not saying there’s no Satan. There’s another faction within Donald Trump’s Roman circus that should worry you. The woke version of America First is raising all sorts of red flags. They are the extreme right of Trump’s base without being card-carrying neo-Nazis.

Out of nowhere they have grown into a critical mass. Easy to miss because they don’t exist at all on university campuses, mainstream media, and corporate board rooms—all falling within the province of the politically correct far left. But online and on social media—and in the depths of the dark web—they are becoming a formidable force. 

We probably should have paid more attention to their mission creep. After all, they are luridly visible and loudly profane. Euphoria over the presidential election crashed open the tribalist, nativist, nationalistic, misogynistic, homophobic, conspiracist, and, of course, anti-Semitic gates that had been locked by respectable conservatives who wore Brooks Brothers suits and sipped martinis at Ivy League clubs. Today, the Ivy League is run by Islamist enablers, and those suits have been swapped for MMA, UFC, and WWE trunks.

After a libelous false start, we have finally discovered the true deplorables. They are a brotherhood of white nationalist, conspiracy peddling, anti-Semitic clowns like Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, Candace Owens (an African-American woman), Theo Van, Daryl Cooper, Jake Shields, Dan Bilzerian, Andrew Tate, Myron Gaines, Ian Carroll, Nick Fuentes, and Kanye West. Some are familiar. Nearly all are apologists if not admirers of Adolf Hitler. But what they disturbingly all have in common is an extreme right-wing fanbase. 

Most are either podcasters or social influencers who disseminate noxious views while posing, like Gaston in Beauty and the Beast, as the great provocateurs of “expectorating.” Always obsessed with manliness. Fixated on Jeffrey Epstein. Ranting about race, ethnicity, sex, sexuality, feminism, vaccines, immigration, nationalism, religiosity, and of course, elitist globalists, and the sorcerers of Zionism. 

Together they aggregate into a smorgasbord of nihilism, feasting on outrage, stewing on grievance, luxuriating in victimhood. 

Think of it as the populist compulsions of the woke right, generated to shock and terrify liberal elites, feminists, gay rights activists, and cosmopolitan Jews.

How bad is it? Decide for yourself. Tate admires Hamas and stated that he “pray[s] for a death as heroic as Yahya Sinwar.” Bilzerian “believe[s] that Jewish supremacy is the greatest threat to America.” Gaines emphatically proclaimed that “Hitler was right . . . You come into a country, you push your pornography, you push your fucking central banking, you push your degeneracy, you push the LGBT community.” Carroll ranted that Israel is a “criminal enterprise” run by “mobsters and terrorists.” Rogan validated that assessment by interjecting, “And what’s interesting is, you can talk about this now, post–October 7.” 

Yes, of course, people never harbored or expressed anti-Semitic, anti-Israel attitudes before October 7, 2023.

Just as the woke left denies Jewish ancestry in the Middle East and decries the very existence of Israel, the woke right rejects that a Holocaust even happened to Jews, and if it did, it surely did not result in more than a few thousand deaths. 

Jews figure prominently in their demented imaginations: the assassination of JFK, the collapse of the Twin Towers, the sinister control of world economies—all masterminded by Jews. Revisionist history is nothing but a tableau of false tales. Here’s one: Leo Frank was properly lynched for raping a young white teenager. Look it up.

In appealing to youthful, disaffected, jobless, and quite possibly dateless males, there is plenty of free time for gym workouts followed by cool down bullying on social media. 

Not unlike their woke left counterparts on college campuses, the idiocy and revisionist history of the woke right is unchallenged, outrageous statements elicit no more than a shrug, all conspiratorial claims go unrebutted. The learned expertise of others is discredited as the handiwork of devious Jews. 

The fact that the woke right is considerably dumber than the woke left isn’t helping matters at all.

All those who cherish liberal values, scientific data, objective standards, free speech, open inquiry, the rule of law, democratic pluralism, and civility in all things, have really taken a hit these past few years from the extreme woke sensibilities of the progressive left and lunatic right.

Where are the classic conservatives and neocons these days? Probably hiding somewhere, possibly alongside the guardians of classical liberalism. Ideologically separate, but temperamentally the same. Those who insist on subjecting all ideas to rigorous thinking and thoughtful debate are fast becoming a silent minority. Alone in celebrating the life of the mind. Elitists, yes—but not for no reason.

The Trump administration surely brought some classic conservatives to the White House. Given what he said in his rececnt speech in Riyadh about neocons and their failed predilections for nation-building, his administration has not sought them out. The choice of his vice president was a harbinger of that neocon avoidance.

That is and was a mistake. Neocons may have been naïve in their belief that all peoples, if given a choice, would select freedom and demoracy over theocracies and Arab royal families, but at their core, neocons are true liberal thinkers in their politics and beliefs. Making an appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast is not viewed as a career achievement, and their desire to see a strong and secure ally in Israel is unshakable.

Hopefully Trump will manage to retain the hearts and minds of his hardcore MAGA loyalists who recoil from the woke right, too. There’s always the possibility that Trump’s insatiable neediness will be seduced by the more radical elements within his right-wing base. After all, so many of them first drew blood as actual fighters in MMA matches. Now they bleed red for America First, alone.

What these times portend is that political liberals and American Jews have far more in common with Red State flag-waving MAGA Republicans than they do with the America First woke right. There is a difference between them, and liberals would do well to make common cause with one and be circumspect about the other.

The good news is that, at least for the moment, the woke right doesn’t have its own leader, like earlier incarnations of America First fascists and unrepentant anti-Semites like Charles Lindbergh and Pat Buchanan.

There has long been an intellectual vacuum left unfilled in the conservative movement. Gone are the likes of National Review founder William F. Buckley—erudite, poised, dapper, and known for a very different species of gladiatorial conquests: intellectual sparring matches on his television talk show, “Firing Line.” In those days, roughly 1966-1999, disagreement was welcome, intelligent talk was obligatory, and cursing on the airwaves while wearing a sleeveless muscle shirt was neither a sign of wit nor refinement. 

The coarseness of today’s rhetoric, with its reckless reordering of facts, epitomizes the inherent danger of the extreme alt-right. Shouting down speakers is a sickness of the illiberal, anti-intellectual, and always violence-prone woke—both left and right. There was a time when conservatives didn’t degrade women and swap bench-pressing personal bests. They used to match wits with whatever was on the New Left’s agenda. 

No one on either the woke left or right could capably face Buckley on “Firing Line.” Besides, the woke right, given their penchant for manhood, would more likely choose a firing squad.

During a recent interview on Glazov Gang, Hannah Faulkner alluded to current social upheaval being a means of population control, but time limitations precluded a detailed discussion. This essay takes a deeper view of the connection between “woke” immorality and environmentalism.

To begin, marriage is going out of style. Recent statistics show that 25% of forty-year-olds have never been married, an all-time high. So, why is marriage no longer fashionable? There are multiple causes, but one ideological reason is that is the radical environmentalist belief that the earth is overpopulated, and procreation is practically a crime against society. So it is that every Western society other than Israel has a birth rate well below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman on average. This in turn serves another Leftist goal, namely that in order to have enough workers, we need to import millions of people from the Third World upon whom we can lavish taxpayer-paid benefits, grant amnesty, and sign up to vote for Leftist political candidates in perpetuity.

I found out this distressing truth in an article by Yudi Sherman in Frontline News which revealed that marriage avoidance is part of a depopulation plan designed by Planned Parenthood over 50 years ago in the Jaffe Memo:

In 1969 an economist named Frederick Jaffe devised a set of proposals to limit US population growth which continue to be put into practice today. Jaffe, who at the time was vice president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, had created the plan at the request of Bernard Berelson… the head of the Population Council, an organization founded by John D. Rockefeller III in 1952 to stem birth rates in the United States.

In 1969, Berelson was looking for ideas.

Jaffe rose to the occasion and responded with what would later become known as the Jaffe Memo. In it, Jaffe proposed a set of actions which he believed could suppress the US birth rate. He compiled them into a table titled “Proposed measures to reduce fertility by universality or selectivity of impact in the US.”

Some of those proposed measures were to “encourage increased homosexuality,” “to allow harmless contraceptives to be distributed nonmedically,” to “make contraception truly available and accessible,’ and to provide ‘abortion and sterilization on demand.”

Another measure was titled “Restructure family” and contained two parts: “(a) Postpone or avoid marriage,” and “(b) Alter image of ideal family size.”

These were listed alongside two of Jaffe’s other propositions, which were to drive women into higher education and to convince more women to join the workforce… [both of which reduce the desire to bear children].

Another part of the strategy is using gender confusion ideology to prevent mass births. Whereas men and women naturally breed, masculinizing women and effeminizing men—contravening “gender norms”—is an effective way to stagnate a population.

In addition, an article by Michael Clary on kings-domain.com cites other proposals, among the scariest of which are “compulsory sterilization of all who have two children except for a few who would be allowed three” and “confine child bearing to only a limited number of adults.”

Historically, when the Bolsheviks first took control of Russia, Lenin attempted to outlaw marriage, but strong popular disapproval caused him to back down. Nowadays, however, it seems that social media are a far more effective means of propaganda than Pravda. Thus, the Jaffe Memo has been extraordinarily successful, having had a powerful influence on government, media, and non-governmental organizations alike, as initiated by President Nixon’s creation of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future (with Jaffe and Berelson among its members) that issued the 1972 Kissinger report, which concluded that further population growth was not in America’s interest. Implementing the Jaffe plan, Marxist feminists have encouraged women to act like men, putting career ahead of family, and have further portrayed men as oversexed cretins. This began in the culture with the character of Al Bundy on the 1980s sitcom Married with Children, and evolving to the point where any form of manhood beyond docility is viewed as “toxic masculinity.” Women are told that motherhood hurts their career; a literature search shows growing approval of having only one child, a trend accelerated by women’s increasing education levels. [I myself am an only child.] And for many in this self-centered age, children are an annoyance, a responsibility that interferes with other pursuits, to the point where there are now even reports of people marrying themselves, complete with a formal ceremony.

What we rarely hear about are the career women in their fifties who wake up to being alone at night, with no husband, no children—maybe a pet cat or dog for companionship, and a deficient sense of fulfillment.

America now stands at the edge of a precipice. If the moral and social rot that increasingly pervades our society is allowed to proceed unchecked, the ending is clear. Just look at the history of ancient Rome. What began as a republic with at least some degree of civic virtue degraded into an increasingly corrupt empire that eventually collapsed when its subjects, besotted by bread and circuses, were unable—and sometimes unwilling—to repel the barbarians at the gate.

The ongoing war of cultural organizations against “Zionists” (the fig-leaf euphemism for Jews) bears interpretation through the prism of the First Law of John O’Sullivan.

O’Sullivan, a speechwriter for Margaret Thacher, unveiled his timeless maxim in 1989 in The National Review:

All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don’t like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world.

The post-10/7 version might say, “All organizations that are not politically neutral or actually pro-Jewish will over time become explicitly anti-Zionist, taking that as a euphemism for anti-Jewish.” In his mention of an advocacy group, a deep-pocketed foundation, and a mainstream Protestant church, Sullivan deftly captured the great sweep of groups aligned behind the social justice agenda that lacks a line for Jewish concerns. 

Since 1989, what’s been the direction of O’Sullivan’s examples? His comments hold up well. In 2021, the Washington Free Beacon published an article by Alana Goodman titled, “ACLU Becomes Top Legal Defender of Anti-Semitic BDS Campaign.” She wrote,

The organization has led legal challenges against anti-BDS laws in numerous states, including Arkansas, Arizona, Kansas, and Texas. The group has also registered to lobby against federal anti-BDS legislation from 2017 to 2020, according to lobbying disclosure records.

Last April, the ACLU sent a letter to Representatives urging them “to oppose H.R. 6090, the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act. Federal law already prohibits antisemitic discrimination and harassment by federally funded entities. H.R. 6090 is therefore not needed to protect against antisemitic discrimination; instead, it would likely chill free speech of students on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism.

The bill passed in the House of Representatives by a 320-91 vote, with 21 Republicans and 71 Democrats opposing it. 

The Ford Foundation, whatever its social justice inclinations when O’Sullivan wrote the First Law, deserved some credit for a major statement, “Rejecting the Rising Tide of Antisemitism,” written by its president, Darren Walker, on September 15, 2023 (keep that date in mind). Walker summarized recent attacks in Pittsburgh, Poway, and Monsey. Comparing the situation to that of Jews in Nazi Germany, he wrote,

We must look to the lessons of history, which affirm—as do the Jewish high holy days this week—that there can be no reconciliation without atonement, no justice without accountability.

I feel this obligation acutely as the leader of an institution that protects and promotes democratic values, which also was founded by Henry Ford—an icon of innovation, and industry, and philanthropy, and one of the twentieth century’s most virulent American antisemites.

Further, all of us engaged in building a fairer, more just America ought to embrace our responsibility to speak out about this ancient strain of inequality—this category of caste—exactly as we call out racism, sexism, ableism, and homophobia.

While the statement covered a lot of ground, it was all strictly domestic ground; the statement said nothing about Israel or the rising anti-Semitism worldwide. Still, Forward columnist Aviya Kushner liked it while also asking pointed questions on how Walker could follow up, noting,

I would like to see Walker look toward the future, not just the past. In conversation, many Jewish writers and artists have told me they feel excluded from more and more literary and cultural spaces. Walker might want to take a hard look at current grant funding — is overtly Jewish literature, art and culture something the Ford Foundation ever funds with its billions? Can the Ford Foundation itself fund research on antisemitism in America’s cultural spaces—or support conferences for those who are studying it, right now?

Less than a month later, Walker posted a short statement on October 10, then another on October 19, “Ford Foundation Responds to the Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza,” that showed the foundation’s laser-like focus on “events” in Gaza, omitting any reference to events in Israel:

This week, we are devastated and disheartened as we continue to learn more about the tragic events occurring in Gaza and their impact on the Palestinian and Israeli people. 

It is our hope that world leaders will continue to commit the resources needed to support immediate humanitarian relief efforts. And philanthropy must also respond. 

At the Ford Foundation, we are committed to the principles of human rights and international law. We are steadfast in our pursuit of a world where all are able to live safely, with dignity and the full expression of their humanity. It is because of these beliefs that we cannot ignore the suffering, anguish, and pain that countless families are experiencing in Gaza at this moment. 

In response to this crisis, the Ford Foundation will support immediate humanitarian relief efforts in Gaza and the Middle East. Administered by our colleagues in the Middle East and North Africa regional office, the resources will go to partners in the region to provide life-saving support and other essential needs to the affected Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

Tablet magazine picked up on the emphasis and in an article titled “The Ford Foundation Carries on the Legacy of Its Namesake.”

The Ford Foundation is a major funder of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, both of which regularly criticize Israeli “apartheid,” and it has more recently donated millions to the Tides Center, part of the dark-money Tides Network that, as the Scroll reported yesterday, funnels money from progressive billionaires such as Peter Buffett and George Soros to anti-Israel NGOs, including IfNotNow and Jewish Voice for Peace, which organized the Oct. 18 rally at the U.S. Capitol against the Israeli campaign in Gaza.

Statements from the Episcopal Church express some empathy for Jews, through its ecumenical programs. Still, a statement issued on 10/7 firmly painted Israel as the source of problems, no mention of terrorism:

Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP) is deeply grieved by the news coming out of Israel and Gaza today. CMEP condemns all acts of violence against civilians that have occurred in the past twenty-four hours, as fighting has escalated between Hamas and Israel. As of late Saturday (EDT), reports indicated that hundreds have been killed and thousands wounded, both Israelis and Palestinians. CMEP mourns with the victims of the violence and their families.

The actions of Hamas and the Israeli response in Gaza in no way advance peace, but rather cause loss of life and harm, grief, and devastation, not only to the individuals affected, but also to the legitimate cause of the Palestinian people in seeking an end to the decades long occupation and the blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Throughout this year, CMEP and allies have urgently been calling attention to the evolving context, characterized by escalating levels of violence between settlers, soldiers, and Palestinians. The increased nationalism and radicalization within Israeli society have led to more frequent and numerous incidents of hatred, racialized tensions, settler attacks, and incursions onto Muslim and Christian holy sites such as Stella Maris Monastery in Haifa and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. These realities are not justifications but have long been ignored by the international community, including the longstanding frustration and desperation of the Palestinian people who seek an end to the oppression of the occupation and Israeli desires for lack of fear and for security. It is time for the US and the international community to strengthen efforts to de-escalate the systemic violence that has gone on for decades.

A quarter-century after O’Sullivan’s insights, any revision would also need to include university faculties, cultural forums, and professional organizations. Once dedicated to scholarship, the arts, and serving the needs of groups like physicians and authors, many have embraced the anti-Israel hysteria. Examples could fill a book. Some lowlights:

• Protests have hit places like the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Museum of Modern Art, and the Brooklyn Museum. In one example, after a walk-out by 26 staff members at the Wing Luke Museum in Seattle, an exhibit by the Washington State Jewish Historical Society called “Confronting Hate Together” was pulled, and the museum closed. Protests centered on materials such as a line in the exhibition stating “Today, antisemitism is often disguised as anti-Zionism,” according to an August 22, 2024 article in the Jerusalem Post. The exhibit can be seen at the historical society’s website.
• Literary organizations are hotbeds of anti-Israel sentiment. This Jewish Telegraphic Agency summary from last February notes, “Prestigious literary prizes, leadership at the Jewish New York cultural center 92NY, major awards ceremonies and the staff of Artforum magazine have all been upended by the four-month war, with more incidents accruing by the day.” PEN America gets extensive notice for an open letter sent to it from writers demanding the group release a statement about Palestinian writers killed during the Gaza war and “and name their murderer: Israel, a Zionist colonial state funded by the U.S. government.” Also last February, the Jewish Book Council started a program where people could report antisemitism related to literature. (Criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield published an astute analysis of PEN on his blog Simple Justice last April with the title, “Can PEN America Remain ‘Neutral?’”
• Most recently, on January 8, Dr. Sue Kresley, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, sent a letter to Secretary of State Anthony Blinken asking about the status of a pediatrician and head of a Gaza hospital taken into custody by the IDF in December. She wanted Blinken to look into the pediatrician’s status and “steps the U.S. government is taking to improve access to pediatric care in Gaza.” Last March, AAP’s then president, Dr. Benjamin Hoffman, issued a statement in which “he encouraged officials to consider the unique physical, physiological and mental health needs of children in Gaza.” Israeli children? Not worth a mention here. 
• Finally, on the culture front, an employee group called NYC Alamo United circulated a petition when the Alamo Drafthouse in Brooklyn showed the new film “September 5,” about the 1972 massacre of Israeli athletes at the Olympics. The petition states, in part, “Condemn the [Alamo Drafthouse’s] complicity in the distribution of regressive media & demand that they immediately stop platforming film & media industry companies that spread genocidal rhetoric” As of January 12, the Brooklyn theater was showing September 5 daily at 10 p.m. through January 15 at least. (I wonder if the people so opposed to September 5 know about the historical significance of the Alamo in San Antonio; perhaps for their next bold protests they’ll demand the chain change its name to the Nasrallah Drafthouse.) 

What to make of these and thousands of other datapoints? Some reflect executive mandates, where leadership wants to take the anti-Israel line; think of universities and their faculty-lounge mujahadeen. In other instances, leadership does the right thing but lacks the backbone to tell Hamasjugend workers to take a hike if they don’t like the museum or corporation’s programming; kudos to Alamo Drafthouse for still showing September 5.

Elsewhere, effective pushback comes from several directions. Alumni who withhold hefty donations can get the attention of university presidents quaking under their desks waiting for the next violent building takeover. A decline in applications from top students wary of harassment and tainted education at Hezbollah-on-the-Hudson and other institutions gets alarm bells ringing in the admissions offices. 

Another approach: bypass the professional associations that bend to the anti-Israel winds. Don’t like the American Association of University Professors? Try the National Association of Scholars, which boldly declares it “upholds the standards of a liberal arts education that fosters intellectual freedom, searches for the truth, and promotes virtuous citizenship.” Disappointed in the direction of the ACLU? The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is fearless in defending free speech. If you need a lodestar for evaluating organizations, please refer to John O’Sullivan’s First Law. 

And if the candidates of your longstanding political allegiance are steering hard in a direction that goes against your values, well . . . you know what to do at the ballot box. That’s been known to happen recently.

Progressivism, like all totalitarian ideologies, rejects objective truth, goodness, and beauty, as these concepts limit power. True art transcends political agendas, embracing these timeless values.

Caleb Gannon’s attack on a pro-Israel activist is tied to the ideology of “settler colonialism,” which demonizes Western democracies and legitimizes violence. This ideology, fueled by Hamas’s October 7th attack, drove Gannon’s actions and destabilizes civil society.

A poem by Darren Glick

With the globalized intifada moving into stage II—destroy the West—the growing cultural boycott of Judeans will soon become a mere footnote in today’s Islamic crusade. What we can do is use this as an opportunity to show the parallels of culture and ideology, and how they need to be viewed together: one forms the basis…

While much of the world media and human rights groups are fixated on the war being waged on Israel by Iran and its Hamas/Hezbollah/Houthi proxies, Islamic jihadist terrorists continue to ravage Africa.

At least 40 Chadian soldiers were killed in a terrorist attack on October 26–27 on a military base in Chad’s Lake Region, according to a government statement that blamed the attack on the jihadist Boko Haram group. Reuters added:

Chad is an important ally for French and U.S. forces aiming to fight jihadists in the Sahel, which has become the epicentre of global terrorism under attack by factions loyal to al Qaeda and Islamic State.

The area around Lake Chad, which lies along the borders of Chad, Nigeria, Cameroon, and Niger, is targeted by Islamist insurgencies—by the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) and Boko Haram—which began a terror campaign in northeast Nigeria in 2009 and spread to Chad.

Boko Haram and ISWAP have, since 2009, created severe security problems in the region. They have sent suicide bombers across Nigeria’s border with Chad, and murdered many civilians and Chadian soldiers. On May 22, 2022, for instance, ISWAP terrorists abducted and murdered three Christians in Chad’s Litri region, near the border with Nigeria.

In 2020, the security situation in Chad took a drastic turn for the worse, according to the Africa Centre of Strategic Studies, with Boko Haram killing 98 Chadian soldiers and wounding dozens more in Bohoma, on March 23, 2020.

Following this attack, the Chadian armed forces launched an offensive aimed at eliminating the jihadist insurgents from Chad. However, continuing terrorist attacks since then suggest that Boko Haram and ISWAP are gaining force, posing increasing risks to regional stability.

Boko Haram, founded in northeastern Nigeria, has, since 2009, carried out countless assassinations and massacres there. The group seeks the universal implementation of Islamic sharia law. According to reports, since 2009, Muslims, inspired by Boko Haram, have murdered more than 150,000 Christians in Nigeria. According to the US government’s National Counterterrorism Center,

Boko Haram, which refers to itself as “Jama’atu Ahl as-Sunnah li-Da’awati wal-Jihad” (JASDJ; Group of the Sunni People for the Calling and Jihad) and “Nigerian Taliban”—other translations and variants are used—is a Nigeria-based group that seeks to overthrow the current Nigerian Government and replace it with a regime based on Islamic law. It is popularly known in Nigerian and Western media as “Boko Haram,” which means “Western education is forbidden” (the word boko is a holdover from the colonial English word for book). The group, which has existed in various forms since the late 1990s, suffered setbacks in July 2009 when clashes with Nigerian Government forces led to the deaths of hundreds of its members, including former leader Muhammad Yusuf…

Boko Haram’s capability increased in 2014, with the group conducting near-daily attacks against Christians, security and police forces, the media, schools, politicians, and Muslims perceived as collaborators. Boko Haram continued to raise its international profile in 2015, pledging allegiance to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in March—and publicly using the name “ISIL-West Africa Province” and similar variants—and conducting simultaneous suicide bombings in N’Djamena, Chad, in June—the first such attack in that country’s capital.

Boko Haram’s violence—including the kidnapping of 276 schoolgirls in Borno State, Nigeria, in April 2014—brought international condemnation and in February 2015 provoked a large regional CT [counterterrorism] offensive against the group that displaced it from the majority of its strongholds in Nigeria. Nonetheless, Boko Haram remains resilient, conducting attacks in neighboring Cameroon, Chad, Niger, as well as Nigeria, emphasizing the threat it poses to Western and regional interests.

Chad, Libya, Sudan, the Central African Republic, Cameroon, Nigeria, and Niger all struggle with jihadist insurgencies.

The epicenters of the violence and humanitarian disaster in Africa are in the Liptako-Gourma and Lake Chad basin subregions, notes a report by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Liptako-Gourma is in the central Sahel, in the borderlands of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger. According to the report:

The persistent and growing strength of violent extremist organizations in the Sahel threatens to exacerbate the humanitarian crisis and spread instability across Africa, posing significant security and financial risks to the United States and Europe. The continuing collapse of international counterterrorism support, as well as weakening leadership in regional efforts, has created a vacuum in which violent extremism can expand. Organizations including Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal Muslimeen (JNIM), Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (ISGS), Islamic State in the West African Province (ISWAP), and others have already taken advantage of that vacuum, using countries in the region as platforms to launch indiscriminate attacks on government forces and civilians alike…

Notable attacks targeting the Radisson Blu Hotel in Mali, the Splendid Hotel in Burkina Faso, and L’Etoule du Sud Hotel in Ivory Coast in 2015 and 2016 demonstrated the extent of the Islamist threat to the Sahel and West Africa. In September 2016, the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (ISGS) surfaced in Burkina Faso, launching its first major attack on a border post near the Burkinabe city of Markoye.

In 2017, several al-Qaeda affiliates merged to form Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal Muslimeen (JNIM). The emergence of ISGS and JNIM have intensified violence in the Sahel. Both JNIM and ISGS have pushed farther south in Liptako-Gourma, threatening the security of West Africa’s relatively stable coastal states. JNIM has more recently gained control over territory in northern and central Mali, while ISGS has been confined to northern Burkina Faso and western Niger due to clashes with JNIM that began in 2020.

Violent extremism in the Lake Chad Basin at the intersection of Cameroon, Chad, Niger, and Nigeria prevailed in the same period with the reemergence of Boko Haram in northern Nigeria.

Chad’s stability is intrinsically linked to the stability of neighboring nations. The ongoing civil war in Sudan between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces, for example, poses a serious threat to Chad’s stability. As Sudan’s civil war escalates, it fuels further turmoil in the region.

“The conflict, which has spread to 14 of the 18 states in Sudan, has killed and wounded tens of thousands of civilians, displaced nearly 8 million people and forced two million more to flee to neighboring countries,” according to the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The civil war in Sudan has driven around 700,000 refugees into Chad, creating a humanitarian crisis and impeding trade between the two countries.

In the context of the escalating Boko Haram and ISWAP jihad in Chad, the security of Christians in the country is increasingly threatened, reports Open Doors, an international human rights organization:

These jihadist groups are known for targeting religious minorities, including Christians, in their quest to establish an Islamic State.

Christian women are subject to sexual violence by Islamic militants. A country expert explained: “There have been reports of Christian women being kidnapped and forced into marriage across parts of the nation where Boko haram militia have wreaked havoc. …[P]articularly in rural areas and in internally displaced people’s camps.”

Christian men and boys in Chad are most vulnerable to persecution from Islamic militant groups. Some have reportedly been abducted, forced to convert to Islam and be recruited to join the ranks of jihadist groups to serve as fighters.

According to a source, men and boys, particularly in Eastern Chad are “forced to organise self-defence groups, arming themselves primarily with spears, knives, poison-tipped arrows, etc. in order to discourage and defend against militia attacks in the absence of any substantial military or police presence provided by the Chadian government. Boys are also compelled to sleep in the open fields and watch over animals to try to prevent them from being stolen by armed militias.”

In addition to the jihadist insurgency, Christians in Chad also suffer from persecution on a societal level, according to Open Doors.

Islam first came to Chad in the 11th century but did not become a national religion until the 16th and 17th centuries when the country had become established as a route for the Islamic slave trade.

Although Chad is officially a secular republic, Islam is today the majority religion (56% of the population) and pervades the whole of society, causing some Chadians to show hostility and intolerance towards Christians, whom they regard as “infidels,” reports Open Doors. There are over 6 million Christians in the country (35% of the population). According to Open Doors:

The influence of Islamic extremism is quite pervasive in Chad. In collaboration with Arab nations, numerous schools, universities and mosques are being established to spread radical Islamic ideologies. This has catalyzed the radicalisation of specific segments of the population, creating an increasingly hostile environment for Christians…

The rise of Islamic militancy in the Sahel region has profound implications for Chad, particularly for its Christian population and other minority religious communities. This surge in extremism not only empowers militant groups but also influences other Islamic factions within Chad to adopt more conservative Islamic doctrine…

Unless there is a coordinated effort to implement comprehensive political, economic, and social reforms alongside military campaigns against Boko Haram, the extremist group’s ideology is likely to continue to gain ground.

As a result of jihadi violence by terror groups in sub-Saharan Africa, 16.2 million Christians have been forcibly displaced. An Open Doors report quotes Pastor Barnabas, who lives in a displaced persons camp in Nigeria:

Millions of Christians are displaced, here in Nigeria. Millions of Christians are displaced in Africa. The news doesn’t care about it, politicians don’t talk about it, governments don’t talk about it, global politics don’t talk about it. Nobody talks about it.

As Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch, said in an October 27 interview with this writer:

Jihad groups in several countries in Africa confront and defeat government military forces on a regular basis. This raises several questions that no one seems able or willing to answer: Who is funding these groups? Who is arming and enabling them to the extent that they are more powerful than the forces of sovereign states? What powerful and monied entities are supporting the advance of jihad in Africa?

Way back when I was in college, I had to write an undergraduate thesis and I wrote about the Idea of the University. This work borrowed heavily from Cardinal John Henry Newman who wrote his own “Idea of the University” in the 1850s as he lectured in Ireland that universities were the place to find knowledge. My own version echoed many of Newman’s beliefs as I wrote that universities should be where students seek the truth. I still have the leather-bound copy of my opus in my bookshelves. Little did I know I would be writing about the same thing almost 40 years later.

When college encampments were all the rage in the spring of 2024, I wrote a “Letter to the Protestors.” Little did I know it would go viral.

When my grandparents were victims of pogroms across eastern Europe before emigrating to the United States in the early 1900s, and when my other relatives who were not as lucky were murdered in gas chambers in Nazi deathcamps, the world said “never again.” Little did I know my family, and Jews across the world, would say “never again is now” after October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists attacked Israel.

Little did I know it would be such a tumultuous year and that anti-Semitism would be everywhere on our campuses. There are moments when I no longer even recognize the world in which we are now living.

One thing, however, I do know: the world through Jewish eyes is decidedly different and decidedly anti-Semitic, especially virulently in our colleges and universities. We are fighting a well-organized and well-funded enemy who has been lying in wait, ready to pounce with their propaganda and partnerships with strange bedfellows (who would have ever contemplated jihadists and Marxists side by side?).

My slightly sarcastic tongue-in-cheek letter was originally meant only for friends and family. I had no idea it would thrust me into a media whirlwind, but I was grateful for the platform. My focus was to tell anyone who would listen about the protests and how wrong the encampments were. I am not against protests and all for students standing up for their beliefs. I claimed then and stand by those claims that most of the protestors had no idea what they were standing for and were, more importantly, unable to think for themselves.

I had tried to engage the protestors at the encampment where I teach, but to no avail.  Most of them were unable to answer some of my basic questions such as “Do you believe Israel has the right to exist?” They then resorted to chanting hateful tropes rather than have civil discourse with me. The “Idea of the University” was lost in these protests, replaced by propaganda and hate speech.

Like most Americans (and even most Zionists), I believe in free speech. I believe one death of anyone innocent is one death too many. But I did not see the call to return the innocent hostages at the protests. There were innocent American civilians—the same ages as many of the students at these protests—being held by Hamas in tunnels. No outcry about that. Just think if the students across the country would have used their collective voices to focus on releasing the hostages.

I did not see protests about the war in Ukraine, or the Uyghurs, or women beaten, arrested, or killed for not wearing hajibs in Iran. Or massacres in Syria and Yemen, or the war and famine in Sudan, or any other conflict in the world except for the one where the protestors could speak out against Israel and the Jewish people. All the previously hidden anti-Semitism somehow has become almost politically correct, enabled by universities allowing the encampments and the hate speech.

As a law professor, I was appalled by how most universities handled the protests that erupted after the October 7 attack by Hamas on Israel. At law schools, we teach students to spot the risks or the problems. But that is not all. We also try to teach students to solve those problems, usually creatively. To think through the issues and understand all the possible arguments and solutions. With that spirit in mind, rather than document further all the mind-boggling issues on our campuses, I am going to try to suggest some solutions to reclaim our universities. Most of these suggested potential solutions fall into the following buckets:

1. Follow the money
2. Teach your children well
3. Don’t give the mouse a cookie
4. You break it, you buy it

I could have also written at length about how too many professors have used their classrooms for their own political purposes and as their own pulpits. There is evidence from schools across the country where professors have given extra credit to their students who went to protests against Israel, or professors who have even cancelled class so they themselves can attend protests, or much worse. My personal beliefs are just that: personal beliefs and do not affect how, what, or who I teach.

While I do not think we should go back to the Salem witch trials or the McCarthy era trying to uproot and uncover hidden Communists, I do think that faculty members who are affiliated with known terrorist organizations do need to be rooted out and removed from the classroom.

Let’s look at the different recommendations which are practical and could be implemented immediately:

Follow the money

Following the money is an easy point to make given how surprised many seem to be at the level of funding from both foreign nations as well as other organizations at American universities. First, there is a lack of transparency which is only now starting to surface.  The actual U.S. law, the Higher Education Act, from 1965 and hardly ever enforced, requires U.S. universities to report donations from foreign governments of over $250,000. However, the law can be circumvented when the money flows through non-profits, other charitable (or otherwise) organizations, and third parties.

Money from the nation of Qatar alone is staggering. In many cases, this money is to establish satellite campuses and programs in Doha. Nonetheless, the fact that Qatar has harbored Hamas leadership and, as one example, given Cornell almost $2 billion alone might make your head spin, or might make you less likely to send your children or donate to a university taking in significant funding from a dubious source.

First, there needs to be enforcement of the law, and fines to universities who do not accurately report funding from foreign nations. Moreover, there needs to be total transparency. The amounts of money donated from foreign governments must be not only disclosed in an easy-to-understand format (perhaps mandated to be on every college and university’s website) but universities must also highlight exactly what such money is funding: endowing professorships or sponsoring specific lectures, etc.

Following the money is more than just disclosure and transparency concerning foreign funding sources. Such “free” money donated is hardly ever actually free. It usually comes with either spoken or unspoken strings. Nevertheless, it is too tantalizing for American universities to resist this level of financial support. The U.S. government needs to make such grants less desirable by pulling all federal funding from American colleges and universities that take money from foreign nations.

Teach your children well

Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young said it (and sang it) first, but teach your children well.  Many of us have seen the videos of UNWRA-funded and -directed Palestinian kindergarten children mimicking terrorists killing Jews. A generation of Palestinians has been taught to hate. Yet we have now seen similar hate being taught to young Americans, both in college and even long before they set foot on campus. The concepts of white colonization, genocide, and even Zionism are now misunderstood and have indoctrinated young Americans into believing that Israel is a white colonizer, is committing genocide, and Zionism itself is evil.

While polls showing that an alarming number of young Americans believed the Holocaust to be a myth were later debunked, an equally alarming number of young Americans do not believe Israel has a right to exist. Young people are being taught a one-sided narrative. Our curricula have been infiltrated with this indoctrination. Even the Advanced Placement (“AP”) World History material promotes an anti-Semitic narrative that Jews were “occupying” Palestine during the Roman Empire. This false narrative is revising history. And the false narrative is systemic and institutionalized. In fact, I feel like the narrative has been lost when the Ayatollah, the Supreme Ruler of the Islamic Republic of Iran, is thanking American students for protesting.

Can the narrative be reshaped and regained? This will take time and a complete overhaul of the curricula throughout the American education system, even elementary school. The one-sided or rewritten histories must not be presented as the whole story. 

This indoctrination has taken years. We must catch up quickly to revise the revisionists. Perhaps a national task force on historic curriculum overhaul needs to happen—with universities and schools needing to be certified that they are teaching actual history, whether about the Middle East or own Civil War for example.

There are also other measures to take to teach our children well. Holocaust education should be mandatory in our secondary education system. I have seen the horrors of Auschwitz with my own eyes. Even 50 years after Auschwitz was operational, what I saw could never be unseen by me. Obviously, not every young person can have that same experience. As fewer Holocaust survivors remain to speak to young people about their experiences, we must find ways to tell their stories and make it real for them.

The BDS movement is often accused of being anti-Semitic and advancing the cause of not just boycotting, divesting, and sanctioning Israel but also the end of the Jewish nation. Many college and university students are jumping on the BDS bandwagon without understanding the issues or what this really means. Yale students recently approved a BDS referendum—but will they all abandon Apple, Google, Starbucks, medical technology that can save their lives, and even cherry tomatoes? The list of Israeli technological advances in all aspects of our lives is long and intertwined with many companies and products we all use and love. This information needs to be promoted and publicized so that students understand what they are actually protesting when they push a BDS agenda.

We also must make clear that resistance by any means necessary is wrong. For example, rape is not resistance, and in no moral universe should rape be considered justified as such. When I saw young women holding signs at a protest that said resistance “by any means necessary,” I had to challenge them. I asked, “Does that include rape?” Two young female undergraduate students told me, “Any means.” I was shocked, but I realized that, once again, these young women were only regurgitating the propaganda they had been taught. We must do better and teach that rape is not resistance.

Don’t give a mouse a cookie

I have written about this philosophy previously when a number of university officials were capitulating to the protestors on their campuses despite, in most cases, their flagrant violations of student codes of conduct. The classic children’s story tells us what happens if you give a mouse a cookie.  

If you give that mouse a cookie, the mouse is going to want a glass of milk!

You know this philosophy because it is the reason the United States supposedly does not negotiate with terrorists.

Too many universities gave in to the “terrorists” on their own campuses by dropping disciplinary actions. All this accomplishes is to empower those who broke the law and were arrested (or, at a minimum, violated student codes of conduct). Universities gave those mice cookies, and now the protestors know they can demand a glass of milk. There must be consequences and personal accountability.

As an example, Harvard initially disciplined students, but, while 13 of these students had their degrees withheld and could not participate in graduation, 11 of them had their status restored to good standing and were awarded their diplomas anyway only two months later. The lack of backbone and follow-through is evident not just at Harvard but also at other schools who reached “agreements” with students who violated the law and school rules.

You break it, you buy it

Defacing statues; ransacking university buildings; damaging university, administrators’, trustees’, or other affiliated parties’ property; and even “lesser” crimes like littering on university or public property must be punished according to existing university policies. There needs to be consequences and personal accountability! Related to the “if you give a mouse a cookie” approach above, if universities keep letting students break not only student codes of conduct but also actual laws, then the conduct will continue, and laws will continue to be broken and flouted.

Some of my friends have cheered when organizations like Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) or Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) have been suspended on campuses across the country. This is not enough! Suspending these organizations does little or nothing. Typically, they reorganize under a different name or plead discrimination and suspensions are lifted. Organizations with any ties to known terrorist organizations should be banned. But again, SJP is well-organized at both the student and faculty level and not going away easily. One of the pages out of their playbook, given seemingly to SJP chapters across the country—in addition to “globalize the intifada”—is their incessant chant “We will not stop! We will not rest!” They have money. They have manpower. They have attention from the media. And know how to use social media to their advantage. These organizations, even when suspended, are in no danger of disappearing.

There must therefore be personal accountability. The Ku Klux Klan members hid their identities and faces under their infamous white cloaks. Members of SJP are mostly out in the open, not in hiding. Well, they often do hide behind masks, but some states and schools have made wearing masks now illegal (see, for example, the University of Virginia’s revised policies). I am not suggesting doxing or not hiring affiliated students.  But when those organizations break the rules, the officers and members must be held accountable.

Universities need to prosecute to the full extent of the law anyone—students, faculty, administration, or even non-affiliates—who damages the university’s property. This includes those who vandalize the private property of university officials like what happened to a University of Michigan regent as one example. Recently, that same regent has been attacked (unbelievably) a third time, with mason jars of urine thrown through the windows of his home while his wife and children were inside, along with spray painting his family’s car with the words “divest and free Palestine.” At George Washington University, trustees were not only victims of pro-Palestinian, BDS-supporting, spray-painted graffiti at their homes as well, but their neighbors also apparently received letters stating that a war criminal lived in the neighborhood, complete with pictures of the trustees and their families. No matter what your views are about Israel or Gaza or even anything, these crimes must be investigated and those responsible must be held accountable.

We live in world with video surveillance; discovering perpetrators is just not that difficult.  Universities should, therefore, enhance video surveillance to ensure their campuses have the needed capabilities. This may sound a little “Big Brother-ish,” but, to echo the protesters, desperate times do call for desperate measures. Such surveillance may also act to deter future destruction of property.

Why should any university affiliates be able to get away without paying for any damage they cause? The University of California system supposedly spent $29 million on costs associated with the protests on their campuses. Most of this money was for additional security. At UCLA, just the clean-up costs from the encampment were $500,000. Who is funding these additional costs? In this case, if you live in California, you. Shouldn’t those who spray-paint graffiti and deface statues and cause destruction to buildings and the campus be responsible?

Summary

The infiltration of our universities and colleges started long before the October 7 attacks.  Most Americans were blissfully unaware of how students (and others) have been brainwashed to believe a one-sided narrative that has been sold by the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Professors are allowed to use their platforms to indoctrinate students, and nothing happens to those professors.  Universities have stopped teaching students how to think critically.

In order to reclaim our universities and hold them to that ideal I wrote about when I was in college, where these institutions would be places where students seek truth and knowledge, the efforts cannot be piecemeal, with tinkering around the edges.

I have made a few small suggestions that (1) financing from foreign nations must be much more transparent and, if accepted by an American university, would then eliminate any federal funding of that institution; (2) one-sided narratives and revisionist history must be eliminated throughout all curricula in our educational system; (3) universities must not negotiate with terrorists or student organizations that have ties to known terrorist organizations; and (4) laws and student codes of conduct must be enforced to the full extent of the law.

These suggestions, if followed, would likely be insufficient. There will still be professors and teachers spewing anti-Semitic rhetoric. There will still be foreign dollars leaking into our universities through the back door. There will still be plenty of issues.  

But, when solving any problem, starting to talk about it is the first step, and starting to make concrete progress is, at least, a start.

November 5, 2024, was, for some Jews, a day of sadness. The defeat of U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris—and her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz—seemed the repudiation of the kind of progressive politics many American and other Jews celebrated.

Both progressive candidates seemingly swung toward the center and reiterated their support for Israel, as had President Joe Biden. For others, former president Donald Trump’s re-election, with Ohio Senator J. D. Vance as his running mate, was a symbol of re-established security for Jews. Terrorism would no longer be ignored or supported. U.S.-Israeli relations would be strengthened once again. Israel could quickly achieve victory in its war on terror against Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other Iran-backed proxies.

Yet, just as the lame duck period of Biden is unpredictable, in regards to support for Israel, so it is also an opportunity for Islamists in the West to launch further assaults on Israelis and Jews elsewhere—particularly after the degradation of Hamas and Hezbollah.

A pogrom just days before the commemoration of the Nazis’ Kristallnacht attack on the Jewish community has shaken world Jewry. Israelis visiting Amsterdam for a soccer game were attacked in a coordinated, premeditated campaign by Islamists. Disturbingly, the police seemed unable or unwilling to stop the attack, and many in the city—despite acts of heroism from some—refused to offer shelter to the victims. As if this wasn’t enough, the media predictably engaged in victim blaming, claiming that the Jews who were under attack provoked it by engaging in “Islamophobia.”

Luckily, nobody died, and many of the Israelis were successfully rescued. Numerous Dutch authorities condemned the incident and claimed to be investigating. Yet the problem remains, and likely will remain for a long time: unfettered migration of radical Muslims from unstable countries, with no interest in integration into Western society, and a visceral, systemic hatred against Jews. These migrants also pose a grave threat to women, the LGBT community, democracy, atheists, Christians, liberal Muslims, and, more generally, the Western way of life.

Yet, for whatever reason, the political and largely progressive establishment has ignored this problem—and the demands of its voters. We the People throughout the Western world have been warning of this grave threat for decades, oftentimes while also warning against the far-right’s demonization of Muslims as a whole. Yet our warnings have gone unheeded, allowing for the media to gaslight Jews, Zionists, and concerned citizens as a whole. And that has ushered in support for far-right political parties and organizations across the West.

I find it interesting that the attack happened just a day after Trump’s re-election. One of the central themes of the 2024 cycle, which appears to have gained the GOP full control of Congress as well, was that voters are tired of bad immigration policies. This isn’t a problem unique to the U.S.-Mexican border, however—it is one that too many on the political left have long kicked down the road. Unfortunately, there are early indications that the establishment has no intention of listening to voters and changing policies. Just listen to the alleged “expert analysts” on mainstream media outlets, who are continuing to blame “misinformation” or “racism” for the defeat of Vice President Harris. Democratic governors are vowing to “Trump-proof” their states from his future administration, essentially rejecting the democratic will of the voters—of which illegal immigration is a huge concern. Bernie Sanders suggests that Democrats lost due to arming Israel—basically, that the party did not move far enough to the left.

Some may ask why I am linking the Amsterdam attack to the U.S. election. The reason is that this is a deeper problem within the West’s establishment governments: they have surrendered to the far-left extremists in institutionalizing Islamism.

It is true that America leads, and so other countries will follow suit with many of our policies (in some cases). Yet it’s also true that the Democratic Party under the Obama administration brought far-left worldviews and policies to America from the European Union. Just consider the election analysts who prioritized the concerns of the Watermelon People over a substantially larger portion of the American electorate: Jews. Muslims and Arabs vote in lower numbers than Jews, historically, and already were hesitant to support the Democrats over the gender issue in K–12 public schools.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration was widely praised by American Jews—even right-leaning ones—for its initial support for Israel and Jews after the tragic events of October 7, 2023. Trump’s post-2020 shunning of Netanyahu, isolationism, poorly-timed statements criticizing Israeli military strategy against terrorists, and mysterious relations with anti-Jewish figures had already alienated the overwhelmingly Democratic Jewish American community.

Yet the Biden Administration began criticizing Israel much more harshly, prioritizing humanitarian aid to Gaza over freeing hostages (which include U.S. citizens) and destroying terrorism, and slow-walked weapons deliveries to the Jewish state in order to appeal to a small and unreliable segment of voters who were anyways unlikely to vote for the Democrats after their (tepid) support for Israel. The Democratic Party added further insult to the Jewish American community by downplaying campus anti-Semitism, placing the rampant anti-Semitism in the U.S. on the same playing field as “Islamophobia”—essentially “All Lives Mattering” the issue, while comparing Donald Trump to Hitler for the umpteenth time.

In the post-election analysis, one now suggestions that it was the anti-Democrat protest vote from progressive anti-Zionists and Muslims in Michigan that cost Harris her victory. In fact, it’s likely the fact that Jews voted in historic numbers in well-placed areas for Donald Trump based on his record on Israel.

The Democrats may have won most overall Jewish support, but no Republican has ever garnered as much as Trump just did. Harris’ refusal to choose the popular, moderate Pennsylvania governor, Josh Shapiro, as her running mate due to the fear of alienating anti-Semites within the party was another serious concern for American Jews, who were already unsure if she would crack down on anti-Semitism in the U.S. and keep supporting the Jewish state. True, this may have been due to other considerations, yet Shapiro may have won her an important swing state. The fact of the matter is that the Jewish vote has been taken advantage of—something other minorities in the U.S. realized this time around when they supported Democrats by far lower margins.

Even now, many pundits suggest that the Harris campaign’s failure to more forcefully criticize Israel, compared to Biden, lost her the Michigan contest. There has been no serious widespread acknowledgement that abandoning Israel and marginalizing concerns over left-wing anti-Semitism bled support from the larger and more loyal Jewish vote from various blue and purple states and cities. And while perhaps there is some satisfaction in seeing this realization and political shift, however slight—as well as the understanding among many voters that the Watermelon Crowd betrayed them—the sad reality is that the Democratic Party will continue, in all likelihood, to support the normalization and institutionalization of Islamist ideology, in the academy, the government, and cultural spaces.

This is not yet as large of a problem as it is in countries like Canada or over in Europe, and perhaps the Trump administration will be able to prevent this from gaining traction. Yet, the fact remains that so many of our allies betrayed us anyways. One thing that is known for certain is that we as Jews can no longer allow ourselves to be gaslit and taken for granted. In fact, We the People more generally no longer can.

It was by the grace of G-d that the Amsterdam pogrom didn’t end up worse than it did, but the event was disturbing enough. If we are to truly prevent such attacks from occurring—whether by citizens on college campuses or new arrivals from foreign countries—then we must have the courage to demand not just better, but the best from our candidates and elected officials. Never again must mean never again, always.

“Shimon ben Shatah used to say: Examine the witnesses thoroughly, and be careful in your words, lest through them they learn how to lie.”

—Pirkei Avot 1:9

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”

—Rahm Emanuel

As a metaphorical starting place, I want the reader to imagine being at the 1945 Trinity nuclear weapon test. The Manhattan Project scientists are under tremendous pressure not only because the fate of Western civilization seems to rest on their shoulders, but because they are totally and uniquely alone; for, only they can see in their minds’ eyes what is about to happen for the first time. Dark, apocalyptic thoughts explode into consciousness under such pressures. The scientists take bets on whether “The Gadget” will ignite the atmosphere. How do you place your bet? 

For Jews, this situation shares similarity with the controversy emanating from Springfield, Ohio. The controversy has many facets. Most important, if less obvious, is the inevitable fission that takes place when two very different cultures are slammed into one another by outside forces. The “initiator,” so to speak, is a near instant 40% increase in population. Fission then triggers other reactions, including the community’s fiscal, social services, and even physical, infrastructures, burdened to the breaking point. When the bonds that hold a community together suddenly break, it releases tremendous energies. These breaking bonds cascade and magnify, the impact of which is felt far beyond ground zero. 

The details of what has happened to Springfield, following the arrival of a large number of Haitian migrants, are well documented elsewhere, so there is no need to rehash them here (simply Google the topic). I want to, rather, look at a subsequent chain reaction. That is, how this “crisis” has been “an opportunity” for some. Specifically: The scandal surrounding Cary Kozberg, the rabbi at Temple Sholom in Springfield. Immigrant German peddlers chartered the temple in 1866 as part of the Reform movement. It is the last of several synagogues in Springfield. Membership has dwindled from a peak of about 150 to 35 families, who meet (at least) weekly in an oversized building which heralds a richer past. My wife and I, both in our early sixties, are among the youngest members. Such is Jewish life in the rustbelt.

In the wake of the bruhaha over the Haitians in Springfield, Jewish media approached Rabbi Kozberg (hereafter, “Rabbi”) for an interview. Rabbi told me he was hesitant, because he’s not a resident of Springfield, and so not the best candidate to speak on the topic. (His position at Sholom is part-time, his retirement job, and he lives a good distance from Springfield.) But, as the only rabbi in the community he felt obligated. Andrew Lapin then interviewed Rabbi for the Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA). The JTA interview was reprinted in the Dayton Jewish Observer (DJO). (Just 30 miles away, Dayton is the fourth-largest metropolis in Ohio.) Marshall Weiss, the DJO’s publisher and editor, then published excerpts from a discussion he had with Rabbi, the temple president, and others.

The proverbial stuff hit the fan. Hate mail filled Rabbi’s in-box, including from other rabbis. I heard from my sister, on the West Coast, that Rabbi was the subject of her rabbi’s denunciatory Rosh Hashana sermon. No doubt other rabbis have given similar sermons. Lashan hara is difficult to stem, even among rabbis.

The proverbial stuff hit the fan. The headline of a Haaretz essay screams that Rabbi is “odious” and “an utter waste of rabbinic protoplasm.” Most of the commenters concur, though one challenges the author for “factual flaws” and “propagandizing rhetoric,” but lacks specifics. As one might expect, hate mail filled Rabbi’s inbox, including from other rabbis. Lashan hara is indeed difficult to stem.

Everyone who reads the articles is horrified. Those who know Rabbi are taken aback by his portrayal in the JTA as a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde transmogrifying into a rabid racist, like the kindly man who trains dogs to kill black people in Samuel Fuller’s White Dog (1982). I am no apologist for Rabbi, nor will I interpret what he said. I wasn’t present at any of the interviews, and Rabbi is perfectly capable of explaining himself. The question is, however: How are readers to make sense of an article that initiated such a powerful chain reaction, triggering headlines not just in the Jewish press, or the local or national press, but the international press? 

Fortunately, there are models, shall we say, for explaining such powerful texts. I would like to briefly describe three. Critical Theory—the dominant model in academic humanities and social sciences for many decades now—teaches us that everything can be understood as a “text.” A fellow graduate student proposed the novel dissertation topic of “reading” newborns as texts. Every text, moreover, is a kind of palimpsest, a page or canvas on which there are two layers of text or imagery. Although the second layer obscures the first, if we know what to look for, we can find traces of the first layer. That first layer, Critical Theory tells us, always “inscribes” power. Birth of a Nation (1915) and Gone with the Wind (novel 1936, film 1939) are exemplars of American texts that inscribe white power over blacks.

Saul Alinsky (1909–1972) was a pioneer of radical rhetoric, providing keen insight into how to shape public discourse. Most famous is his Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals (1971). We don’t need to read all thirteen of his rules. Two are sufficient.

Rule no. 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”

Rule no. 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

I sent Marshall Weiss an email message expressing my concerns about the quality of Lapin’s journalism. In a response, Mr. Weiss made the following comment: “First rule of dealing with reporters: If you don’t want to be interviewed, say so, and don’t say anything else” (personal correspondence dated September 24, 2024, 1:33 pm). In other words, to be interviewed runs the risk of the adage, “If it bleeds, it leads.” Weiss, though, is telling us the press will inflict wounds if they think a story needs more blood. Credit where credit is due. Mr. Weiss gives us an honest appraisal of his own profession.

If what Critical Theory asserts is correct, that all texts attempt to aggregate power to the author or author’s group, then it must be equally true of Critical Theory texts, or texts by people schooled in Critical Theory. If we take Alinsky at face value, then honest public discourse in the pursuit of truth or for the good of the commonweal does not accrue power—which is all that matters. If what Weiss says is correct, then even well-intentioned public servants, broadly defined, are put into an inextricable bind. The press demands, hectors even, public servants to make themselves accountable to the people by giving interviews to the press, knowing full well it is a suicide mission. That is, the public servant submits to the interview knowing it subjects him or her to Alinky’s rules. Indeed, one of Springfield’s Haitian community leaders told Rabbi that he will no longer give interviews because he, too, is tired of being pilloried by the press.

Read through the lens of Critical Theory, Lapin’s article it is nothing but rules five and thirteen. Let’s consider just a few examples. Rabbi claims Trump did positive things for Jews. Indeed, a great many Jews consider moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and the Abraham Accords monumental achievements; yet, Lapin does not follow up on Rabbi’s claims. Rather, Lapin writes that Rabbi is “out of step with the vast majority of Reform Jews” [sic].

So what if he is out of step? Maybe that puts Rabbi in good company. Galileo, Lincoln, Eisenstein, and the German Jews who fled before 1938 were all out of step with “the vast majority of” their contemporaries, but history proved them right. Rabbi also asserts that traditional Judaism teaches tzedakah is given in “concentric circles”; which is to say: Charity begins in the home. Rather than verify this claim in the Jewish legal or sacred literature, Lapin finds another rabbi to argue instead that we must “welcome the stranger.” I don’t see the two as mutually exclusive, but that’s not the point. Lapin is cherry-picking, thus pitting one rabbi against another to force the reader to choose sides rather than ponder the nuances of their arguments. Lapin’s Manicheanism explodes nuance.

Torah demands a great many things that are unpalatable to our modern, genteel sensibilities; that we must annihilate Amalek for starters. The Haitians, Lapin tells us, “…are in the country legally.” Again, so what? Foreign tourists are here legally. The 9/11 terrorists were here legally. Springfield Haitians have Temporary Protective Status (TPS). They have not been “vetted,” (i.e., their claims of persecution have not been adjudicated) by Immigration Services. People on the TPS program receive benefits that are denied to people who have been vetted and have Alien Residency. Is that fair? Effectively, the government is incentivizing not applying for Alien Residency. Lapin covers none of this. Instead, he robs the reader of the opportunity to engage complex, ambiguous, and discomforting questions with false equivalencies.

If we look at Weiss’ article, it is not surprising that some in Springfield are backing away from the press. As Erik Berne describes in his seminal book, Games People Play (1964), there are some “games” you cannot possibly win, or in which one may even hope for a draw. Talking to the press is, as Weiss himself indicates, one of those games. Berne says the only thing you can do is walk away from such games. At first, Weiss’ article seems a straightforward and evenhanded accounting of events. Then the article turns on the question of whether “…what Kozberg said in the JTA piece [is] racist.” Racism is like pornography: It is something we can all easily recognize—if only we could agree on a definition. We’ve all said stupid things (I certainly have), but that does not make us stupid. Like asking someone “When did you stop beating your mother?”, Weiss’ implicit question (“Is what the Rabbi said racist?”) is a game you cannot win (see rule no. 5). Weiss also uses inflammatory adjectives strategically to, e.g., attribute “disdain[fulness]” to Rabbi. Weiss combines inflammatory language with guilt by association. Thus, the Rabbi’s “staunch support… for current Republican policies and… Donald Trump for president” (my italics) is inculpative evidence of thought crimes. The question of justice in Judaism, however, turns not on our beliefs or things we say in any given moment, but our actions and continued pursuit of truth over a lifetime. Weiss makes no effort to explore the issues Rabbi raises or the validity of Rabbi’s claims. More to the point, although JTA and DJO are nominally “Jewish” publications, neither Weiss nor Lapin contextualize Rabbi’s statements within the rich legal and philosophical traditions that are the bedrock of Rabbinic Judaism.

In the name of full disclosure, I met Rabbi once about ten years ago. I found him refreshingly candid for a rabbi, and better read in Jewish literature than any other Reform rabbi I’ve met. Three years ago, my wife and I joined his congregation. His congregation is committed and vibrant. Indeed, compared to other mid-west communities, relatively large numbers regularly attend Rabbi’s Shabbat and other services. Politics is never discussed in the sanctuary, if anywhere in the building. Rabbi and I disagree on many things, but always in the spirit of “arguing for the sake of heaven.” And there’s the rub. Lapin and Weiss argue for the sake of scoring ideological points—at the cost of other people’s reputations. 

Tellingly, the surname Lapin derives from the French word lapereau, for rabbit; which is treif. I say this not simply because I enjoy the irony but to illustrate the most interesting aspect of Lapin’s article. His article is sadly symptomatic of not just the state of journalism, but the current socio-cultural stresses that are driving Jews, especially Reform Jews, to attack one another.

The current historical moment is a bit like watching Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979). If our current enemies had half a brain they’d just sit back and watch us fight each other until we have no fight left for them. Which is pretty much what led to the catastrophic events that ended in the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., and our subsequent millennia-long dislocation from our homeland.

Make no mistake: Donald Trump is not an ideal candidate. There are many people who would argue that he is not a very good person, let alone candidate—and that his personal flaws put him well past the line where an acceptable candidate must be. Fortunately, I’m not arguing the merits of Trump in comparison to Kamala Harris as the alternative.

Just for fun, we could accept the premise that Trump is such a horrible candidate that he actually does want to turn the country into a dictatorship. The interesting question, then, is whether or not such a thing is possible in these United States. What I am arguing is that it does not matter who runs for president; no single candidate could ever represent an existential threat to the republic.

Every election cycle seems to bring with it renewed fears that a candidate, once in power, will dismantle the structures of democracy and seize authoritarian control. With the 2024 election just around the corner, this narrative has once again surfaced around Trump. Critics warn that his personality—undeniably abrasive, with a tendency for polarizing rhetoric—signals an unprecedented risk to the republic. Yet, while Trump is certainly an unconventional candidate whose style is divisive to many, it’s vital to separate the personal from the constitutional.

Despite claims that he would refuse to step down, Trump indeed left office without resisting the peaceful transfer of power, even in the wake of the turbulent events of January 6, 2021. The Constitution’s structural checks and balances stood firm, just as the Founding Fathers intended, securing a system resilient to any one individual’s ambitions. Those structural checks and balances have not changed in the past several years.

The original vision: a strong but limited executive

The Founding Fathers knew well the dangers of centralized power as exercised by a strong executive authority. As they drafted the Constitution, they embedded checks and balances specifically designed to counteract any potential executive overreach. In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton drew distinctions between the American presidency and a monarchy, highlighting that, while a president would have authority, it would be restricted by the powers vested in Congress and the courts. The restriction is deliberate.

In Federalist No. 70, Hamilton argued for a “vigorous executive” that could act decisively in times of need. Yet, he emphasized that such vigor would remain bound by the Constitution. The executive’s role, he asserted, was to represent the people, not to wield unchecked power. The Founders crafted a structure of layered oversight, in which the president’s authority was robust yet carefully circumscribed by the—coequal—legislative and judicial branches.

Constitutional safeguards against presidential overreach

Three main pillars support the Constitution’s defense against presidential overreach: Congress, the judiciary, and federalism. These were specifically designed to withstand fluctuations in leadership style and temperament—even those of candidates as polarizing as Trump.

Congressional oversight: Article I of the Constitution vests all legislative power in Congress, which controls government spending and has the authority to pass laws, investigate, and impeach. When Trump faced two impeachments, it was Congress exercising these powers, underscoring the legislative branch’s ability to check the executive. This robust oversight prevents any president from wielding absolute power, as every presidential action remains subject to congressional scrutiny and response. (It is up to Congress to wield its powers appropriately, but that’s a different topic.)

Judicial review: The judiciary has historically served as a significant counterbalance, empowered to assess executive actions for constitutionality. This role was evident in landmark cases such as Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, where the Supreme Court ruled against President Truman’s attempt to seize control of steel mills. Courts regularly review and can overturn executive actions that exceed lawful boundaries, providing an effective check on presidential authority.

Federalism: The Founders established a federalist system, dispersing authority across state governments to prevent centralized control. This state autonomy has proven effective in challenging federal mandates through the courts and shaping policy at a regional level. Regardless of a president’s aims, federalism ensures that states maintain significant sovereignty, effectively curtailing the power of any one individual.

January 6 + the peaceful transfer of power

The election protests of January 6, 2021, are often cited as evidence of Trump’s supposed dictatorial ambitions. The day undoubtedly marked a troubling moment in U.S. history, with protesters breaching the Capitol, leading to widespread concern and debate. Despite these events, however, Trump ultimately adhered to the Constitution’s mandates and relinquished his office. His departure showed that, even amid the tension, the constitutional system of a peaceful transfer of power prevailed, underlining the resilience of America’s democratic framework. In stepping down, Trump confirmed that the country’s founding principles remain strong, regardless of a president’s personal style, ambition, or appeal to certain factions of the public.

The reality of executive orders + limits of presidential authority

One of the frequent criticisms leveled against Trump involves his use of executive orders. Yet executive orders have been a standard tool of governance across administrations, designed to direct the actions of the executive branch within the bounds of the law. Unlike laws, executive orders are reversible by the judiciary, Congress, or subsequent presidents, underscoring the limits on presidential authority. Trump’s executive orders, like those of his predecessors, were often challenged in court, and several were blocked or limited—another reminder of the judiciary’s role in ensuring executive accountability.

Moral character, accountability + the constitution

Undoubtedly, Trump’s character—brash, unfiltered, and often confrontational—does not fit the ideal of moral leadership envisioned by figures like Washington and Adams. These Founders stressed that, while a strong character is preferable in a leader, the Constitution’s structure is designed to check and balance personal ambition. The framers anticipated that officeholders might fall short of ideal virtues; hence, they focused on creating a resilient system where the president, however flawed, remains accountable to the Constitution and its legal constraints.

The persistent myth of a “Trump dictatorship”

Which brings us to the current election season. The narrative that Trump would act as a dictator is largely a construct designed to stoke fear, but it does not align with constitutional reality. The American republic has weathered presidencies of diverse temperaments and political persuasions, and the Founders’ design has held firm. It is ultimately the Constitution’s structure, not any single personality, that protects against authoritarianism.

A constitutional system built to endure

The Founding Fathers crafted a framework designed to withstand ambitious leaders and turbulent political climates. Through rigorous checks and balances, they built a system that protects democracy from the ambitions or shortcomings of any single individual. While Trump’s personality may alienate some and galvanize others, his term in office—including the transition of power in 2021—illustrates that the constitutional system endures beyond any one presidency.

Ultimately, the 2024 election poses a decision for voters, but it does not pose an existential threat to the republic. The enduring strength of the Constitution lies in its design, ensuring that America’s democratic institutions remain resilient, safeguarding liberty against the concentrated power against which the Founders so carefully guarded. No single man, Trump or anyone else, can truly screw that up. Which is not to say we don’t have to put in the work to preserve the republic and our way of life—because we do. But, when it comes to Donald Trump, you can get off the fainting couch.

If it were possible to reconvene in the Independence Hall of heaven, I think it is fair to say that America’s Founding Fathers, peering down upon this moment in America—especially our political culture—might gallingly thunder, “This is not at all what we had in mind! What’s wrong with you people? Where is your independence . . . remember, the one we declared with that piece of parchment on behalf of the Thirteen Colonies, and all future Americans? We went to war over this, for God’s sake!”

The ghosts of those wigged, pointy-toed revolutionaries would be right. We deserve to be haunted by them and ashamed of ourselves. I don’t know about you, but failing our Founders is not how I would like to be remembered.

Independence for them didn’t just mean separation from the British Crown. It also included the freedom to exercise a set of newly defined liberties, and adopt liberal values, that had only recently emanated from the European Enlightenment. 

The Enlightenment was more instrumental in our founding than any other single event. It was the operating system for liberal democracy, and it provided the foundation for our own democratic self-governance. 

We were not alone. It spread to many Western nations that took on their own democratic character. Each had an Enlightened philosopher as north star: England with John Locke, Scotland with David Hume, Germany with Immanuel Kant, France with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and the United States had Thomas Jefferson, among others in those and other Western countries.

This late 18^th century phenomenon became known as the Age of Reason, and Classical Liberalism became its political calling card. The people entered into a social contract with their government and consented to be governed.

No longer were rights granted through the good graces of monarchs. Citizens possessed natural rights—rights that inhered in nature itself. The will of the people determined their destiny, not the narcissism of kings. In addition to free speech, open discourse, civil debate and dialogue, and meritocracy, a free press –untainted by bias or favor—was necessary to the political process. Taken together these values made self-government and representative democracy possible. 

Independence of mind, freedom of thought, and rational decision-making was the essence of the new democratic order. And no nation did more with the fruits of the Enlightenment than these United States. We are the world’s oldest functioning democracy. Democracy is in our national DNA; the self-identification of an American begins with our democratic character. It was our big bang. And let us not forget that we fought for these liberties. They came at a cost. Ragtag colonialists took on the most fearsome military power in the world, and won. Such a victory should never be squandered, or its cause forgotten.

There are profound sensitivities surrounding American democracy. When anti-Trump voters invoke his return to the White House as the “end of democracy,” they know exactly how visceral such a charge lingers in an American’s mind. It presses all of our most patriotic buttons. 

To be an American means to be liberal: open to ideas, discerning of dogma, measured when faced with divergent views, insistent on the rule of law, and able to make fundamental distinctions between right and wrong. 

Republicans have always represented themselves as conservative in their outlook and politics. That doesn’t mean, however, that liberalism does not guide their thinking and inform their purpose. Democrats have always maintained that liberal politics in America was their milieu and mandate, with liberalism serving as the wellspring of their political culture.

As of late, however, I fear that the Democratic Party doth protest too much. Honestly, does the Biden administration in any way resemble a government committed to liberalism, in lockstep with the Enlightenment, in the good graces with America’s Founders? 

Here is the list of particulars that would suggest otherwise. Broken borders and rampant crime. Indoctrination and censorship. Equity over equality. The wholesale indictment of American history and an appalling lack of patriotism, exemplified by a pernicious national self-loathing, and blaming all the world’s problems on 250 years of America’s racist aspirations and its false democracy. 

What has been happening on the campuses of American universities over this past year is emblematic of the current Democratic Party’s organizing principles: the hysterical and unhinged charges of racism and colonialism, genocide and apartheid; the moral acceptance of terrorists; the self-righteous social activism that allows no room for disagreement and debate; the threatened boycotts and violent protests; the lawlessness and intimidation; and the casualness about anti-Semitism and the betrayal of our democratic ally, Israel. 

That’s what’s happening outside on the campus green. Inside its classrooms students are being indoctrinated—even in the hard sciences—with Critical Race and Queer theories, Decolonialization, and the renaming of Marxist marching orders as, “Intifada Revolution!”

What, specifically, is liberal about any of those lovely features of contemporary politics and culture? Forget the Founding Fathers, what we have today isn’t even your own father’s United States. 

The Democratic Party has eschewed liberalism for progressivism, engineering a quite clever bait and switch—advancing a progressive agenda having far more in common with Marxism than with anything an actual liberal believes. For instance, the “Politics of Identity,” a rallying cry of the progressive left, has little in common with liberal ideals. In fact, so much of it is avowedly illiberal. 

Liberals are interested in ideas that can be exchanged in a deliberate manner and respectful setting. But identity politics shuts off debate at the outset by claiming instantaneous offense. There is never anything to debate. Marginalized affinity groups are automatic winners in a sweepstakes of ideological conformity. Objectors are libeled as irredeemable racists. The consequence of nuance, the risk of holding a different view, can be disastrous: the denial of tenure, the termination of employment, the shunning of friends, the disowning of relatives, the cancelation of a once good name.

There is nothing “liberal” in any of those features of progressive politics. The hard-left fringe within the Democratic Party went from silent partner to full-blown Soviet- and Chairman Mao-styled autocracy. 

The Democratic Party somehow disappeared. Does anyone even recognize a semblance of its former self? 

Our old American mottos have become anachronistic and irreconcilable. They in no way symbolize our feckless foreign affairs and localized lawlessness. “Don’t tread on me.” Seriously? That warning has been converted into an invitation: “Please, walk all over us. Don’t worry. We’ll blame ourselves. Better yet, we’ll blame Israel, or our own Jews.” The Iranians don’t even bother to wipe their feet on Persian rugs after stepping all over us.

What about our state mottos: Alabama, “We Dare to Defend Our Rights”; Arkansas, “The People Rule”; Mississippi, “By Valor and Arms”; New Hampshire, “Live Free or Die.”

Sounds like the tough talk of some other country. The reason these rallying cries no longer represent our national ethos is because after being berated for our “white supremacy” and “systemic racism,” the concept of American Exceptionalism was renounced as both racist and a sham. America is no more exceptional than any other nation, so goes this more modern mantra. Really? All nations are exceptional? This is the same kind of moral relativism that has infected our universities. And it depends on a gullible audience that has lost its deductive reasoning and capacity to make moral judgments.

The idea of America’s specialness on the world stage began in 1630 with the words of John Winthrop, the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. He referred to this new world as a “shiny city on a hill, … a beacon of liberty.” Others, including Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy, have referred to that imagery in describing the nation they led. 

Does it hold true today? That sanctified city, shining like a beacon on a hill, nowadays has a broken taillight and for all practical purposes, has fallen into a ditch.

The Founding Fathers launched a new nation, and after nearly a dozen years of getting these United States in order, graduating from the Continental Congress to the Constitutional Convention, and after endless debates and the commentary that became Federalist Papers, they were quite certain that what they had achieved was quite exceptional.

Tell that to the Democratic Party, which takes exception to American greatness, and believes it is patriotic to imprison January 6^th rioters but not the violent actions undertaken by hoodlums affiliated with Black Lives Matter and Jewish Lives Don’t. Calls to defund the police and mothball the National Guard, cashless bail and the decriminalizing of crimes, the defacement of public monuments, the toppling of statues, flag burnings, and erasing the names of such notorious racists as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and even Abraham Lincoln from school buildings across America—all of this, under the auspices and blessing of Democratic leadership. 

Meanwhile, Jesus Christ and George Floyd are depicted draped in the Palestinian flag with a keffiyeh covering their faces. You don’t have to live in Dearborn, Michigan, to know that the chants “Death to America!” has little to do Israel’s War in Gaza. These people have been in rehearsal for years, and they have a much bigger target in mind.

This intersectional rot of illiberal, anti-American, anti-democratic forces that has come to possess an inordinate amount of influence over the Democratic Party, along with mainstream media, museums, academia, and the cultural arts, is antithetical to America’s historical beginning. The Founding Fathers were patriots, after all. July 4^th was not an excuse for a cookout. They saw the United States as a land of opportunity, and not as a punching bag for the disgruntled. They imagined a melting pot for the newly assimilated, and not as a country fixated on ranking racists and deploring privilege.

These men of the Enlightenment behaved like the enlightened. They started and funded universities and newspapers: Benjamin Franklin (the University of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Gazette); Thomas Jefferson (the University of Virginia and the National Gazette); Alexander Hamilton (the New York Post.) Higher education expanded minds; college is not where students learn how to close them. They believed in the Great Books. The fact that some of the ancient Greek philosophers may have been gay did not mean they were endorsing Queer Studies. What made a book great had nothing to do with how and whether the writer chose to represent his or her identity.  

The Founders believed in civility and mutual respect. Differences could be settled without resort to violence. They judged people based on individual merit. Decisions were to be made deliberately, not impulsively, relying upon empirical evidence and not “personal truths” and sensitive feelings. Withholding judgment was a virtue. Shouting people down is not.

Very few of those values are in evidence these days. Given the way things are shaping up for this upcoming presidential election, it will be a miracle if we can manage to elude another civil war.

It is remarkable how far we have fallen from the august talent that drafted and signed the Declaration of Independence. The recent national conventions were mere coronations. Kamala Harris didn’t even receive the vote of a single delegate. The speeches couldn’t possibly be less inspiring. Donald Trump’s endless ad-libbing and pointless jabbing. Harris’ inane non-responsiveness to questions and clumsy dodging of issues. 

Oratory is one thing these candidates do not offer on the stump. Every four years, this is supposed to be the season of political persuasion. What we have instead is one candidate who would be far better off speaking less, and another who has been coached to plead the Fifth Amendment on the campaign trail and avoid saying the predictably wrong thing. You need not return to the days of Patrick Henry and Daniel Webster, or Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, to realize that even politicians of more recent eras offered more at the podium. 

The debates have been even more excruciating. Watch the first televised presidential debate between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960 and behold the deterioration of today’s presidential timbre. Candidates once read more widely, and did not confine themselves to opposition research. They immersed themselves in domestic policy and geopolitics. They actually debated ideas, and didn’t regurgitate canned answers that pivoted away from the original question.

The Founding Fathers regarded freedom of the press as indispensable to representative democracy. A better-informed public needs journalists to serve as unbiased truth-seekers and fact-checkers. And yet, now we hear speculation that the moderators for the debate at ABC News allegedly gave Kamala Harris advance notice of their questions, and promised not to challenge her facts?

This is how dysfunctional our democracy has become. Even if untrue, the allegation itself will only serve to deepen our polarizing divide.

But regardless of how one feels about the viability of the two-party system and the inadequacy of the choices we are presented with, one thing is surely true: the progressive takeover of the Democratic Party has rendered it inhospitable to true liberals and open-minded centrists. 

This is no longer the party of the Kennedy brothers, Scoop Jackson, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Joe Lieberman—political figures who epitomized the liberal values of deep thought and a democratic consensus. What we now have is the Democratic Party that Barack Obama wanted to lead—the president progressives believed they had elected back in 2008—but his timing was off. Who knows how much his influence found its way into the policies of the Biden administration.

The party of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez is something else altogether. It personifies the Marxism of the faculty lounge, the smugness of social justice warriors, the grievances of the growing number of victim-cardholders, the obtuseness of coastal elites, the hostility of the Arab street, and the double-standard entrenched in diversity and inclusion. 

Sounds like a party where invitations got lost in the mail, and true liberals rejoiced.

“How can there be a left-Muslim alliance?” Jewish civil rights activist Charles Jacobs once asked an audience at Boston University. “How can people who like burqas align with people who like bikinis?”

The answer lies in the phenomenon often called the “Red-Green Alliance.” Both Marxists and Muslims (who truly observe the teachings of Muhammad) are united in a crusade to destroy Western civilization’s most crucial moral values: that only some ends justify some means; right is might; and that morality itself is more than just a political weapon.

Both ideologies envision utopian earthly paradises in which individuality is erased and omnipotent government removes suffering through confiscatory taxation and wealth redistribution. And both relish the terror required to keep their fantasy worlds’ perfection unpolluted.

The two of them together, therefore, have plenty in common, going back at least to the 1960s, when the KGB created the PLO and worked closely with Muslim terrorist groups to foment anti-Western jihad on the widest possible scale. Among their most important joint achievements was the Islamic Revolution against the openly pro-American and quietly Zionist Shah Pahlavi—a cataclysm perhaps haunting the world more than any other.

As the left—ranging in character from the KGB’s old “useful idiots” to technocratic power addicts—has conquered more and more of American life, Islam’s power, both worldwide and in the U.S., has grown comparably. And a shared commitment to the destruction of Israel, the United States, and the humane values they represent unites the post-modern and pre-medieval in a roaring blaze of raw, political passion worthy of both Marxism and Islam’s erotic visions of heaven.

With such co-habitation thus comes co-dependency. Increasingly, without Arab and Muslim voters, leftist parties cannot win elections; and without leftist parties, Islamic elements cannot build a non-Muslim power base ready to riot and demonize Islam’s good-faith critics on their behalf. Having fully exploited Marxist “victim group” ideology, Islam claims “victim” status on “racial” and “persecuted minority” grounds—as if Islam were either a race or somehow content (per Qur’an 9:33) with remaining in the minority (let alone out of the persecution business). The left’s lust for destruction and cynical yet psychotic obsession with victimhood—of which Islam makes such cunning use—is what manages to fuse the most lethal ideas of the 2020s with those of the 620s.

Today, therefore, it is not puerile partisanship to charge that the Democratic Party—which Marxists, beginning with the McGovern campaign in 1972, have successfully turned from “blue” to red—has become an institution overly friendly, not to mention beholden, to Islamic influence. Rather, as with its equivalent parties in Canada and the U.K., it is simply where the evidence leads. Mirroring its agenda of forcing Americans to submit to a government powerful enough to both giveth and taketh all away, the Democratic Party, since 2009, is far along the Khyber Pass of emulating its European counterparts in submitting itself to Islam.

“A New Beginning”

Ever since it was revealed in the months prior to the 2008 election that Barack Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, was an anti-American, anti-Israel racist and apostle of “black liberation theology,” the former president’s party has only moved in one direction. Despite slickly flinging his former spiritual teacher of more than 20 years (over 1,000 Sundays) under his campaign bus—a falling out for which Wright later blamed “[t]hem Jews”—“God damn America!” (if the divine Name is meant with any sincerity) has become a good description of the party’s platform.

As president, Obama vastly expanded pre-existing efforts to heavily discourage good-faith criticism of Islam. His famous Cairo speech of June 4, 2009, contained many concerning statements, including (de-contextualized) references to the “Holy Koran” and to his (unconstitutional) “responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” Also, in the same speech (“A New Beginning”), the man whose moral psyche was shaped by a pastor who would claim years later that “Jesus was Palestinian” malevolently distorted the history of Israel, referred to the “daily humiliations… that come with occupation,” and characterized “the situation for the Palestinian people” as “intolerable.”

His warm words to the Muslim world—spoken less than a month after bowing like a vassal to the Saudi king—were followed by still warmer deeds. These included, personally or through his administration:

• Abandoning the heroic anti-regime protesters in Iran during the 2009 uprising (many of whom were raped and murdered).
• Attempting (unsuccessfully) to have 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Muhammad tried in a civilian court in Manhattan—where a jury of his “peers” (jihad warriors) might acquit him—as opposed to by military tribunal.
• Openly supporting the “Ground Zero Mosque” initiative—a project headed by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a cleric who asserted that American “policies were an accessory to the crime” of 9/11.
• Demanding that Prime Minister Netanyahu destroy Israel’s national security by retreating to the (indefensible) “1967 lines,” in order “to advance a lasting peace.”
• Ordering the FBI to remove (accurate) descriptions—even mentions—of Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood, and jihad from Bureau training materials.
• Protecting Hamas supporter Nihad Awad, leader of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Brotherhood and Hamas front-group, from prosecution.
• Supporting the Muslim Brotherhood’s short spell of rule over Egypt—not to mention ignoring the plight of the Coptic Christians they persecuted (and the women they sought to denigrate).
• Forcing Israel to accept a “ceasefire” in both its 2012 and 2014 wars against Hamas.
• Exclaiming that “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam,” after falsely blaming the infamous September 11, 2012, Benghazi jihad attack on an obscure video mocking Muhammad.
• Without the slightest evidence, smugly brushing ISIS off as but a “jayvee team.”
• Hubristically claiming that (said “jayvee team”) ISIS—whom his weak foreign policy had helped to grow—was “not Islamic.”
• Dismissing Americans’ disgust for ISIS’ (Islamic) brutality as “get[ting] on our high horse,” because “slavery and Jim Crow [were] all too often justified in the name of Christ”—not mentioning that both slavery and racial apartheid are permitted, and rampant, under Islam.
• Pushing for the disastrous (and unconstitutional) 2015 nuclear “deal” with the Islamic regime occupying Iran.
• Allowing the Defense Department to devote a 42-page report to dismissing the 2009 Fort Hood jihad attack as “workplace violence.”
• Demanding that the U.S. accept 110,000 Syrian refugees—people raised from childhood to hate Jews and Christians—because, Obama said, it was America’s responsibility to “help the world’s most vulnerable people.”
• Giving implicit approval to a U.N. resolution cataloguing “East Jerusalem”—wherein stands the Western Wall—as “occupied Palestinian territory.”

Not surprisingly, by the time he left office in 2017—to much of the country’s hysterical grief—the party of Obama showed no intention of refusing (and every indication of intending) to become the party of Islamic apologetics.

The jihad “Squad”

On January 21, 2017, the day after Donald Trump was inaugurated, the so-called “Women’s March” descended upon Washington, led by the shrieks of “unapologetically Palestinian” Linda Sarsour. Sarsour—who lamented the fall and capture of Saddam Hussein, has defended known terrorists, has family members connected to Hamas, and wished on Twitter that she could remove Ayaan Hirsli Ali’s (already mutilated) genitalia—rocketed to prominence as part of the Democrat “resistance” (or, in her words, “jihad”) against the Trump presidency. Her hijab-enveloped face, covered in the thick make-up sternly forbidden in public under Islam, graced magazine after magazine, and appeared, without rebuke, in the mainstream (Democrat) media. Still, the vast bank of her vile comments, connections, and exploits—which included stealing money pledged to repair desecrated Jewish cemeteries—eventually trickled into public discourse, and she became too radioactive. By the spring of 2018, she and her three other original “Women’s March” organizers—two of whom were blushing admirers of Louis Farrakhan—had stepped down.

Nevertheless, while the Sarsour packaging eventually proved too abrasive and shocking for most outside Bernie Sanders’ 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns (representing the party’s youngest,  largest, and most energized minority), the Sarsour agenda was less so. Throughout the Trump presidency, Democrat party leadership mobilized fully against Trump’s temporary ban on travel from terrorist-infested countries, very nearly elected terrorist sympathizer and former Nation of Islam member Keith Ellison as DNC chair (before installing him as deputy), and collectively fainted upon the administration’s withdrawal from Obama’s Iran nuclear deal.

Then the 2018 mid-terms brought a “new beginning” indeed to the legacy of Obamania. Sarsour’s fellow anti-Semites and allies of jihad Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York, Ilhan Omar from Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley from Massachusetts, and Rashida Tlaib from Michigan won House races and settled (for the foreseeable future) in the rich leather seats theoretically reserved for patriots.

Though bawdy, corrupt, dodgy, ignorant, juvenile, salty-mouthed, sleazy, and worse, the Islamo-Marxist “Squad,” as its members childishly named themselves, gradually began to force the party establishment to submit to its bratty orders. The most egregious incident was when, in 2019, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi allowed Ilhan Omar to transform a House resolution meant to censure her for her own anti-Jewish rants into one condemning “Islamophobia” and “anti-Muslim bigotry” as well. Earlier that year, of course, Pelosi saw no issue with allowing Omar to lead the repeal of an 1837 rule against wearing hats in Congress, just so she could—in accordance with Islamic, not U.S., law—wear her hijab on the House floor.

Such sentiments seemed to catch on quickly, as the party then falsely accused Trump of being a racist when he suggested that Omar go back to her native Somalia due to her obvious hatred for the country whose taxpayers furnish her unearned prosperity. So, too, then-Minority Leader Chuck Schumer expressed horror that Trump had implored Israel not to allow anti-Jewish racists like Omar and Tlaib to enter its borders, given their terrorist sympathies and connections—a suggestion the Israelis wisely implemented. Then, in 2020, the Democrats threw another tantrum that Trump did not forewarn them of Islamic regime mass murderer Qasem Soleimani’s assassination—perhaps because the White House took the scene they had made over discarding the Iran nuclear deal seriously.

Slouching towards Tehran

“America is back,” a blustering Joe Biden told the planet on February 4, 2021. To what exactly was unclear, in view of revelations that the “Million Muslim Votes” campaign, mobilized to defeat Trump in 2020, was organized by Emgage, a CAIR-style Brotherhood front-group.

Before his first 100 days in office ran out, the “Biden-Harris” administration—in line with a campaign promise to include “Muslims at every level of government”—had set about appointing and nominating a stream of anti-Semites, Democrat-first Jews, self-loathing Jews, and social jihad warriors to cabinet positions. A small selection of the most illustrious—all of whom were confirmed—included:

• Maher Bitar—former board member of Georgetown University’s Students for Justice in Palestine chapter and BDS activist—as Senior Director for Intelligence Programs at the National Security Council (later elevated to Deputy Assistant to the President).
• Anthony Blinken—who opposed designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, the Islamic regime’s equivalent of the SS at home and ISIS abroad, as a terrorist organization—as Secretary of State.
• Reema Dodin—former leader of UC Berkeley’s chapter of the Muslim Students’ Association (a Brotherhood off-shoot) who called suicide bombings against Jews the “last resort of a desperate people”—as Deputy Director of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs.
• Avril Haines—who signed a 2020 letter denouncing Democrats for being too pro-Israel—as Director of National Intelligence.
• Alejandro Majorkas—who served on the board of the “refugee” agency HIAS, which supports bringing Jew-hating Muslim migrants to the U.S. and works with the Hamas money-laundering “charity” Islamic Relief—as Secretary of Homeland Security.
• Robert Malley—who helped negotiate the Iran nuclear deal and condemned Qasem Soleimani’s assassination—as Special Envoy to Iran.
• Susan Rice—who presided over the Benghazi attack cover-up, scorned Israel for opposing the Iran nuclear deal, and demanded that the Trump administration restore funding to UNRWA (Hamas)—as Director of the Domestic Policy Council.
• Wendy Sherman—who downplayed suicide bombings against Israelis as but “nagging disruptions from the Palestinian side” and was a key Iran nuclear deal negotiator—as Deputy Secretary of State.

The administration’s ensuing policies expectably reflected its members’ backgrounds.

In 2021 alone, Trump-era sanctions against the Islamic regime occupying Iran were withdrawn in order to revive the nuclear deal; funding, halted at the Trump administration’s order in 2018, was restored to UNRWA; Israel was successfully forced into accepting a “ceasefire” in its fourth war against Hamas since 2009; major economic sanctions against the Islamic regime’s oil business were given up; the catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan was completed, during which 13 American soldiers were killed and priceless weapons left for the hungry Taliban; the “Squad” (momentarily) defunded Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system; and Nigeria, which is conducting an Islamic genocide against its Christian population—some of whom are jihad slaves—was removed from the “Countries of Particular Concern” list.

In 2022, more sanctions against the Islamic regime were waived in another unsuccessful attempt to restore the nuclear deal; Elizabeth Fawley Bagley, who once complained of the “influence of the Jewish lobby” and “major money” on American foreign policy, was appointed ambassador to Brazil; Hady Amr, who had written that he “was inspired by the Palestinian intifada,” was appointed “Special Envoy to the Palestinians”; aid to the terrorist Palestinian Authority was restored; and Israel, then led by its leftist “caretaker” government, signed an American-backed “mini”-Iran deal of its own: giving Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon rights to Israeli offshore gas fields.

By 2023, Robert Malley had turned out to be just as special an envoy as his title suggested when he was exposed as a likely spy for the Islamic regime in Iran. Biden also suddenly restored preferential trade deal status to Mauritania, a modern-day apartheid state in which Arab Muslims still own 149,000 black Africans as chattel slaves.

Then, after October 7, the gas pedal was screwed to the metal.

Hamas’s massacre of Jews elicited a superficially forceful show of comradeship with Israel, but—in line with every other recent Israeli war—as soon as the IDF actually began to fight back, the word “pause” appeared. Though Netanyahu protested as long as he could, by November, the White House had strongarmed Israel into submitting to one. Israel released 240 convicted terrorists (fraudulently labelled “women and children”) in exchange for 110 hostages. Emboldened, Hamas, understandably, fought on once the “humanitarian pause” was over.

Lost to some in the media chatter, however, was the memory of Biden’s 2021 Iranian oil sanctions relief. This allowed the Islamic regime, which controls Hamas, to once again get rich from oil sails, have $6 billion in frozen assets released less than a month before October 7, and then another $10 billion more just over a month later. Altogether, by the fall of 2023, U.S. sanctions relief likely earned the regime an estimated $80 billion in oil revenue.

Worse still, as the year turned, Israel’s enemies witnessed a growing groundswell of support for them inside the United States. Starting on October 8—before Israel had even mustered a full-scale counterattack—Marxist and Muslim political agitators launched riots across the country to demand a “ceasefire.” The protests, funded partially by the Islamic regime in Iran, then seized the nation’s campuses, and set off month after month of venomous, violent “occupations” which sympathetic yet check-mated (Democrat) administrators, at best, refused to discourage. Elected Democrats, of course, fearful of losing the (Hitler) youth vote, rarely condemned any of the protests. Even when Hamas itself praised the rioters and Iran’s theocratic dictator Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i applauded them for being “on the right side” of history, their clearest denouncer was Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson: “When you’ve won the Ayatollah, you’ve lost America.”

Standing opposite Johnson in tenor was Ilhan Omar, who visited the (illegally) encamped Columbia squatters and smarmily accused pro-Israel Jewish students of being “pro-genocide.” Interestingly, Isra Hirsi, Omar’s daughter, was suspended from neighboring Barnard College after she was arrested for taking part in the illegal encampment. Appearing on MSNBC with October 7 minimizer and protest defender Ayman Mohyeldin, Hirsi whined about being “locked out of my dorm,” “100% targeted,” and “sprayed” with “chemical weapons” (which turned out to be joke “fart spray”). Within days, her “suspension” mysteriously evaporated, as she appeared beside her mother at Columbia, of which Barnard is a subsidiary, when Omar visited the campus.

Such collegiate screeches for a “permanent ceasefire” and an end to the “genocide in Gaza” inevitably had an effect, causing U.S. “peace” pressure to never relent throughout 2024. In May, the administration ordered Israel not to attack the Hamas-infested Rafah area of southern Gaza, threatening to withhold vital weapons. Then, when Israel eventually did, and Biden agreed to send the weapons, the administration slow-walked them. Several months later, it approved $165 million for “heavy-duty tank trailers,” but with a (conveniently late) delivery date of 2027.

270 reasons to pander

Knowing that states with large Muslim populations like Michigan and Minnesota had to be won in 2024, the (increasingly “Harris”) administration had spent years battling the scourge of “Islamophobia.”

In 2022, the White House announced the formation of an “interagency group” supposedly to “combat antisemitism,” but which would also “coordinate efforts to counter Islamophobia in the U.S.” The following May, it held a “Listening Session on Islamophobia” in which Robert McCaw, a senior CAIR (Hamas) operative, participated. Later that month, it released the “First-Ever National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism”—which succeeded both in mentioning “Islamophobia” and including CAIR (Hamas) as a partner organization.

Then, after October 7, 2023, as unprecedented, genocidal Judeopathy erupted across the globe, the Oval Office instead chose to reiterate just how desperately its “national strategy” from back in May was needed. “For too long, Muslims in America,” White House spokesperson (and anti-Israel bigot) Karine Jean-Pierre said, “…have endured a disproportionate number of hate-fueled attacks and other discriminatory incidents.” According, however, to the FBI “hate crimes” statistics Jean-Pierre conveniently omitted, American Jews, not Muslims, enjoy that particular distinction. What’s more, most reports of “anti-Muslim” incidents appear to originate from CAIR (Hamas)—casting titanic doubts over their validity to say the least.

Sadly for the administration, strategic difficulties soon emerged. In December, CAIR itself had to be disavowed after its leader, Nihad Awad, said that he “was happy to see” his colleagues in Hamas kidnapping, massacring, and raping Jews on October 7. And, as the new year loomed, some Muslim activists even expressed reservations about joining any White House coalition, feeling “unsafe and unsupported” due to Biden not being anti-Israel enough.

2024 marked crunch time to secure the critical (and slipping) “Muslim vote,” thus bringing with it new and more attempts at appeasement. On January 27 (Holocaust Remembrance Day), “Second Gentleman” Doug Emhoff met with the “interfaith” group NewGround—which partners with the Brotherhood-linked Muslim Public Affairs Council—in order to “address Antisemitism and Islamophobia in the United States and across the world.” On March 15, the White House released a statement to mark the “International Day to Combat Islamophobia,” saying (without citing evidence) that American Muslims “frequently endure baseless fearmongering, blatant discrimination, harassment, and violence in the course of their everyday lives.” On June 16, a “fact sheet” detailing how the administration would “take action against Islamophobia” and the “rise in harassment, bigotry and horrifying violence toward Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian Americans” appeared. On June 26, the White House appointed longtime Muslim Brotherhood member and “interfaith” con artist Mohamed Elsanousi to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Then, on July 18, Emhoff proudly proclaimed that “an Islamophobia plan” would be “coming out soon.”

Joy

On July 21, 2024, President Biden announced that he would not seek re-election. Biden was smoothly swapped out for Vice President Kamala Harris, who had polled at 2% nationally when she ran in 2019. Despite never receiving one 2024 primary vote, the “Democratic” Party shoved her forward as its presumptive nominee and supposed leader until at least 2029. Overshadowed by her “historic,” “joy”-drenched (s)election was the reality that she would not only perpetuate Obama and Biden’s anti-Israel, pro-Islamic policies, but intensify them.

Four days after becoming the on-camera president, she met with Prime Minister Netanyahu to express “concern” that a “ceasefire” was not yet at hand, as pro-Hamas protesters had to be satisfied. “The images of dead children and desperate hungry people [in Gaza] fleeing for safety” wrenched her heart with grief so much that “I will not be silent,” she told the media. Not long after, she met with the Muslim mayor of Dearborn, Michigan—a city with a clear Muslim majority which has been called “America’s jihad capital”—and indicated openness towards an arms embargo against Israel.

Not only would she—who had spent years associating with a circle of Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas operatives—never pass up prayer rug-scraping for the sake of staying in power, but so would Biden. During what amounted to his “retirement” speech to the Democratic National Convention on August 19, Biden, 51 years in harness, barked that “Those [anti-Israel] protesters out in the street, they have a point.” While screaming pro-Hamas rioters ripped down pieces of the metal fencing protecting the convention center—reminiscent of their Brotherhood brothers in southern Israel 10 months and 12 days before—the now-dowager President of the United States confirmed they represented a demographic to be won and not repudiated. The tone was set for the rest of the DNC, during which the Israeli hostages were only mentioned once, and a Muslim Brotherhood imam was invited to bless the assembled delegates.

The last Walz

Shortly before the DNC, Harris announced her running mate: Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota, whose heavily Muslim capital of Minneapolis CBS News called a “recruiting ground” for ISIS in 2014.

Walz was not only a confirmed liar, COVID tyrant, and Chinese pawn, but revealed to have fond ties to Islamic hatemongers, Ilhan Omar among them. For example, his administration had given over $100,000 in taxpayer money to the Minnesota branch of the Muslim American Society (a major Brotherhood front-group), run by Imam Asad Zaman. A man who once shared a link to a six-and-half-hour neo-Nazi pseudo-documentary, Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told, on his Facebook page. Walz had tenderly praised this literal Nazi, who celebrated October 7, as “a master teacher” before pretending that he had “no personal relationship with him” despite speaking previously of the “time we’ve spent together.” Even worse, the Minnesota state government had authorized more than $2 million over the course of five years to the Islamic Association of North America, another Brotherhood-linked organization, which fundraised for Rahma Worldwide, a group connected to foreign jihad organizations. Walz also spoke at a CAIR gala in 2019 and was photographed next to Hatem Bazian, founder of Students for Justice in Palestine.

Just as there had been no joy for any Jews unfortunate enough to be in college during the last school year, there was even less for Israel in the weeks after the convention. It was reported that U.S. trade with Iran’s Islamic regime had spiked 43% in 2023; Biden (Harris) had sent an envoy to pressure Israel into “land swaps” with Hezbollah in the hope of “averting a war”; and State Department officials had protected disgraced regime operative Robert Malley, whose role in strengthening the regime prior to October 7 has come under intense suspicion.

By contrast, the administration’s laxity in protecting its opponent with similar dedication to Robert Malley is far more disturbing given that two of the three known attempts on former President Trump’s life had Islamic regime connections, some distant, some direct. Even more egregiously, the regime had released a video in early 2022 depicting an animated scenario in which a drone strike killed Trump on his golf course in Palm Beach. The threat, made in revenge for the assassination of Qasem Soleimani two years earlier, was covered in major media, including Newsweek and the AP, yet the then-Biden-now-Harris administration did nothing. To use a now-familiar term, such negligence from a ruling political party towards another, in light of everything known, is worse than collusion.

Khomeini’s curse

The Democratic Party’s protracted 15-year quest for absolute power through submission to Islam echoes its economic fantasies: no price is too high, for money, as “capitalists” know it, will eventually be meaningless.

What most leftist Islamophiles may not know is that, after successfully cooperating in overthrowing the Pahlavi government and promising to share power, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s new junta systematically betrayed its Marxist allies. After Marxist groups revolted in 1988, the regime’s secret police rounded up thousands of communists and atheists from across the country who were then tortured and executed.

Islam regards its leftist allies with only the deepest contempt and, as it did in Iran, it will eliminate them on the day of its victory. The fact that the U.S. State Department offered “condolences” upon the death of regime “President” Ebrahim Raisi—the man who ordered the 1988 mass murder—will not change that outcome.

Having years ago completed the “long march through the institutions,” for no other reason than its own good, the Democratic Party must advance no further on the long march to Makah.

Our Republic was still young when the Democratic Party, then the favorite party of the American South, gave rise to the Confederacy, which, in turn, forced America into one of the bloodiest civil wars in human history. It did so by tolerating and running interference for something that even the Founders argued against but failed to rule on: the practice of slavery in America. Today, the Democratic Party is once again tearing at the fabric of the American Republic—this time by supporting the Palestinian cause, which does not and never will comport with America values and interests, primarily because that cause, being a joint Marxist-Islamist invention, is bound-up with a desire to not just bring about Israel’s destruction or gradual erasure, but America’s as well. 

Just as Democrats once manufactured the issue of states’ rights to justify their desire to maintain slavery in the face of a changing national-moral landscape, Democrats are now echoing anti-Israel propaganda in a rush to justify policies that leave America and her allies less safe, but help Democrats build political capital with those who give lip service to a ceasefire in Gaza, but whose true goals are the end of the US-Israel alliance and the destruction of the Jewish state. Biden doubled-down on his administration’s pandering to the Islamist-Marxist alliance when he closed the first evening of the Democratic National Convention by saying that protesters who were calling for an end to the U.S.-Israel alliance “have a point.” This came after Biden threatened to withhold all weapons from Israel should she pursue Hamas into Rafah and quickly rescue the hostages that were known to be there. When that threat was issued, six hostages, one of whom was an American citizen, were still alive. 

When anti-Israel protesters targeted past Democratic administrations, one could expect any of those administrations to affirm its commitment to the U.S.-Israel alliance while using terms such as “ironclad.” However, today’s Democratic Party falls in line behind its President when he suspends the shipment of heavy munitions to Israel midway through her battle with Hamas for control of Gaza while knowing full well that those munitions were needed to sever and destroy Hamas’ underground tunnel and bunker system. It was from those tunnels and bunkers that thousands of Israeli civilians were attacked on October 7^th and it was into those tunnels and bunkers that the hostages were taken. The Biden-Harris administration withheld those weapons not because Israel was failing to wage war in accordance with international humanitarian law, but because arming Israel against Hamas had become unpopular with an influential segment of the Democratic Party, a segment that had just promised to withdraw all support for whomever the party nominates to run in November unless the Biden-Harris administration ends all military aid to Israel forthwith and accomplishes a ceasefire, which is code for “rescue Hamas from total defeat and allow it hold onto some form of power in Gaza.”

When Lincoln faced similar pressure from those who wished to appease the South and ignore the injustice of slavery, he said this: “A house divided against itself cannot stand…I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.” America is faced with the same choice now. That choice is to either tolerate those who would legitimize and give a lifeline to a terrorist organization that live-streamed the murders and kidnappings it committed on October 7^th or to heed Lincoln’s words and realize that we cannot be two things at once. Truly, a house divided cannot stand. As a society, we will either continue to tolerate and eventually conform to the nihilism of those who are protesting on behalf of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Ayatollah and be destroyed by it or we will overcome that nihilism. Not by ignoring it or viewing it as a passing political fashion, but by purging it from the American body politic while reclaiming values that G-d writes on every human heart, but that some, in their cleverness and anger, graffiti over.

By placing too much stock in its “big tent” strategy and admitting undeniably anti-American actors to its inner-circle, the Democratic Party is incubating something worse than the Confederates. Worse because the Confederates did not wish destruction upon America so much as they believed that the Constitution guaranteed them a right to secede. Had the Confederates won the argument over secession, the great injustice that is chattel slavery in America would have continued and the Confederates would have done what they could to reconcile with the Union. In other words, America would have gone on. Slavery would have also gone on, but not indefinitely. 

If some in the Democratic Party get their way now, our centuries-long pursuit of ‘a more perfect union’ and belief in our own exceptionalism will be replaced by an ethos that rejects that exceptionalism in favor of a world without borders and the ideas those borders contain and protect. Just as slavery was once promoted by the American South, the rejection of American exceptionalism is now being spread by a Democratic Party that views American power and influence as proof of imperialist intent only. Hence its steady and continuous efforts to destroy both since 2008, when then President Obama promised to reform American foreign policy toward the Middle East while transferring more responsibility for maintaining global stability to the UNSC, which has only ever functioned well under strong American leadership. Those reforms and that transfer of responsibility gave us the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, a nuclear Iran that suddenly had wealth enough to offer more and better assistance to Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. As Ronald Regan said, “We maintain peace through our strength; weakness only invites aggression.” Mind you, this was said by a U.S. president who, for all his faults, believed in American exceptionalism, which is to say, that he believed that the America was, through the miracle of her founding, anointed to lead the nations through a darkness that blinds much of the world and is spreading from the places it was once contained in.

It’s time to recognize that the anti-American exceptionalism chickens have come to roost just as the Confederate did in 1865. Every “occupation” of an American college or university campus, march, demonstration and riot undertaken by keffiyeh-draped protestors (quite a few of whom are in the U.S. on visas) is an attack on the Fort Sumpter of the American collective consciousness. But that attack is not just virtual. Last July, thousands descended upon Washington D.C. to show their support for Hamas by desecrating national monuments, clashing with police and, at one point, breaking through a barricade to enter the National Gallery in a show of political violence. Because certain American politicians have expressed support for demonstrators who call for an American intifada, one would think that progressives would apply the same standard to those politicians and to that attack on America’s Capitol that was applied to President Trump and the January 6^th insurrection. What the Democratic Party did instead was invite that “protest movement” to take part in its National Convention. Even though that movement was not allowed to put a speaker before everyone in attendance, their keffiyehs and “not one more bomb” pins featured prominently in the media coverage of the convention. 

Having a tolerance for and an appreciation of a nuanced politics is insufficient to justify support for a party that does not regard the mass murder of Jews and support for such murder as a redline. Just as Lincoln once drew a line in the sand with regard to slave holders and their Democratic Party supporters, we must now resist any politics that invites Islamism and its terroristic nature into our national politics. No speech given to AIPAC or affirmation of ‘Israel’s right to defend itself’ should distract us from the immorality of a party leadership that exchanges Jewish, Israeli, and American blood for Muslim and progressive votes and that, for its own gain, prevented an ally from entering enemy territory en force to rescue hostages and to kill or capture terrorists who carried out an attack that was every bit as brutal as 9/11. 
A generation ago, America promised to never forget the lessons of 9/11 just as she once promised to never again allow anyone or anything to divide her house and cause it to fall. Democrats holding power over their party and America’s national politics have betrayed us all on both counts.

In addition to welcoming anti-Semites into the progressive party base, the Democratic Party’s soft bigotry of low expectations is becoming normalized as mainstream policy. 

It is widely known–or at least, should be, by now–that the party of slavery and discrimination was historically the Democratic Party. This is not to say that there were (and are) no racist Republicans, or that all Democrats are (or were) bigots. Unfortunately, though, these historic roots are often ignored or brushed aside as “something from so long ago”—interestingly enough, given that modern-day Democrats repeatedly harp on the importance of centering “long-standing racial traumas.” But in an odd turn of events, it seems that we are coming full circle. Sadly, rather than both parties shunning bigotry and advancing toward a common brotherhood of man, the Democrats are returning to their racist roots, albeit through more modern means and methods. 

Years ago, before I entered college, I remember having the feeling that both parties would reverse course. The Grand Old Party, which does have a problem with radicalized bigots on its far-right fringe, would soon shun this group of voters and embrace a more diverse electorate. And the Democrats, who at the time were led by America’s first Black president, would cave in to their own discriminatory radical fringe. I can’t recall exactly what gave me this feeling, as it was years ago, but I am sad to say that I feel proven right.

A few years after that initial prediction, and as someone who voted for Hillary Clinton and was deeply concerned about a Trump Presidency, I was working as a cashier at a local grocery co-op. One woman was handing out “resistance cards” in the store to fellow customers, to organize an anti-Trump demonstration in downtown Philadelphia. As I heard her conversation with another shopper, I was stunned to learn of her concern about a potential deportation of illegal immigrants–not out of concern for their welfare, how practical such a policy would be, or out of any potential racial aspects to the policy. Her concern was mired in a potential price hike for avocados and how it would cost more for her to buy them if “illegals” were deported. I remember the constant yard signs of “Hate Has No Home Here” and “No Human is Illegal” being erected in my solid-blue, diverse suburb just outside of Philly. Many of the signs remain to this day, with even more variations of such slogans pertaining to human rights, feminism, Black Lives Matter, and even some decrying the fake “ethnic cleansing and genocide” in Gaza. And it is here where it struck me: much of the supposed concern for the “everyday voter,” and for minorities, women, and the LGBT community, is manufactured among a substantial portion of the Democratic Party. 

Consider how the tainted water supply of Flint, Michigan–a substantially Black town–was a major 2016 electoral issue, covered broadly by the mainstream media. Clinton pledged to fix the situation, and many down-ballot Democrats backed her. Following Clinton’s defeat, the issue was dropped from the news cycle. To this day, despite Democrats having been in power since 2021, Flint’s water remains undrinkable. In fact, it wasn’t even a major issue in the 2020 election cycle and has not even been discussed this time around either. 

The racism of the Democrats today is not the belligerent form embodied by hooded KKK members or marching Neo-Nazis with burning torches. It is a more kind, gentle, and subtle form of discriminatory views–what many have labeled the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” Consider the environment following the George Floyd protests and the anti-racism movement. There has been a call to “dismantle the police” and bring an end to “cultural Whiteness,” whatever that means. Yet polling and research shows that “defunding police” is much more popular amongst progressive white voters than the communities the policy is allegedly supposed to help the most–Hispanic and Black voters. And apparently, much to the shock of professionals from a non-white background who take their careers very seriously, being on time is “White Supremacy Culture” and should not be expected of minorities in various professions. This isn’t limited to showing up on time to class, work, or an appointment, however. Having a “perfectionist” attitude, engaging in “the written word,” or even generally being professional, is all deemed to be racist and White Supremacist. Therefore, one should expect and celebrate any minority being late to class or work or speaking improper English. 

This dangerous and insulting belief system also extends to foreign policy. Consider how it is applied to the Middle East. In light of the current Gaza War, the Biden Administration has called for the Palestinian Authority to be “revamped and reformed” with more democratic institutions and less corruption. These are worthy goals, but what is preventing peace between the Palestinian Authority and Israel isn’t corruption or lack of elections. After all, Israel has established peace with six Arab countries—none of whom are democracies, and all of whom are rife with corrupt government officials. What is preventing peace between Ramallah and Jerusalem is the incitement to violence stemming from institutionalized anti-Semitism in Palestinian education and religious bodies. Strangely, there is no demand from the White House that these “reforms” should extend to ending support for racist terrorism. And as such, the Jewish state has rightly refused to end its war on Hamas or give the PA more power in the region. Simply put, Washington appears to believe that it is only natural that Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians in particular, are racist, anti-Semitic, and violent in nature, and therefore cannot be expected to behave like any other civilized or rational governing body. 

The soft bigotry of low expectations and “defund the police” protests have led to chaos in America’s cities. Crime goes unpunished, or with a light slap on the wrist, which is deeply harmful for business. Just look at San Francisco, Seattle, or Portland. Businesses are shutting down, homelessness and drug use are in plain sight, and people in need of mental health care are left to their own devices, either posing a danger to themselves or the wider public–indeed, often both. People are moving away, but nowadays, even the suburbs fall victim to the aftermath of these cruel policies. Sexual abuse and human trafficking have become far more commonplace as well, with the police either unable or unwilling to make much of a difference, for fear of punishment, lack of funds, or woke policies instituted by progressive local DAs. And much as Islamist terror often impacts the Muslim community more than any other, these crimes and shuttering of local businesses are extremely harmful to the communities of color the “defund the police” movement was most meant to help. Any minority who disagrees with the policy is either ignored or branded an Uncle Tom–itself an act of bigotry. 

Yet there is also what I call the Baskin Robbins racial hierarchy employed by the Democrats: the “flavor of the month” among the oppressed, and who should be prioritized in defending from the “Christian Right-Wing White Nationalist Mob.” A particular minority group, or perhaps a few, will be selected for repeated mention by the Democrats and left-leaning media as in desperate need of protection from conservative policies and, in particular, Donald Trump. Yet after a certain period of time–generally after votes are assured from that community, or a particular issue to said community is addressed–a new “flavor of the month” minority takes its place in the limelight.  In 2016 (and perhaps also now, in light of October 7th), it was Muslims or immigrants (particularly Hispanics). In 2020 and 2021, it was Asians and African-Americans. Now, it is anyone under the “queer” umbrella, though particularly non-binary folks. Yet beyond empty sloganeering, there was hardly anything truly done to protect any of these groups–and such “protections” often came at the expense of other groups desperately in need of advocacy. 

Anti-Semitism, for example, is seemingly at the bottom of the totem pole of concern for protecting minorities–unless it can be conveniently resuscitated in order to attack Neo-Nazis or Donald Trump. The anti-Semitism faced by Jewish college students, for example, by the far-left or Islamist activists is either ignored or excused. Other than the outrage over anti-Asian hate crimes during the coronavirus pandemic, there has been little-to-no attention paid to discrimination faced by Asian-Americans. In fact, whenever the “minority vote” comes up in political discussions on the news, it almost entirely focuses on Black and Hispanic voters (with “the Muslim vote” recently gaining traction), as if Native Americans, Jews, and Asians are nonexistent. Groups perceived as “successful” even if being a minority have been termed “White-Adjacent.” Though “being successful” is a broad overgeneralization and gives no agency to these groups to define themselves–seemingly an important thing to do amongst the anti-racism crowd–it seems that those who have “made it” are to be villainized and punished, treated as though they have never faced hardship. 

This is bad enough, but the other problem with such labels or thinking is that Blacks or Hispanics are to be seen and defined primarily by a supposed victimhood, eternal poverty, and perpetual life of suffering, racism, and crime. This just reinforces stereotypes, while also forgetting that there is a rich history of Black and Latino wealth and success in this country. Even examining issues Democrats deem to be most important for these “votes” (criminal justice reform for Blacks, immigration reform for Latinos), there is an automatic perception that these communities are forever in need of saving, and that the concerns of “ordinary Americans” do not apply for them as well. For a party that claims to be engaged in various forms of non-binarism and “de-labeling” communities or people, it sure does love to put entire communities into broad and overgeneralized boxes. 

As this is all occurring–with segregated “affinity groups” at that!–there is a growing shift of certain minority communities toward the GOP. Democratic operatives have forgotten that for many minority communities, especially amongst immigrants, there is a basic level of conservative and even religious values that remain deeply important. This also holds true for many minorities living in the southern or central regions of the U.S. Sadly, instead of listening to the reasons why or even trying to come to some sort of middle ground, too many Democrats have once again declared such folks as “Uncle Toms” or paternalistically claimed they are “voting against their interests.” The Democrats have largely wedded themselves to a loud yet vocal minority of mostly elite and coastal white, far-left advocates–assisted by acolytes such as Joy Reid or Marc Lamont-Hill–whose values are not shared by a growing swathe of moderate and/or minority voters. And the belittling or shunning approach toward them will only accelerate this drift. It remains true that the GOP has much work to do in terms of isolating its own fringe extremists as well as broadening its appeal to moderate voters and minorities. But ultimately, with the way the Democratic Party is moving, it might not have to work as hard or gradually as it may once have. Most Americans do not want to be governed by a life of chaos that sells a depressing vision of endless racism and victimization. We want to be seen as individuals, listened to and heard (even if not always agreed with), given the opportunity to get the best education and jobs possible for ourselves and our loved ones. This is the American Dream, and it extends beyond racial or regional borders. The Democrats appear to have lost their way and, sadly, insist on doubling down on the woke playbook of four years ago just at the time most Americans have had enough. If they do not want to be seen as the bigoted, ignorant, and chaotic party once more, then they must swiftly change course and abandon the current path of discriminatory radicalism. 

It was a normally slowish June 1994 Saturday morning at KMOX radio St. Louis. The regular listener call-in show “The Morning Meeting” was chugging along uneventfully. 

But then the host got a shocking note; the next call was coming in from a passenger on a jet flying at 30,000 feet. 

That jet was Air Force One, and the caller was the President of the United States.

Yes, it was President Bill Clinton on the presidential jet on his way into St. Louis to do a fundraiser for longtime Democrat Rep. Dick Gephardt. But Clinton wasn’t calling in to tell Missourians to vote for Gephardt; his re-election that fall was never in doubt. He was calling in to try to fight against the tide of a severe drop in his own popularity that began almost the moment he took the oath of office 17 months earlier. 

And Bill Clinton was angry.

His anger was so palpable that it suddenly became even more surprising than the surprising fact of the call happening in the first place. For 23 remarkable minutes, the most powerful man on earth openly complained about all the “misinformation” against him and his policies. While that may have been simply a bit unseemly on its own, Clinton’s rant took a new and worse turn when he began to focus his anger on specific targets: the religious right and conservative talk radio. Then he named his targets more specifically, the Rev. Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh.

After assailing Falwell and questioning the sincerity of his Christianity, the president moved on to attacking Limbaugh and the “lies” the talk radio host was saying against him daily. Clinton even decried the fact that there was no “truth meter” that could ring out  live on the air every time Limbaugh said something untruthful about him. 

Again, Clinton’s emotional frustration about his self-described plight were evident as he raised his voice louder and louder. It was so noticeable that White House aides felt compelled to explain his volume away by saying he was just trying to speak over the sound of Air Force One’s engines. 

The incident is notable now for many reasons. First off, one can only imagine what a major national stir it would have set off in today’s social media and crowded TV news channel landscape. Thirty years ago, the story barely scratched the national surface. Even if you ask the most politically astute people who were old enough to know about it then, they will tell you they either forgot it or they never knew it happened in the first place. 

But if you listen closely to Clinton’s rhetoric, you can’t help but think something indeed sounds familiar. The reason it does is because that day – June 25, 1994 – was the day the seed was sown for the Democratic Party and the American left to shift from the camp of personal and cultural liberty, to a movement imbued with a ravenous disdain for the First Amendment and support for widespread censorship. 

To be sure, it took many years for those seeds to blossom. After taking an historic whipping in the 1994 midterm elections 5 months after his radio call-in incident,  Clinton actually re-adjusted his presidency cleverly by embracing more centrist economic and social policies. The wise instincts he had had in his successful 1992 presidential campaign kicked back in as he successfully appeared to be more conciliatory with conservatives and less radical on policy. By 1996 Clinton’s popularity, which had been at a low ebb in June of 1994, had recovered and he won a second term in November of that year by a healthier margin than his 1992 victory. 

But many other Democrats, and the left in general, were not on board with Clinton’s very public political calming exercise. Moreover, as Limbaugh’s continued success began to inspire dozens of popular radio copycats, FOX News, and much more, Clinton’s 1994 concepts of “truth monitoring” and even outright censorship only became more and more popular with leftists nationwide.

Also in the interim, Democrats joined with Republicans in the overwhelming congressional support for and passage of the Patriot Act. Something civil libertarians immediately decried but seemed to be doomed in their protests thanks to the newfound powers the political class was bestowing on itself. 

Though while there was always a will for more and more censorship and surveillance, there seemed to be less and less of a way. At first, the rise of the Internet presented only more apparently uncontrollable targets for leftist silencing campaigns. Perhaps it was this new landscape that persuaded Democrats and leftists to try to fight fire with fire with radio networks like the ill-fated “Air America” and the leftist bastion that MSNBC became as a counter to FOX News (after a few years of that channel starting out as a less partisan entity). 

Another speed bump on the left’s path to becoming pro-censorship was the election of Barack Obama and the Democratic congressional supermajority, both in 2008. Just as Bill Clinton was most desirous of some kind of curbs on his critics’ rights when his polls were in the dumps, the Democrats were less interested in pursuing censorship when the polls were going their way. Of course, none of that stopped them from constant boycott campaigns against Linmbaugh, FOX News, and their existing and potential advertisers. 

Then a perfect storm occurred, one that can be simply summarized by three things: social media, Big Tech consolidation, and China.

With the emergence of Facebook, Twitter X, and Instagram, suddenly a new version of the old philosophical question “If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it really happen?” has emerged. It is now restated as: “If you say something but no one on social media sees it, does it really matter?” This scenario has presented censorship regimes with a much easier ability to at least silence the most effective speech in the world today. 

Big Tech consolidation, most specifically the fact that Google’s search engine domination has made it the Western world’s de facto only publisher, has also been incredibly helpful to those who wish to destroy the effective power of the First Amendment. Similar to the above rhetorical question about social media, one can ask if anything really exists if it’s not easily found in a Google search. Once again, this monopolization of content mapping makes it plausible to effectively silence that content as long as that monopoly is willing to cooperate. 

Then came China to show America and everyone else just how cooperative Big Tech could be. 

That trend began in the late 1990s with the infamous incident involving Yahoo’s collaboration with the Chinese government as it looked to use Yahoo’s user information data to find dissidents in hiding. Yahoo indeed cooperated, as a congressional investigation concluded years later. During a 2007 hearing about Yahoo’s actions, the now-deceased Rep. Tom Lantos (D-California), who was a Holocaust survivor, famously castigated then-Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang and the company’s then-chief counsel Bill Callahan. 

Yet it appears many of Lantos’ Democrat colleagues were learning the wrong lessons. As Google grew to become more than 10 times more dominant in Internet search, Democrats began to realize the potential involved in working with the company to advance efforts to restrict speech it found politically threatening. 

Of course just such a collaboration took place during the early days of the Biden Administration when it came to COVID policies and vaccine efficacy. That came after the collaboration of the Democrats, intelligence services, the Biden campaign, and Big Tech to suppress and discredit true reports about the legitimacy of the Hunter Biden laptop. All of the above is no longer a matter of debate.

But China’s role in this often is overlooked. Without the Beijing regime’s successful beta testing of a social media/Big Tech-based surveillance and censorship of the world’s largest population, perhaps America’s censorship demons wouldn’t have tried to emulate it. 

For a hint of just how much the left wing intelligentsia has long admired China’s ability to enforce policies they like, remember the argument promoted by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman years ago when he waxed jealously about how Beijing didn’t need to win over any voters to do good deeds like banning plastic bags.

Of course, the elephant in this censorship room is Donald Trump. While the 2000 election dispute and the post-Abu Ghraib Iraq War triggered the left in this country, nothing has caused leftist heads to explode more than Trump’s entrance to the political scene, election as president, and enduring political capital. Trump is the devil incarnate to the left, and all respect for the law has been tossed out in its pursuit of him, reminding many of this exquisite exchange in the play, (and then film), A Man for All Seasons:

SIR THOMAS MORE: And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

ROPER: So! Now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!

MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

ROPER: Yes! I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

While the above exchange feels most germane to the lawfare attacks on Trump in New York, Georgia, and Washington, D.C., it’s also sadly applicable to the rest of us when it comes to the erosion of our First Amendment rights, whether we support Trump politically or not. 

A solution to this mess exists in our laws, if only we could find someone in government to enact them. You don’t need to be a Harvard Law School professor to see that Google, Amazon, and other key Big Tech players are ripe for hardcore antitrust action that should result in breakups. 

But speaking of Harvard Law professors, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren is one Democrat who has often proposed breaking up Google and other Silicon Valley giants. Yet she has conveniently clammed up at times in this crusade, in a way that begs suspicion that Warren chooses to publicize her breakup arguments based on when and how Google et al are cooperating with Democratic Party schemes. 

Would the Republicans or the right be just as willing to jump on the censorship bandwagon when and if they achieve power again in Washington? Undoubtedly, many members of the GOP political class would. But Trump’s embrace of the First Amendment rights movement, coupled with his new allegiance with Robert F. Kennedy Junior, has made widespread Republican complicity in this censorship trend less likely. 

That may or may not mean there are any consistent “good guys” in this war to restore basic liberties. It does mean there’s a sliver of hope. But as long as we have tens of millions of Americans on the left who believe censorship is an attractive tool to address their obsession with the ultimate evil they see in Trump and his supporters, this will be a very uphill battle indeed.

 Journalistic ethics revolves around a grid of truthfulness, impartiality, accuracy, fact-based reporting, and objectivity.  These words, with their overlapping but distinct meanings, are at the heart of what we think about when we evaluate the virtue of particular journalistic reporting. Unfortunately, none of these core standards are doing well in our era of extreme journalistic bias. 

There are other ethical considerations in traditional journalism as well.  The sensitivity with which sources are treated is one. The overuse of anonymous sources—which are, after all, sometimes legitimate and anonymous for legitimate reasons, but can easily be abused, especially in cases where the information is controversial and sometimes ultimately proved wrong—is an ethical consideration. 

The use of money—paying sources—which is not ethical, is generally not a problem in legitimate journalism. It happens mostly in the realm of extreme tabloid journalism. 

When it comes to bias, one of the great, if somewhat understated problems of our time, is that our national media functions as an adjunct to one of our dominant political parties, instead of being an independent voice keeping a check on politics, politicians, and government. This is a problem because a free people needs to know what those whom we elect, or are considering electing, are actually doing. And we need to know what government, which is always and everywhere inclined to overstepping what should be its boundaries, is actually doing. Our media is not doing its job of keeping honest tabs, technically or ethically.

 We see this clearly in an election season like the one we’re currently in. It is apparent when, for instance, the TV interlocutors at a presidential debate ask easy questions of one side and loaded ones on the other side; and fact check one side and let the other side’s untrue assertions slide. 

That is an egregious example of media bias, of course, since some number of voters rely on these media-sponsored debates to make up their minds about whom to cast their vote for.  But it is not the worst example of media bias toward Democrats. Worse would be the sins of coverage omissions, in which Democratic lawmakers are allowed to lie about the reality of their policies—what they are, and what they do. 

That happened over the course of the Biden Administration with the Biden/Harris open border, migrant invasion policy. (Also economic policy, in particular inflation.) Conservative FOX News reported on the border policy and how it was playing out—how many illegal immigrants were rolling across the border into Texas or California—from day one. The New York Post, which is owned by the same company, reported on the story.  But even the Wall Street Journal, also owned by the same company, was too “respectable” to report the story as it initially unfolded. So people at the border faced an invasion. And citizens in more northern, “blue” cities remained ignorant that this was happening because their TV news and local papers did not report it. 

The three major TV networks, most of cable, the New York Times, the Washington Post—the “elite media”—all ignored the fact that hundreds of thousands, then millions of military aged men from across the Third World, and then across the world itself, including China, were pouring into the U.S. across the unguarded southern border. Because of explicit policies at the Department of Homeland Security, many of these people were being flown or bussed to other cities and towns across the country. This included migrants with criminal histories, and many who had previously been expelled from the U.S. Many of these flights were scheduled, by the government, for the dead of night, into local, relatively quiet airports where they wouldn’t get a lot of attention. 

Not until two years in, when a red state governor sent a busload of migrants that had been shipped to his state, Florida, to the elite summer playground of Martha’s Vineyard, causing a stir on the island, and therefore in the media itself, did the elite media begin to report this story. By that time shelters in “sanctuary cities” were overrun with migrants living for free at four-star hotels, rejecting the food they were given, getting generous benefits, and starting to commit crimes in big numbers—so that local Democrat officials were starting to complain about federal policy.  But more than half the country was two years late to this story because the elite media had neglected to cover it, since it looked bad for the Biden/Harris Administration.  

These reporting choices by reporters and editors were deeply politically biased, both in favor of a Democrat administration, and in favor of an open border policy. 

It should be obvious, but the political biases of reporters and editors and TV anchors should be scrutinized regularly to keep them from affecting coverage of issues and stories. That is hard, given that all status incentives in mainstream journalism lead to biases toward Democrats and their policies. One way to deal with this would be to have reporters from both parties on your staff, including in positions of power. That would require radical restructuring of most elite newsrooms. It would require editors who are above the status incentives that keep the news biases toward Democrats. It is very unlikely that such a thing will ever happen. 

When we think about media ethics, we tend to think about the smaller incentives that affect journalists—personal gain, for one. Close relations with people whose actions should be covered, for another.  Those are important.  But, as we have learned in the extreme during the Biden/Harris Administration, failure to cover the actual actions of politicians, and the policies they promulgate and their effects, is the most serious failing. 

It is worth noting that this is a relatively new phenomenon. The news had a much more moderate left wing bias as recently as the Clinton Administration. Not no bias. There was certainly some. But news about Clinton era policies that were not popular, or that failed, made it through the choice barrier of editors.  For young reporters, it was understood that anything happening should be covered.  Until it wasn’t. Back in those days objective journalism was the only ethical standard.  Now it would be fair to say that there is no functioning ethical standard. 

It is also true that none of this happens by accident. It’s not a surprise that many members of the White House press corp, and the elite media in general, are married to people who staff the permanent government. Or to Democratic political aides and operatives and office holders. Or they’re married to people who work for leftist activist groups. Or they, themselves, come out of those activist groups.  That creates ethical problems. It’s not just that loyalties are affected. It’s that there are deep and inherent biases toward some information at the expense of other information, created in such relationships.  Is this a matter of ethics? Yes, conflict of interest is a matter of ethics. Journalists should not cover entities where their spouses are employed. That’s pretty straightforward, and most media companies are reasonably clear about this. But it happens a lot in Democratic administrations. 

But it’s larger than just specific jobs. Reporters should not be covering any politics if they have a spouse working in an administration.  The tendency to support that administration is too great, even if you are covering Defense and your husband or wife works at the Department of Education. 

The exception to these rules are editorial pages, or opinion-based talk shows, where it is legitimate to make a case for the policy or politics the institution supports. Though it is the case that the nation’s best editorial pages – I would nominate the Wall Street Journal for that honor – present the most fact-based analyses and arguments for their positions. Mere assertions of preference don’t go very far.  And their writers and editors are well versed enough in politics to be able to distinguish partisan hackery from what actually happened or was said by political players. That should be the editorial page standard, not the exception that it now is. 

In our time the most serious journalistic ethical breach is the deep political bias of our media. Can the problem be solved? In theory, sure.  But while it is theoretically solvable, the odds that that will happen are approximately zero, especially when figures as unpopular and easily criticized as Donald Trump are involved, and when Democrats have a serious stake in suppressing political stories about how they obtain and hold power. The more one side has to hide, the stronger the incentives to stick with now routine biases.  This, of course, is a tragedy, and a very serious political problem. We need the return of real, even handed, journalistic ethics for our two party system to work.

Over half a century ago, hundreds of thousands of Americans celebrated their freedom at the Woodstock Music & Art Fair’s Aquarian Exposition, or simply “Woodstock.” 

These young, peace-loving Americans were advocates of individual autonomy, limited government, laissez-faire economics, freedom of speech, and civil liberties under the rule of law. They were the “Liberals” of the day.

African American Jimmy Hendrix, Indian Ravi Shankar, Mexican Carlos Santana, Native American Robbie Robertson, the ten women and the three members of the LGBTQ community who performed at Woodstock did not depend on affirmative action or “Diversity & Inclusion.” Their invitations to perform were merit-based. And no one viewed the predominately white middle class audience as racist oppressors by birthright. 

The festival organizers had prepared for an audience of fifty thousand. Attendance was eight times that number. 

Highly volatile political issues were dominating the minds of the attendees and the creative consciousness of the performers. These included civil rights, the erosion of the environment, and  the raging war in Vietnam.  For some, this would be their last hurrah prior to being awarded a one-way ticket to Hanoi. Despite the explosive state of affairs, there was no violence and no one was burning flags, looting businesses, destroying property, or defacing historic monuments. 

On the contrary, these classic counterculture “liberals” honored the nation that afforded them liberation and freedom. According to the Journal of Emergency Medical Services, the most common injuries were foot injuries sustained by festival goers who took off their muddy wet shoes.

Jimi Hendrix’s psychedelic Star-Spangled Banner saluted the nation that afforded him success. Richie Havens led hundreds of thousands of handclapping, foot-stomping liberals in the chorus of his hit song, “Freedom.” Folk singer Tim Harden covered Bobby Darin’s “Simple Song of Freedom,” and visiting from across our northern border, Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young paid homage to those who fought and died for freedom in their ballad, “Find the cost of freedom, buried in the ground.” 

No anti-Semitic genocidal cries from the crowd silenced the performance of Arlo Guthrie, whose mother was Yiddish poet Aliza Greenblatt and whose distinguished Rabbi was the controversial Meir Kahane, founder of the Jewish Defense League. No BDS groups called for the boycott of the festivities held on the occupied land of Jewish conservative Republican Max Yasgur who supported the war in Vietnam. “If the generation gap is to be closed, we older people have to do more than we have done.” said Yasgur, a dairy man like Tevye, in a New York Times interview. 

Among the hundred thousand or so university students in the crowd, none were praising the barbaric terrorism of the newly formed PLO, PFLP, or the Muslim Brotherhood, which gave rise to Hamas. And none of these real liberals were condemning Israel for their capture of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Old City of Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights after being brutally attacked by its neighbors (only to return much of it in delusional dreams of peace). 

By today’s standards, these “Woodstock Generation Liberals” would be considered right-wing conservative nationalists. They would be condemned by those who have hijacked and redefined the term “liberal” to soften their antiliberal Marxist agenda. The New Democratic Party’s left-wing “progressive platform” is frighteningly reminiscent of its early days. 

When Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest served as the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, his paramilitary mercenaries served the Democratic Party’s interests. These politically motivated anti-Semitic masked cowards gathered to intimidate, inflict violence, and silence opposing viewpoints. 

Today, these same racist thugs have traded in their white hoods for keffiyehs and their perversion of Christianity for that of Islam. 

When Republican Abraham Lincoln defeated the Democrats, constitutional amendments abolishing slavery and granting of citizenship to freed slaves were passed with overwhelming Republican support despite overwhelming opposition from the Democrats. By the turn of the century, hundreds of Black Republicans were elected to state legislatures and 22 Black Republicans served in the U.S. Congress. The Democrats did not elect a Black man to Congress until several decades later. 

Fast forward to 2009. Barack Obama’s election should have marked a significant turning point in American history and the mitigation of racial disharmony. 

Instead, Obama’s socialist strategies, falsely labelled as “liberal,” widened the great divide. Americans became more deeply divided on race then they have been in decades, and the trend continues today under the guise of Affirmative Action, “DEI,” and Critical Race Theory. 

“If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.” 

The Big Lie Theory (German: große Lüge), often credited to German Nazi Party’s propaganda chief Joseph Goebbel was first described in Hitler’s Mein Kampf. It theorized that people could be induced to believe “a big lie” because they would not believe that someone, “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”

“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period,” lied President Obama when campaigning for support in his speech to the American Medical Association on June 15, 2009.

Obama’ s Marxist policies produced his doomed-to-fail-from-the start, “Affordable Care Act,” supported by 86 percent of Democrats, and one Republican. It was a boom for big pharma and big insurance companies and a bust for American citizens. 

Socialized medicine is not “liberalism,” it is socialism, and the easily predictable results of the Obama mandates are in:    

1. An increase in the cost of health care.
2. An increase in the cost of health insurance.
3. An increase in the cost of out-of-pocket deductibles.
4. An increase in Americans’ dependence on the federal government

Another “The government knows best” Marxist policy disguised as “liberal” was Obama’s Federal Housing Project, “The Home Affordable Modification Program” (HAMP). HAMP had a detrimental effect on Black wealth and did more for big banks than for homeowners. Nearly one-third of the recipients defaulted, and six million families lost their homes.

In contrast to the failures of America’s first Black president, under Trump’s Republican administration, Black poverty reached a historic low, almost nine thousand “Opportunity Zones” were created in minority communities,  a fund to deploy $1 billion in capital funding for minority-owned businesses was enacted, funding was increased for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and more than $500 million in loans was provided to HBCUs through the Capital Financing Program. In 2018, a budget deal was signed which forgave more than $300 million in debt owed by four HBCUs impacted by natural disasters.

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same.” Ronald Reagan                 

Half a century ago, General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev saw the light and succumbed to President Reagan’s challenge, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” 

The Harris/Walt team must have missed Reagan’s other proclamations declared at the Berlin Wall on June 12, 1987. 

“To be sure, we in the West must resist Soviet Expansion.” 

Almost a decade prior to Harvard’s Young Democratic Socialists (HCYDSA) joining forces with pro-Hamas activists in declaring that calls for Jewish Genocide are acceptable “dependent on their context,” the Harvard Crimson published a column penned by Laura Nicole. https://www.lauranicolae.com/

“Many in my generation have blurred the reality of communism… my classmates will graduate with the impression that communism represents a light-hearted critique of the status quo, rather than an empirically violent philosophy that destroyed millions of lives.”

Communism is a sociopolitical philosophy based on Marxism. It is a dangerous ideology which has tortured and enslaved millions of its enemies and is responsible for the death of over one hundred million people. It is a failed ideology. Karl Marx was an idealistic visionary whose theoretical philosophies were contingent upon absolute humanism: man is the supreme being. As such, the seductive plausibility of Marxism was predicated upon an atheistic world view. His sincere desire to make the world a better place for all humanity lacked a basic understanding of competition, rivalry, and greed. Karl Marx’s romantic dream has been proven to be a hellish nightmare.

“The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree” was leisurely coined by Ralph Waldo Emerson and defines Kamala’s inherited Marxism. Her father, Donald J. Harris, is “combative Marxist economist,” whose, “writings are sprinkled with obscurantist theorizing.”

While the Torah tells us that we are not responsible for the sins of our fathers, G-d also reminds us that children are responsible for their own unrepented transgressions (Ezekiel, Chapter 18). In Kamala’s case, let the truth be known, she was ranked the most politically left of all senators by the non-partisan GovTrack organization. Harris has promised government-mandated price controls disguised as “anti-price gauging,” she is offering a $25,000 gift to first-time homebuyers and supports $1.7 trillion in government handouts. These iterations are socialist policies designed to increase the power of the federal government, promote “wealth redistribution,” and take away state and individual autonomy. This is not liberalism. It is Marxism. 

Harris just does not get it: America’s free-market system is what makes America the land of opportunity. The toxic milieu promoted by price-control enthusiasts breeds endemic corruption and has damaged every nation where it was applied. It took Eastern Europe decades to recover from the devastation. Harris’ economic policies are more in line with China, Cuba, and Venezuela than the United States of America. 

German economist Professor Franz von Findelstein, an expert in Marxist-Leninist political economy, concluded that in Soviet Russia, “the Bolsheviks created a fiction of a new miracle-making economic system based on price controls.” They then exported this fantasy to America, “in the hopes of using it as an instrument for subversion” of capitalist systems. It rapidly took root in academia and left-wing political groups. 

After incubating for decades, Marxism has festered and flourished to become a prevalent American political agenda. These communist precepts disguised as “liberal visions” and “progressive policies” now control the economic platform of the Democratic Party. According to Spanish economist Dr. Bautista Quixano, Harris along with other anti-liberal leftists have adopted Lenin’s term “progressive” to describe their economic agenda. Lenin, too, labelled newer stages of economic and social development as “progressive”

“No Marxist will forget… The establishment of a separate and new state, of new frontiers, etc., resulting from a successful uprising, is progressive,” wrote Lenin in 1916. The 2024 “woke” agenda echoes Lenin’s progressive allusions to “equity” and “social justice.” Lenin recommended that the “Party” control the price of housing and food supplies. Under his watch, debt, waste, and a momentous economic crisis soon led to the collapse of the system. Hunger and poverty became the norm. 

The left-wing of the democratic party, its patrons, and its “squad” support, finance, and defend those who oppose classic liberalism. They have tolerated and encouraged Black Lives Matter riots, defunding the police, Anti-Semitic rallies on college campuses, and they unapologetically prioritize the plight of the Palestinians over the hell of the hostages. 

To add insult to injury, Kamala’s liaison to the Jewish community is anti-Israel Ilan Goldenberg. Her “Arab Outreach Director” is anti-Semite Brenda Abdelall who claims that Zionists control American politics (and whose mother founded the anti-Israel propaganda-spreading American Muslim Council’s Ann Arbor branch). Harris appointed veteran Israel critic Rev. Jen Butler to conduct outreach to the faith community and Harris’s national security adviser, Phil Gordon, is the subject of a congressional probe into his ties to members of an Iranian government influence network. The Kamala Anti-Semite of the Year award goes to her liaison to the Muslim and Arab Communities, Nasrini Bargzi. Among Bargzi’s accolades, she accuses Jewish students of “organized bullying” for suing universities for antisemitic harassment; she requested that the United Nations Human Rights Commission cease their investigation into campus anti-Semitism; and she recommended that marines who fought terrorists in Iraq be charged with murder.

Harris’s policies toward Israel are the antithesis of those of the previous administration during which time the United States recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, and brokered peace deals between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. In 2019, the “Combatting Anti-Semitism Executive Order,” which codified anti-Semitism under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. 

The Democrats Anti-Liberal Agenda: The Abolition of Political Freedom of Choice 

In America, those desiring consideration for the Presidency go through a series of interviews, town hall meetings, petitions, signatures, state primaries, and caucuses. Then, based upon the number of votes they receive from the electorate, they are assigned a certain number of delegates who will vote for them at their party’s convention. And voila! The winning candidate earns the privilege of representing their party in the national election. 

But not among the Democrats. At the DNC, there was no democracy, no fairness, no options, and no choice. Just Kamala Harris. And while the sweet nectar of joy overflowed from their goblets, their Kool-Aid filled cauldrons saturated the hall with anger and hatred culminating in President Biden being overthrown in a coup d’état.

The heinous history of the Nazi Regimes “Strength through Joy” campaign should serve as a cautionary tale, not as a role model to be replicated.

The Democrats Coalition of Catastrophe kick-off in Chicago was reminiscent of the Third Reich’s Strength Through Joy (Kraft durch Freude, or KdF) campaign. Harris did not need to directly quote the Nazi’s “strength through Joy” slogan. It is her deceptive propaganda policies which mirror the Nazi’s 1930’s labor organization marketing ploy. The stated goal of the Nazi campaign was to create a “joyous national community” based on Nazi ideals and loyalty to Hitler. 

That is what Harris’ campaign accomplished in Chicago. The DNC was not about selecting a candidate, economic policies, porosity at the border, geopolitical volatility, or rampant crime in the real world. While the partygoers were eating, drinking, and being joyful, there were seventy-four arrests, thirty shootings, a couple of stabbings, and six homicides in the area.

The Democrat’s manipulation of the media to market their conniving campaign of joy was another page borrowed from the Nazi propaganda playbook. 

NPR, the bastion of progressivism and breeding ground of Trump Derangement Syndrome declares, “Harris and Walz re-introduce Joy to the Democrats.” According to the New York Times, the Harris campaign is being “fueled by Joy.”  Vanity Fair proclaims that the “Harris-Walz Ticket wields Joy against Donald Trump.” Salon states that Kamala Harris is, “Bringing back the Joy,” while the Washington Post concludes that, “Harris and Walz seize on joyful message in contrast to darker Trump themes.” Rolling Stone concludes that Kamala Harris,’ “New Politics of Joy is the Best Way to Fight Fascism.”

The DNC was reminiscent of the Third Reich’s censorship and celebrations of Jewish Genocide. While the Democratic Party was putting on the ritz at their high-priced Hollywood-style coronation of their queen, anti-Semitic pro-Hamas rallies were granted permits to congregate and protest outside the venue. 

“Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves” Abraham Lincoln

While Jew haters were granted the right to protest and spread Jew-hatred, permit applications from Jewish groups including the Israeli American Council (IAC) were denied. This is anti-Semitic censorship, as perfected by Hitler, Stalin, and now, The City of Chicago. It is no wonder that Kamala Harris’ Human Rights Campaign president Kelley Robinson refers to the U.S. Constitution (which guarantees our right to assemble and speak freely) as the Founders’ “little piece of paper.” Every American should be outraged.

Marching alongside the celebrating Marxists and young, white, pro-Hamas “liberals” are various Antisemitic groups including Black Separatists and radical Islamists who have formed an Anti-Western, Anti-Liberal Coalition on a quest to abolish individual autonomy, economic freedom, political freedom, and freedom of speech. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) proudly waved their banners alongside the pro-Hamas supporters outside the DNC while their members rubbed elbows inside at the party. Meanwhile, Tim Walz declared in admiration of Lenin, “Don’t ever shy away from our progressive values. One person’s socialism is another person’s neighborliness.” 

There is nothing “neighborly” about socialism. 

In June of last year in Washington, D.C. a conference sponsored by the Democratic Socialists of America was titled, “How We Win.” Over 50 politicians attended, including senators, members of city councils, and those who sit on school boards while influencing the education, and manipulating the malleable minds of our children. Bernie Sanders addressed the group via Zoom.

“This is the largest gathering of socialist elected officials in decades,” exulted Maria Svart, executive director of the DSA Fund. The 100,000-strong DSA membership has elected over 150 socialists to govern in various levels of government. According to Svart, among their goals is learning, “how to shift power from the owning class to the working class.”

We as a nation must not confuse “Classic liberalism” with the “New Progressive Pseudo-Liberal Marxism” which makes a mockery of the term “Liberal,” is offensive to Classic Liberals, and is confusing to the malleable minds of our youth. 

To the Classic Liberal of the 60’s, “Woodstock signifies the coming together of all tribes,” proclaimed Carlos Santana. Conversely, today’s neoliberal woke progressives are Marxists whose platforms promote animosity between tribes, government tyranny, and economic collapse behind a façade of freedom and a smokescreen of joy. 

At the Woodstock Music & Art Fair’s Aquarian Exposition, over thirty artists and groups performed hundreds of songs, the vast majority of which conveyed messages of love, peace, and the “coming of the age of Aquarius.” 

“Don’t go ‘round tonight.
Well, it’s bound to take your life. 
There’s a Bad moon on the rise!”

In contrast, one prophetic song performed by John Fogerty’s Creedence Clearwater Revival serves as a warning to those seduced by false liberals promising a better world based on Marxism’s dystopian policies. 

“AFFIRM TRANS KIDS!” 
“MATHEMATICS OPERATES AS WHITENESS! DISMANTLE WHITE NORMATIVITY!”
“ABOLISH THE NUCLEAR FAMILY!”

These are the imperatives we are charged to heed if we are to listen to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Smithsonian Institute, and Black Lives Matters respectively.

There are four “core color groups” for K–12 students to learn as a prism through which to see the racialized minority peoples of the world (the P in “BIPOC”): African Americans; Asian American and Pacific Islanders; Chicanas/o/x and Latinas/o/x; and Native Americans. Arabs might be covered—under the Asian American group. And the unique plight of “Palestinians”—as an “indigenous people dispossessed of their land”—earns them a place with the Native American. But, as a separately marginalized minority worthy of inclusion in the spectrum of black, brown, and othered brothers and sisters in need of special recognition, the Jews are nowhere to be found. Israelis are named—but only as “colonizers.” That is, if we are to follow California’s State Board of Education’s “Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum.”

Flags of “Gay Pride,” Antifa, and BLM must be allowed to hang in public schools across America. But the “Appeal to Heaven” flag and the Gadsden flag, both dating from and designed to evoke the liberty-loving ideals of the Revolutionary War, as well as the American flag itself, should be banned as they may make some students feel “unsafe.”

These are just a few examples of the inversions, perversions, and divergence from the values that served to make the United States’ education system a paradigm for the world. In place of equality of opportunity as an aspiration for all, we are teaching “equity” of results as a requirement and on behalf of a few, their diversity extolled as a virtue in and of itself.

Where once we studied and distinguished natural rights vs. human rights, now we ignore and conflate them. Everything we want we deserve.

Instead of literature, history, philosophy, art, and the ancient languages that conveyed them—taught together as a coherent, integrated disciplinary system that singles out and promotes mankind’s accomplishments, and that made possible the developed civilization we currently enjoy (whose affluence allows us to quip about it at all)—we now have “multiculturalism,” which insists no preferences be made; and, nonsensically (and incongruously), we have “anti-racism,” which demands (racial) preferences be enforced.

With all its claims to ecumenicalism, egalitarian progress, openness, and accessibility, and all its professed goals of fairness, transparency, and sustainability, the “newthink” that pervades Western academia is ironically (if unsurprisingly and tragically) parochial.

The impending result is a generation of children indoctrinated with an anti-thinking, anti-idea ideology that says all actors are oppressed or oppressor, all action exploitation or resistance, all societies colonized or colonizers. It says all history is a progressive march toward justice—singular, inevitable, and violently ruptured and discontinued from all that came before it. It says, “Freedom is non-negotiable,” even as it qualifies the absolutes that safeguard freedom to “make up for past wrongs.” It says, “Obey,” because: reasons.

Another, unintended result is a generation of parents now disengaging from the groupthink and rejecting the forced decline of the once exemplary American public school system. Where they are turning instead is to the once revered, undeservedly discredited, classical education. And they are finding it in new institutions, mostly opened in just the last 20 years—in both private and public charter schools across the country.

Nashville Classical Charter School, Washington Latin Public Charter School, Hózhó Academy, and South Bronx Classical Charter Schools, are just a few examples. All of them rely on the (truly core) features of a classical education: teaching independent, critical thinking to apply oneself to the historically-based canon of time-transcending works either generated from or adopted by Western civilization. The goal is to build in students the value not just of proficiency but of excellence in reading writing, thinking, and discussing; and such virtues as self-reliance, responsibility, curiosity, sympathy, leadership, and (gasp) patriotism, inter alia.  

That a liberal arts curriculum being provided to primary school students in America should be, in the year 2024, “news” is, by itself, a problem. That the story is one of revival rather than disappearance makes it welcome news. And while there are existing prep schools that claim to teach the classics, that the attitude now being brought to these subjects is positive is a significant departure from the prevailing ideology elsewhere.

But what makes a few of these schools stand out especially is their inclusion of religious studies, not just as supplementary subjects, but fully integrated with, and supportive of, the secular American experience of which its student body is being prepared to be an active participant. In Michigan, Hillsdale Academy offers a “Christian classical education in the liberal arts and sciences with instruction in intellectual, moral, and civic virtue.” Civic virtue! This sounds like enough to get you booted from any number of institutions of “higher learning” making the news.

And, in Manhattan, Emet Academy opened its doors just weeks ago as a “Jewish preparatory school” proudly advocating the “perpetuation of Jewish, Zionist, and American exceptionalism,” and focusing “on the best of Western culture, the foundational ideas of Jewish civilization, and the advanced study of math, modern science, art, and music.” We’d be hard-pressed to arrive at a mission statement more at odds with the predominant antinomian sentiment currently posing as pedagogical “innovation.”

Emet Academy is a project of the Tikvah Fund, a think tank and educational institution creating student programs inspired by this very mandate at various levels from the 5th grade to post-graduate students. It’s perhaps unique among Jewish day schools in not being formally affiliated with any one denomination, while, at the same time, observing the Jewish calendar, and teaching Tanakh (Torah, Prophets, and Writings), Jewish history, and modern Zionism—all of which entail the teaching of Hebrew (Biblical and modern), under the rubric of “Jewish civilization.” Also required are Latin or Greek, to better engage directly in the study of non-Jewish, Western civilization, from the Socratic method and the origins of democracy through the Great Books, fine arts, modern science, and advance mathematics (without color). Sort of puts the “civil” in civilization.

While Emet is a first of its kind for New York City, it seems only a natural outgrowth for Tikvah’s defining strategy of Jewish education—elucidating the virtues and evolution of the modern liberal democratic state in which we live. That which stands at the apex of civilizational history, while revealing and probing the ancient and still-living core Jewish values that were so formative in that development.

All of which can be found, almost as a Tikvah introductory taster’s course, in the recently released six-part online lecture series, “The Artistic Legacy of the Hebrew Bible,” produced by Tikvah, and taught by Yeshiva University art historian Dr. Jacob Wisse. The course is intentionally accessible for anyone without an art or a religious studies background.

Rather than attempting a comprehensive survey of any one subject or period, in the six roughly 60-minute illustrated lectures, Wisse introduces a way of looking at art that equips the viewer for further investigation and consideration of the whole historical body of works that took as their starting point the texts of the ancient Hebrew Bible—the Tanakh. Wisse stresses the flexibility with which artists treat the same story. Some focus on the story, others use the subjects and figures for their own portraiture as characters. The effect is that we are treated not only to analysis of visual art, but also to a primer on Torah. And since the history of art is predominantly a visual anthology of Christian culture’s spreading influence on society, we encounter many key tenets of the Christian Bible, too.

For reasons obvious but very much still worthy of elaboration, the overwhelming portion of visual works—from ancient through medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, and early modern art—rely on the landmarks and narrative highlights of the Hebrew Bible, but mostly as a point of departure to tell other stories, make other points, draw other conclusions than those with which the original texts started. What becomes clear from the investigation is that while artists and patrons did not intentionally conspire to alter the literal accounts of ancient texts, they did take license to reinterpret their meanings and significance. One of Wisse’s central contentions is that the familiar works that so frequently feature Biblical stories use them to show the chronological and epistemological continuity of the so-called “New Testament” with the older (newly renamed) “Old Testament.” If apostolic succession was not always the artist’s ultimate proof point, surely the events and derived teachings of Christian doctrine could be shown by this method to be preordained.

By this right, for example, the story of the Binding of Isaac as a source of numerous works can, in early Jewish contexts such as the murals of the synagogue at Duras Europos or the mosaics at Afra in the Galilee, be made to hold to the rabbinic discussions, interpretations, and priorities: the trials and struggles of Abraham and Sarah, the fears of Isaac, and the demands, the judgement, and the redemption of man by God among them. But when taken up by Christian artists centuries later, and from the very first works, even the title of the Binding of Isaac is transformed to the “Sacrifice of Isaac,” the better to serve as a “prefiguring” and parallel of the story of the crucifixion—the sacrifice—of Jesus. Where Isaac was placed on the altar to test the faith of Abraham and then spared, in Christian hands, Isaac is a symbol of what will be Jesus’s death and resurrection. In all the variety of interpretations, however, and in all the examples chosen by Wisse throughout the course, the protagonists, the plotlines, and the voluntary actions of man are probed for their significance.

Unsaid outright by Wisse but expressed succinctly in another of Tikvah’s online courses, this one entitled “The Four Pillars,” is the corollary suggestion: that Western artists didn’t just use the Hebrew Bible to serve as content creator; but, by its exposure and its use, it’s made itself structurally indispensable to the cultures of which it was a part. In every story of man’s wrestling with God and every instance of exegetical possibility about its meaning, there is light shined on the tradition of responsibility that the Hebrew people place on the individual, and the role of the community in man’s relationship with God. And, by those, the focus of the Hebrew Bible on the actions of man as a free individual. Whereas in Greece and Rome the story of man’s actions is entirely a function of Fate or the caprice of distant gods; for the Jew, a human’s life is what he makes of it.

This quietly underlying assumption of the material and the compelling lesson it draws out is what raises this lecture series above the typical Biblical Art class, and what spotlights the special sophistication into which Emet Academy’s new students will be initiated.

And that is that the teachings of the Hebrew Bible, unlike any other urtext of any other ancient religion, have served to inform not just Christianity and its reach across oceans and time, but the entirety of Western society’s lasting values, beliefs, and institutions.

In 73 C.E., the Romans, in their global conquest, were dealing their last blow to the Judeans. They had them holed up in Masada, and were closing in for their final strike. With this being the end for the Judeans, according to legend, the consensus was for everyone to take their own lives.

The sentiment was that, at least in their own hands, they knew what will happen to them, as opposed to being handed over to the Romans and enduring unimaginable horrors. Husbands did not want to witness their wives being brutally gang raped in front of them. Fathers did not want to see their sons and daughters tortured to death. No; it was better in their minds to die, still free, than to live in chains.

As the Roman-Jewish historian Josephus tells the story, a commander of the fortress, Elazar ben Yair, gave this final speech:

Since we, long ago, my generous friends, resolved never to be servants to the Romans, nor to any other than to God himself, who alone is the true and just Lord of mankind, the time is now come that obliges us to make that resolution true in practice. …We were the very first that revolted… and we are the last that fight against them; and I cannot but esteem it as a favor that God hath granted us, that it is still in our power to die bravely, and in a state of freedom…

Learning about this immediately reminded me of the Africans who jumped from the slave ships in transport to the Americas. They drowned in the ocean, which was what they preferred to a lifetime of slavery.

This mindset—this resolve in the face of endless imprisonment—is one that resonated so much with me, and was another highlight of the spiritual link between Israel, Africa, and both diasporas, that I wrote a song about it. The chorus to the song came right away:

Take my life, you’ll never take my soul.
I will meet my Father face to face,
and see the new Jerusalem,
and see the new Jerusalem.

The melody itself seemed prophetic to me, as I wrote it to another set of words about 10 years before. It was originally a kind of love song. I never recorded it, and only performed it once. My reason for never recording it, and never performing it again, was that it seemed like I was putting the wrong words to the melody.

After about 10 years of the song lying dormant, reading about the Masada defenders brought it all back to the surface with the right words.

May we all strive for freedom, righteousness, and the G-d of both, even unto death.

The first months after the October 7th pogrom in Israel saw the embryonic forms of an anti-Semitic response in the United States. In light of the violence to come, they seem quaint. College shmoes tore down hostage posters and made Hamas-friendly statements. Filmed and called out on social media, some apologized with varying levels of credibility. This first wave crested as Ivy League presidents testified before Congress, bobbed and weaved on pointed questions and soon some lost their jobs. 

The apology literary genre faded as the pro-Hamas cohorts moved to direct action of building invasions, vandalism at college administrators’ homes, and of course the disruptive tentifada movement. They ain’t apologizing for nothing. However, the genre has now evolved from the poster rippers to businesses and institutions discovering that they face consequences for their anti-Israel actions.

The stakes are much higher in this new wave than when individuals dealt with the blowback. Reputational risk is enormous, through loss of donors and applicants at the university level, and customers, job applicants, and marketing partners for corporations. How effective are their apologies, or even non-apologies framed as statements, from a literary and communications perspective? Do they work as apologies or can they actually be counterproductive? 

Apologies on the family plan

One high-visibility case this summer drew an apology from those serial apologizers, the Hadid family. In the fall, Gigi Hadid did some explaining after posting on Instagram that Israelis raped, abused, and tortured Palestinian prisoners, and did organ harvesting. She wrote, “I shared something that I did not fact check or deeply think about prior to reposting.” Then, in July, German sportswear conglomerate Adidas hired her sister Bella Hadid to promote the sneaker company’s SL72 shoes, launched in 1972, the same year that Palestinian “Black September” terrorists massacred 11 Israelis at the Munich Olympics. The Hadid and Munich witches’ brew blew up on Adidas so—cue the multiple apologies.

Here’s what adidas had to say, as reported in People:

“We are conscious that connections have been made to tragic historical events—though these are completely unintentional—and we apologize for any upset or distress caused,” adidas said in a statement shared with USA TODAY Sports on July 18. “As a result, we are revising the remainder of the campaign. We believe in sport as a unifying force around the world and will continue our efforts to champion diversity and equality in everything we do.”

“Completely unintentional”! From a company whose factories made munitions for the Nazi war machine in World War II? Does adidas not have historians on staff to monitor such reputational matters? The carefully written statement looks on the positive side, but I can’t tell what the impact will be other than “we’ll try not to inexplicably connect our products to terrorism.” Grade: D– for credibility, B for coughing up the appropriate buzz words in its forward-looking conclusion. Unlike, say, the Bud Light marketing fiasco, this controversy doesn’t appear to have dented adidas or the Hadids.

For her part, Bella Hadid came out swinging on Instagram, in a statement that, like Gigi’s earlier apology, reflects her own voice without PR filtering, as reported in People magazine:

For those of you that do not know my heart, I want to make sure you’re hearing directly from me about my recent campaign with adidas. I would never knowingly engage with any art or work that is linked to a horrific tragedy of any kind. In advance of the campaign release, I had no knowledge of the historical connection to the atrocious events in 1972. I am shocked, I am upset, and I am disappointed in the lack of sensitivity that went into this campaign. Had I been made aware, from the bottom of my heart, I would never have participated.”

Hadid continued, “My team should have known, adidas should have known and I should have done more research so that I too would have known and understood, and spoken up. As I always have, and always will, speak up for what I believe to be wrong. While everyone’s intentions were to make something positive, and bring people together through art, the collective lack of understanding from all parties undermined the process. I do not believe in hate in any form, including antisemitism. That will never waiver, and I stand by that statement to the fullest extent.”

Bella Hadid spreads the blame around, including herself, and she protests she would have never done the promotion if she had known about the 1972 unpleasantness. After what happened to Gigi, did Bella and her people not learn to get the background on such an explosive topic? Like Gigi, Bella blames a breakdown in fact-checking and research. I can believe that given her “bottom of my heart” statements—and I’ll believe it the next time the Hadids need to apologize, too. Grade: B+ for personality. Potential for brand damage: zero.

Rutgers feeds the alligator

The dilemma of university administrators anxious to balance concern for Jewish students with genuflections to disruptive campus Hamas supporters and their faculty fanboys burst into flames at Rutgers University-New Brunswick in late May. Chancellor Christopher J. Molloy and Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor for Research and Academic Affairs Francine Conway started with a statement on May 26 with the headline “Speaking Out Against Acts of Anti-Semitism.” It forcefully addresses violence against Jews head-on:

We are saddened by and greatly concerned about the sharp rise in hostile sentiments and anti-Semitic violence in the United States. Recent incidents of hate directed toward Jewish members of our community again remind us of what history has to teach us. Tragically, in the last century alone, acts of prejudice and hatred left unaddressed have served as the foundation for many atrocities against targeted groups around the world. If you have been adversely impacted by anti-Semitic or any other discriminatory incidents in our community, please do not hesitate to reach out to our counseling and other support services on campus. Our behavioral health team stands ready to support you through these challenging times. In addition, our Student Affairs Office is already working in close partnership with leaders of the Rutgers Jewish community, and meetings have been held with students to assess and respond to their needs. If you are aware of hate incidents on campuses or places that have been made unsafe due to expressed bigotry and other unacceptable and insensitive acts, please report them using the bias reporting system. 

Although we face many challenges and may have differing perspectives, we must condemn acts of violence and all forms of bigotry. We will continually strive to realize the aspiration embodied in President Holloway’s articulation of a vision for Rutgers as a ‘beloved community’—a community where we welcome and affirm humanity and find strength in our diversity.

The statement could be a model for outlining the problem and posing responses—not the kind of blunt arrest-and-expel response that might have an actual impact, but it shows that Jew-hatred is (or was) on Rutgers’ radar screen. While not an apology, it rates an A for timeliness and clarity, and an A for impact in contrast to supine administrators who dare not speak out.

Then they blew the gesture when faced with a demand from the Rutgers Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) for an apology because the statement did not denounce Israel’s actions in Gaza. According to the Jewish Journal, “Rutgers SJP also accused the university of trivializing racism by also including condemnations of hatred against Asians, Hindus, Muslims and Indigenous peoples in their statement and criticized the university for not mentioning Palestinians.” (It should be noted the statement didn’t mention Uigurs, Tibetans, Copts, or Yazidis, but who cares about their struggles for survival?)

SJP’s bottom line: 

“We therefore demand an apology from Chancellor Molloy and Provost Conway for dismissing the voices and visibility of Palestinians and allies.”

And that they got with a groveling apology on May 27. Rather than ignoring the demand, Rutgers folded faster than a defective tent on the university lawn (bold added):

We are writing today as a follow-up to the message sent on Wednesday, May 26th to the university community. We understand that intent and impact are two different things, and while the intent of our message was to affirm that Rutgers–New Brunswick is a place where all identities can feel validated and supported, the impact of the message fell short of that intention. In hindsight, it is clear to us that the message failed to communicate support for our Palestinian community members. We sincerely apologize for the hurt that this message has caused.

Rutgers University–New Brunswick is a community that is enriched by our vibrant diversity. However, our diversity must be supported by equity, inclusion, antiracism, and the condemnation of all forms of bigotry and hatred, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. As we grow in our personal and institutional understanding, we will take the lesson learned here to heart, and pledge our commitment to doing better. We will work to regain your trust, and make sure that our communications going forward are much more sensitive. 

The apology earned scorn from Jewish groups. The Jewish Journal roundup ran this statement:

Associate Dean and Director of Global Social Action Agenda at the Simon Wiesenthal Center Rabbi Abraham Cooper told the Journal that the apology was a “complete and utter disgrace.” “That’s not leadership; that’s appeasement of people who support the destruction of the state of Israel. It’s an appeasement of all of those forces that have embraced the Hamas talking points.”

Then the apology statement came down and a May 29 statement from President Jonathan Holloway went up:

Rutgers deplores hatred and bigotry in all forms. We have not, nor would we ever, apologize for standing against anti-Semitism.

Neither hatred nor bigotry has a place at Rutgers, nor should they have a place anywhere in the world. At Rutgers we believe that anti-Semitism, anti-Hinduism, Islamophobia and all forms of racism, intolerance and xenophobia are unacceptable wherever and whenever they occur.

I like the second sentence about never apologizing for standing against anti-Semitism. That shows some backbone in reiterating the first statement. Still, Rutgers gets an F for the apology that negated its statement of the day before; the apology showed that pro-Hamas groups get the heckler’s veto over any statement that doesn’t reflect its thinking. On the other hand, Rutgers’ apology wins an A+ for humbly submitting to SJP and vowing to “doing better” and being “much more sensitive and balanced.” President Holloway’s subsequent message was the icing on the apologetic cake. SJP couldn’t ask for more than that, and I’m sure Rutgers’ messages since then are exquisitely sensitive. Doomed defendants at Stalinist show trials in the 1930s could not show more terrified deference.

Did the apology calm down protests at Rutgers? No, protestors got back to business when class was back in session in August. Student newspaper The Targum reported that “Build Up Resistance Now (B.U.R.N.) took to the Busch Student Center during New Student Orientation (NSO) with chants, noisemakers, and a sign reading ‘Rutgers can’t stop student power’ in response to a protest-related exercise introduced during this year’s orientation programming.”

A statement from B.U.R.N. helpfully defined its gripe and agenda:

According to a press release detailing the event, one of the protestors said, “Students are encouraged to compromise, but how can there be a ‘compromise’ over something like a genocide? This isn’t about apartments and student centers. We don’t want to have a debate about whether or not Rutgers should be involved in dropping bombs on the Gaza Strip. We want it to stop completely.”

According to The Targum, organizers of the event then responded:

On the same day, incoming students who were involved in the NSO program received an email from program leaders issuing an apology for the event, which was referred to as “anti-Semitic rhetoric which is abhorrent and has no place on our campus” in the message. The email notes that the demonstration is currently under investigation.

Will Rutgers win back donors who started withholding donations even last fall? That’s for the alumni relations office to decide. The downward spiral will continue in New Brunswick.

A statement with ramifications

The case of New Paltz (NY) Deputy Mayor Alexandria Wojcik is instructive. Unlike past apologies and their aftermath, Wojcik’s story shows a direct line from statements to apology to political repercussions. Mid Hudson News has covered the story in depth, which began just after Rutgers launched its apology for being overly concerned about anti-Semitism.

In a statement issued on Tuesday, the Jewish Congregation of New Paltz [JCNP], saying in part, that Wojcik shared posts on social media that use the phrase “geopolitical interests of Zionism,” which, according to the congregation, “alludes to baseless conspiracy theories rooted in centuries-old anti-Semitic tropes.” [Rabbi Adam Cerino-Jones] said, “These kinds of ideas have no foundation in reality and are used to scapegoat and discriminate against Jewish people.”

The congregation also stated that Wojcik repeatedly use[d] the word “intifada” which is a cause for concern. Intifada, according to the Jewish group, is a call to arms seeking an uprising against Jews. “Her language unnecessarily raises the temperature in our community, endangering Jews in the New Paltz area and putting our synagogue at risk,” the statement said. “In other words: her language makes our families less safe.”

Mid Hudson News then added a response from Wojcik:

Addressing the tone of her posts that offended Rabbi Cerino-Jones and the congregation, Wojcik said, “It is unacceptable for any New Paltzian, for anyone, to feel unsafe. My entire life I’ve strived daily to be always anti-antisemitic, anti-racist, anti-hate, anti-bigotry, in all that I do. I am sorry to learn that, unfortunately, some of my work has not landed the way I had intended. I sincerely appreciate JCNP for letting me know that is the case.”

Wojcik’s comments, while not an apology, are still baffling. If some of her work “has not landed the way I had intended,” then what was her intent, then? She gets a B+ for saying something, and, as we’ll soon see, backing them up with a pledge of action. 

That’s because Wojcik’s statement had ramifications after the apology. In August, Mid Hudson News reported she had “been found guilty by members of the Ulster County Democratic Committee Ethics jury after a complaint was filed by her fellow Dems over the use of racist or anti-Semitic language on social media… Wojcik said her posts had been misinterpreted.”

The article reports (bold added):

The committee did conclude, however, that “no evidence that Wojcik was personally racist or anti-Semitic or had ever expressed or held such views.”

Wojcik has been instructed by the ethics jury to continue making reparations to those she offended through her actions.

When asked about the ethics complaint and findings of the committee, Deputy Mayor Wojcik said “After witnesses and parties agreed that the ethics process would be confidential, the complainants seem to have forgotten the fundamental findings of the jury: I did not violate the Ulster County Democratic Committee bylaws, and the parties need to find common ground on our own time. My lines are open. I look forward to meeting with folks from the Jewish Congregation of New Paltz later this month, and hope to see all concerned about this topic at many phonebanks and canvass launches so together we can ensure actual fascists don’t come into power.”

I expect Wojcik will find an attentive audience at the synagogue, which is part of the Reconstructionist movement and describes itself as “a vibrant, egalitarian and intergenerational community, open to all Jews (by birth and by affiliation): singles, families, LGBTQ, interracial, interfaith couples and families.” If her statement and subsequent appearance before the “ethics jury” result in an honest exchange of ideas and insights, then I’ll judge her statement successful in impact far beyond anything adidas or Rutgers posted. I hope for the best for Wojcik and JCNP. 

Powerhouse Books: Zionist-adjacent is too much

The most recent institutional apology came from the murky matter of the cancellation of a discussion of the new book Tablets Shattered: The End of an American Jewish Century and the Future of Jewish Life by Joshua Leifer. Set to take place at Powerhouse Arena in Brooklyn, the event teamed progressive journalist Leifer with Rabbi Andy Bachman in conversation. All systems were go until, well, somehow the event got cancelled because somebody involved at the store unmasked Bachman’s nefarious Zionist leanings and cancelled the event, leaving participants hanging around in front of the bookstore. 

According to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency,

[Daniel] Power, the bookstore owner, agreed that the cancellation was wrong, and said he was not informed of the decision before it happened. He described the cancellation as the work of a rogue employee, whom he declined to identify. Initially, in a post on X, Power said Leifer’s publicist had canceled the event after speaking with the employee.

A week later Leifer and Bachman held the event at the Center for New Jewish Culture (in the building that once housed the Union Temple) in Brooklyn, pulling in an audience of 300, as the book’s sales pushed it high on various Amazon lists. 

The episode becomes relevant because Power posted a long statement on Instagram clarifying the sequence of events and how it contradicts everything a bookstore should be. His conclusion:

This incident does not define us. Opening our spaces, our minds, and our hearts to people of different religions, races, and cultures is not just a Powerhouse value. It is a New York value, an American value, and a humanistic value, plain and simple. There is always more work to be done, and we hope you will stand alongside us in disavowing all forms of othering, intolerance, and prejudice as we fight to uphold our fundamental principles of extending acceptance, dignity, and respect to everyone. We ask that you please recognize our genuine dismay over what transpired and accept our most heartfelt apologies for any harm that it has caused.

Power gets high marks for an A-level explanation, after the initial confusion about what happened. I’m now following Powerhouse on Twitter and, like many others, am highly curious about Leifer’s book—the event cancellation shows, once again, how the Streisand Effect of unintended consequences works. Power’s closing caps the statement well and apologizes. The statement is broadly based without getting into the politics of Zionism and opposition to it. I’m eager to see how Powerhouse might build on this unintended notoriety to bring in more feather-ruffling authors and moderators. In doing so, he could make lemonade out of what initially was a tall stack of lemons. Literary value: high. Impact: Exceptional. 

Where we are now

A year after 10/7, the name and shame process still plays out, but, at the poster defilement level, that’s satisfying but strategically pointless. That’s shoveling sand at the beach. The center of gravity of violent protests has created a new dynamic that requires more Krav Maga, anti-mask legislation and fearless frat bros. Institutional apologies will still happen, but the worst offenders will never apologize because in their minds their actions are always justified—until an apology is part of a felony plea deal. Nothing will change them until they face serious consequences. Based on the state of university administrators, Hamas (now Hezbollah) supporters still have a permanent free pass and nothing to worry about. 

Universities were historically established as bastions of enlightenment, knowledge, and freedom in a world of ignorance, bigotry, and oppression. The historic role of academia was to advance the frontiers of science and civilization through a free exchange of ideas. However, the rise of the radical left in U.S. and Western universities has resulted in a dramatic suppression of academic freedom and genuine diversity. Furthermore, the growing alliance between the radical left and radical Islam on campuses has created a toxic environment where anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, and anti-Western sentiments are embraced in the name of “human rights” and “social justice.”

In this increasingly topsy-turvy academic world, the brutal Hamas October 7 massacre of 1,200 Israelis is justified and even celebrated on U.S. campuses as an act of “legitimate resistance” and “freedom.” However, the Marxist-Islamist mob’s current attack on Jewish students and supporters of Israel is merely a steppingstone towards the ultimate goal of silencing anyone on campus and beyond who disagrees with their totalitarian and bigoted ideologies.

What specific steps are needed to reverse the endemic radicalization of academia? How can universities eventually be turned back into institutions that embrace professionalism and genuine academic freedom?

1: Addressing the threat of undisclosed foreign donations in U.S. academia

The dramatic rise in undisclosed foreign donations has been a key factor in the radicalization of U.S. universities in general and Ivy League schools in particular. A Network Contagion Research Institute report published in November of 2023 identified a strong connection between billions of dollars in undisclosed donations to U.S. academic institutions and the rise of anti-Semitic incidents on campus. Much of these undisclosed donations originate from totalitarian Middle Eastern states such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The report concluded that U.S. schools that received donations from Middle Eastern regimes “had on average, 300% more antisemitic incidents than those institutions that did not.”

“A massive influx of foreign, concealed donations to American institutions of higher learning, much of it from authoritarian regimes with notable support from Middle Eastern sources, reflects or supports heightened levels of intolerance towards Jews, open inquiry, and free expression,” the report stated.

The Qatari regime—which maintains close ties with the radical Muslim Brotherhood, the terrorist organization Hamas, and the terrorist state of Iran—has used significant donations to leverage its malicious influence on U.S. campuses.

Addressing the destructive impact of undisclosed foreign donations is a crucial step towards reclaiming the universities. This is a complex challenge that will require assertive action by the U.S. federal government and its legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Concrete steps could include:

• Legal demand for academic transparency in disclosing donations, especially from overseas.
• Restricting donations from totalitarian regimes that are considered hostile towards the United States.
• Imposing punitive fines on U.S. universities that refuse to disclose funds and have close ties with totalitarian regimes such as Qatar and China.

While private universities rely on funding, it is critical to end donations from malicious regimes that seek to undermine U.S. academic freedom and ultimately U.S. national security.

2: Tighter linkage between federal funds and protection of free speech

The First Amendment formally recognizes the right to freedom of speech and press in American society. However, in practice, many U.S. academic institutions limit free speech on campus by using “hate speech” to silence individuals with dissenting views. In 2019, former U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order that links federal research funding to universities that protect free speech.

“Even as universities have received billions and billions of dollars from taxpayers, many have become increasingly hostile to free speech and to the First Amendment,” Trump stated at the time. “These universities have tried to restrict free thought, impose total conformity and shut down the voices of great young Americans,” the former president added.

Fast forward to 2024 under the Biden administration and free speech is rapidly becoming a fragile commodity in American universities. A tighter linkage between federal funds and the protection of free speech could improve the situation, at least at state universities that rely on federal funding.

3: Linking academic accreditation to genuine diversity

While radical leftists and their allied Islamist partners on campus claim to embrace diversity, they are, in practice, seeking complete conformity in academia. They are pursuing this anti-free speech strategy by attacking and bullying anyone who disagrees with them and their radical ideologies. This has been increasingly evident in the post-October 7 era when radical leftists and Islamists have escalated their anti-Semitic propaganda in an effort to silence Jewish students and individuals who oppose the terrorist militia Hamas or support the Jewish state.

While not all universities rely on federal funding, all academic institutions in America need formal accreditation. The Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump recently proposed to end accreditation and federal support to universities that spread hatred against the Jewish minority.

“Colleges will and must end the antisemitic propaganda or they will lose their accreditation and federal support,” Trump said while addressing some 1,000 Republican Jewish Coalition donors.

Binding academic accreditation to free speech and genuine diversity based on mutual respect is a key component in turning universities back into institutions that once again embrace the critically important free exchange of ideas.

4: Stricter sanctions against professors or students who are guilty of incitement on campus

Radical leftist and Islamist ideologies continue promoting hateful bigotry on campus by artificially dividing humanity into “oppressors” and “oppressed.” Needless to say, “oppressors” and “racists” are anyone who disagrees with the radical left and the Islamists. More recently, radical professors have praised the Hamas October 7 slaughter of hundreds of Jews in Israel as an act of “legitimate resistance” against “colonialism.”

Joseph Massad, a radical professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University who opposes Israel’s very existence, articulated this widespread genocidal anti-Semitic ideology following the October 7 atrocities.

“Perhaps the major achievement of the resistance in the temporary takeover of these settler-colonies is the death blow to any confidence that Israeli colonists had in their military and its ability to protect them,” Massad wrote in an op-ed in the anti-Semitic Electronic Intifada publication, glorifying the Hamas invasion and massacre of over 1,200 Israeli men, women, and children in southern Israeli border communities.

While some professors have reportedly been dismissed, the overwhelming majority continue spreading this vicious anti-Semitic poison and other bigotry on campus. Freedom of speech is a fundamental American value. However, the abuse of freedom of speech to end freedom of speech and academic diversity is untenable. Imposing stricter sanctions on students or academic staff members who cross the line by embracing bigotry and glorify genocide is a key component towards restoring some measure of intellectual and moral sanity on campus.

5: Political diversification of academia

The American voting population is roughly evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. According to an April Pew Center poll, some 49% of the U.S. voters are Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party while 48% of the voters are Republicans or lean to the Republican Party.

However, it is not a secret that American academia is currently disproportionally dominated by professors who identify with the political left. For example, a Harvard University survey in 2022 revealed that a whopping 80% of the 476 faculty members who participated responded that they identify themselves as “liberal” or “very liberal.” In contrast, only 1.46% of the faculty members responded that they identify themselves as “conservative.”

Needless to say, the dominance of the political left in American academia creates an unhealthy imbalance with U.S. campuses being increasingly detached from the politically diverse reality of mainstream America. The result has been the establishment of an overwhelmingly left-leaning echo chamber that undermines a genuine free exchange of ideas within academia.

The solution to this problem is to re-establish political diversity on U.S. campuses. This is a complex and long-term challenge that would require a combination of carrots and sticks. Some concrete steps could include:

• Passing federal legislation that demands political diversity in state universities.
• Conditioning accreditation to political diversification of faculties.
• Linking federal funding to universities that embrace genuine political diversity and unrestricted exchange of ideas.

6: A return to fact-based academia

There was a time in a not too distant past when academia was based on fact-based research. Facts are characterized as data that can be independently verified and are considered trustworthy. However, the rise of the radical left in academia led to a shift from facts to so-called “narratives,” a reference to stories and tales. Unlike verified facts, narratives are based on emotions and politicized interpretations of reality.

The embrace of narratives has become mainstream in social sciences, especially in departments dealing with gender and minority studies and in Middle East studies centers. The narrative-based approach has seriously undermined academic credibility and integrity by prioritizing ideologies over verified facts.

A return to traditional fact-based academia is, therefore, a critical component in turning universities back into institutions that embrace academic professionalism.

Defenders of narratives claim that they are more “inclusive.” However, as the conservative commentator Ben Shapiro famously : “Facts don’t care about your feelings.” Narratives have become so deeply entrenched in academia that it will require significant time and effort in returning to verified facts. Concrete steps that could facilitate this process include: 

• Linking accreditation to fact-based academic research.
• Conditioning federal funding on demonstrable academic professionalism and integrity.
• Firing professors who fail to adhere to professional academic fact-based research standards.
• Hiring professors who demonstrate adherence to fact-based research.

Reclaiming academia and returning to sanity 

Radical leftist and Islamist ideologies have in the last decades transformed many prominent U.S. universities from institutions that embrace academic professionalism into ideologically driven propaganda hubs. Reversing this extensive decay in academia will be challenging, and there are no magical solutions to this complex problem. 

A summation of potential steps towards reclaiming universities and returning to sanity includes:

• Legal transparency for undisclosed foreign donations to U.S. universities.
• Linking federal funds to protection of free speech.
• Linking accreditation to genuine diversity where all groups are respected on campus.
• Implementing sanctions against professors and students who are found guilty of incitement.
• Enforcing political diversification in academia.
• Return to fact-based academia and rejection of corrosive “narratives.”

The battle for the future of the universities is challenging and complex. However, turning universities back into their traditional role as beacons of academic professionalism and enlightenment would undoubtedly enhance genuine freedom in America and beyond.

A poem by Jason D. Hill.

Hey you, please forgive me!

It all started on Thursday, we were dancing and having fun, and come Friday – so much fun all around, seeing friends we haven’t seen in years – we all met to dance and celebrate life. Come Saturday morning, the sun begins to rise, it’s so beautiful as it starts to shine all over everyone. 

We’re dancing and happy, hugging, and some of my friends start to leave. Suddenly, rockets start flying over us, I know this, this is my life -I’m from the South.

But then there are paragliders- I hope nothing happens to them…

Then starts the gunfire – what is going on?

We see the truck coming, paratroopers dressed in foreign uniforms – they are killing everyone. 

They just killed Shay, they killed Adi.. They’re kidnapping that girl, who is sitting there hugging her murdered boyfriend. Suddenly you run to the bushes where I sit and hide, not uttering a sound from my lips. 

You’re in the bush next to me, so close, the cries gush out from within you. A terrorist is right above the bush I’m hiding in and I pray he won’t see me, I pray so hard, something I haven’t done my entire life… God can hear my prayer. 

But you won’t stop crying out loud because with every second, someone gets shot and murdered.

They saw you, they’re dragging you out of the bushes. They’re four and you’re one.

You scream for help.

One of them punches you to silence you, and you try to fight them while looking towards my direction, for me to save you.

But if I step out, we will both get murdered. I want to live!

I sit there silently, they start undressing you!

I’m crying, I feel like I need to scream but a hand silences me! Maybe it’s the hand of God, or I don’t know who…

They turn you on your stomach and they start raping you, one by one.

They turn you around again and they yell at you in English, they want you to see for yourself how they have defeated you. You try to crawl in my direction and I pray for something to happen, for someone to kill them so you can get out alive, but as you crawl towards me and they’re on top of you – the shot comes.

They murdered you, but before they murdered your body they murdered your soul.

I sat there, in the bushes, for hours, I did not come out.

I saw a bottle of water next to you and I was so incredibly thirsty, but I couldn’t bear the thought that I should have saved you, so how can I be so disrespectful and drink your water?

I have reached rock bottom, I can’t live anymore. Your look follows me every single day – in the shower, in my sleep, in my room. I couldn’t go back to work, I wasn’t able to.

I’ve been to your house. I didn’t tell your parents what you’ve been through, but they’ve been told that your body was abused, I was a witness.

I ask for your forgiveness. 

I am coming to you, to the next great world, I promise to save you there and protect you. Please forgive me!

And don’t worry, I left a note for my family telling them how much I love them, and thanking them for the life they gave me. 

My sister is having a baby, I thought about sticking around to get to know my nephew, but I don’t think he should know the uncle that couldn’t save you.

It’s okay, I’ll watch him from above.

Translated from the Hebrew by Hen Mazzig. Originally published in push.il.

“When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”
—Qur’an 8:12

“If we can, you know… we will take [over America], but in… means that the law allows us [sic]. Here, we’re gonna’ make da‘wah [proselytize Islam] to the people. …[I]f America becomes majority Muslims [sic], then, insh’Allah [Allah willing], we choose to implement Sharia.”
—Imam Dr. Fadi Kablawi,
Sermon to the Masjid as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyah North Miami,
January 26, 2024

In 2011, novelist and Daily Wire wit Andrew Klavan made a video for PJ Media’s now-defunct YouTube arm entitled “How to Behave During an Islamic Massacre.” Klavan’s comedic monologue, part of his satiric “Klavan on the Culture” series, included a pearl of sage counsel: “Holding homicidal Muslims responsible for their savage brutality will only annoy them, and could cause you to be accused of Islamophobia: the irrational fear of being decapitated.”

Nearly a decade and half later, Klavan’s axe block humor is perhaps even more prescient than he intended. With Islam so unapologetically on the march, it would appear that almost every Western society today, broadly speaking, has gone ahead and taken his “advice.”

Truly, in many ways, an ominous normalization of Islamic cultural mores, political influence, and even legal strictures has begun to take root across America and especially Europe. Needless to say, willful blindness to the fact that the non-Muslim world is arguably more Islamic since 2001—not to mention October 7, 2023—is a crucial step on the way to willful headlessness.

The undeniable presence of Sharia (the Islamic legal system) within Western societies is worthy of fear and debate of the same intensity with which they are regularly ridiculed or suppressed. And living under Sharia, however faint the future possibility may be, should be cause for anyone in that condition to wish he or she had been willing to “annoy” its would-be implementors in the past. Yet, provably, the bad news is that, at best, such a future is not a faraway one.

Concern surrounding Islamic cultural, political, and legal influences should be an automatic reaction in the West, but fear of all the now typical insults—so omnipotent yet so meaningless—prevents decent people from expressing their natural apprehensions, let alone of having intelligent debates. And a great many of those apprehensions stem from genuinely altruistic revulsion at how Islam and Sharia treat Muslims themselves, particularly women and children. If that is “bigotry” and “intolerance,” then every compassionate human being should wear those slanders as medals of moral clarity.

Sharia is jihad

Sharia (often translated as “justice”) is the system by which an Islamic society is to be governed and controlled. In Islam, both theology and law come from the all-important Islamic “trilogy”: the Qur’an (believed to be the words of Allah delivered through Muhammad), the Sirah (the “life” or biography of Muhammad), and the Hadith (the many thousands of oral “traditions” preserving Muhammad’s sayings and actions).

Islam, let alone Sharia, cannot be understood without the person of Muhammad. Qur’an 33:21 says that “Indeed, in the Messenger of Allah you have an excellent example for whoever has hope in Allah and the Last Day, and remembers Allah often.” This—buttressed by 90 other verses—is understood to mean that Muhammad is the perfect example of conduct for every Muslim. Combined, the Sirah and Hadith form what is called the Sunnah (“way” or “path”) of Muhammad. Given that Muhammad was a warlord who ordered no fewer than 44 assassinations of his enemies, first consummated his marriage to his “favorite” wife A’ishah when she was nine (and still playing with dolls), rid Arabia of its Jews by expulsion and massacre, and embarked on at least 61 acts of jihad in the final decade of his life, upholding such a man as an “excellent example” to be imitated is more than worrying. And since the Sharia is a summation of Qur’an and Sunnah—of which about a third concerns jihad—jihad itself is an integral, load-bearing pillar of the Sharia, if not nearly fungible with it. Sharia, therefore, is the application of Muhammad’s jihadist example to everyday life.

Furthermore, as moderately well known today, the Sharia allows for amputation as punishment for theft; the lashing and stoning of adulteresses (some falsely accused); execution or imprisonment of rape victims (rape being classified as “adultery”); rape victims requiring four male witnesses as proof; execution of homosexuals; clitorectomy; a woman’s legal testimony being worth half of a man’s; wife beating; child marriage; forced veiling; chattel slavery; execution for apostasy; execution for mocking Muhammad; and more. (The primary sources for each of these practices are Sunan an-Nasa’i 4873; Sahih Muslim 1690-A; 1690-C; Qur’an 24:13; 15:74; Muslim 349; Qur’an 2:282; 4:34; 65:4; 24:31; Muslim 1602; an-Nasa’i 305; and Qur’an 9:61 respectively.) It goes without saying that such customs are universally and rightly illegal in the civilized world.

Still, one of the most important and surprising aspects of Islam is that the non-Muslim, the Kafir, is a subject of supreme doctrinal importance within its foundational texts. In fact, when combined, no less than 51% of the core Islamic texts—Qur’an (64%), Sirah (81%), and the sahih (“authentic”) Hadith collection of Muhammad al-Bukhari (37%)—is devoted to non-Muslims. This was true in pre-modern times and it remains true now. While—contrary to all hysteria—Jewish law (Halakhah) does not sanction subjugation or degradation of non-Jews, and does not apply to anyone outside the Jewish people, Sharia, by contrast, does apply to non-Muslims.

Even more disturbing is that Islam does not actually possess a version of what Christians call the “Golden Rule.” Instead of what could be called “symmetrical” ethics, Islamic morality is dualistic: one set of ethics apply to Muslims, another to the Kafir. While, for instance, the Qur’an (3:110) calls Muslims “the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind,” thus due mutual respect within the group (see 48:29), the Kafir, on the other hand, can be freely hated (40:35); mocked (83:34); plotted against (86:15–17); terrorized and beheaded (8:12); murdered “wherever you overtake them” (4:91); crucified (5:33); fought, subjugated, and extorted (9:29); taken hostage (47:4); labeled “unclean” (9:28); taken and “possess[ed]” as a sexual slave (4:24); damned as “the worst of creatures” who will abide “in the fire of Hell” (98:6); and deceived (Bukhari 3029, 4037). What’s more, Muhammad’s followers—as justified by Qur’an 8:39, 9:33, 48:28, and 61:9—are obligated to make Islam the religion of the entire world. Therefore, Sharia colonialism is a form of jihad.

Sharia is here

All the more alarming is the fact that, in varying degrees, Sharia exists and is being normalized in Western society. Throughout America, Europe, and the Anglosphere, Islamic legal and cultural practices have been slowly—sometimes even quickly—accepted with a minimum of pushback.

Crucially, jihad is not necessarily violent, with there being four types: of money, speech, writing, and of the sword. Jihad is not just physical conflict but civilizational war, utilizing all aspects of civilization in order to defeat the Kafir. Thus, silent, creeping Sharia is a far more dangerous mechanism of Islamic colonialism than violent terrorism.

There are four stages of what might be called “Islamization.” The first, Dar al-Suh (“House of Treaty”) implies a land strong enough to keep Islam out—thus a people with whom Muslims, in a militarily inferior status, must sign a treaty of mutual boundaries. The second is Dar al-Harb (“House of War”), in which Muslims make war upon weakened non-Muslim lands through immigration, “communal” demands, then violent conquest; finally, with their population past a critical a point, they begin jihad on a constant basis—jihad which can be neither criticized nor punished. The third is Dar as-Islam (“House of Islam”): Islam has conquered, and the Kafir vanquished.

By far the most affected Western venue is Europe, which—though India and Bangladesh arguably are much worse—has seen the influx of millions of Muslim immigrants and migrants within the last decade alone. Sharia, however, has been operational there for decades, flourishing in the shadows long before non-Muslims managed to document it. Europe and India are nearing the sunset of the second stage of jihad, America its blinding dawn.

Further, it cannot be stressed enough that incidences of Sharia colonization are in far too great a supply to permit investigation of three continents in fewer words than Mein Kampf. Therefore, a highly abridged selection of British and American tribulations alone are sufficient for illustration.

U.K.

In England, Sharia seems to be so deeply engrained in what genuinely was once one of the greatest civilizations in human history that it is mostly received with ignorant “tolerance” or learned apathy. While violent jihad has rocked the country on an ever increasing basis since the 7/7 massacres of 2005, it is irrelevant in comparison to what former comedian and Internet polemicist Pat Condell once summarized as “cultural terrorism.” This terrorism—lubricated by large slates of society propagandized with artificial guilt over the British Empire’s supposed savagery, and propagandists who themselves wish to gain power from the chaos—has slowly wormed its way through the foundations of decent, post-racial Britishness to a possibly irreversible degree.

Rape gangs

For many years, gangs of Muslim men groomed, raped, and trafficked countless underage girls in cities like Oldham, Oxford, Rochdale, Rotherham, and Telford, with the full knowledge of the police, social workers, the Blair government, and the BBC, who did nothing (until it was far too late at best).

In one case, rapist Bannaras Hussain was revealed at trial to have sat in a parking lot adjacent to the local police station while forcing one of his child sex slaves, sitting in the passenger seat, to administer a sexual act. “When, shortly afterwards,” counsel for the prosecution told the press, “a police car pulled up alongside them and asked what was going on,” Hussain truthfully told the officer what he was enjoying, and “The police car drove off.” For his part, Hussain’s fellow rapist brother Arshid “fathered” a child with a 14-year-old girl named Sammy Woodhouse. A child to whom a (non-Sharia) court later awarded Mr. Hussain visitation rights.

As regards the police and social workers who abandoned these untold thousands of children, the BBC reported (belatedly) that such dereliction of responsibility stemmed from fear “that if they pursued groups of non-white offenders they might be accused of racism.” Ironically, the British media, in order to conceal the rapists’ religion, resorted (and still resort) to an act of cheap racism: namely, by referring to such criminals as “Asians.” Thereby they smeared and continue to smear millions of law-abiding Hindu and Sikh Britons who happen to look similar in order to avoid being called racist.

Sharia courts

Today, dozens of Sharia courts exist throughout the United Kingdom, one estimate being “85 at least” since 1982. The courts’ existence is often played down with reference to their role being limited to “family disputes,” but, given the maltreatment of women and children allowed under the Sharia, this is no comfort at all. Some British mosques, too, according to (of all things) The New York Times, are in the habit of “offering Shariah councils for family matters” under the table.

In response to years of bubbling controversary, in 2016, the British government launched an official inquiry into the courts, brought on by rumors that “some sharia councils may be working in a discriminatory and unacceptable way… contrary to the teachings of Islam.” Well-documented evidence submitted to the tribunal confirmed that the Sharia courts ruled in favor of imprisoning women who had been raped and beaten within forced marriages. This included news coverage from 2008 exposing a “Muslim Arbitrational Tribunal” as having “worked ‘in tandem’ with police investigations” in six cases of serious domestic violence, resulting in all six cases being withdrawn. This point alone casts considerable doubt upon any protestation that these courts had operated without official knowledge or good will.

Disgracefully, however, the board of inquiry included two Islamic scholars as advisors, one of whom, in 2024, signed a petition—along with the “UK Board of Shariah Councils”’ vice chair—demanding the new Labour government “stop the indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinians.” The inquiry’s final report, published in the winter of 2018, boasts a section called “Evidence of bad practice” (p. 16), which, among its 13 bullet points, lists none of the abuses documented in testimony or in the media. One bullet point could not even be spared for the revelation that the courts sanction clitorectomy, a crime committed regularly for many years within Muslim communities despite being illegal since 1985 and carrying a minimum 14-year sentence.

Despite the assault against justice they constitute, major institutions have apparently accepted these courts and tribunals as an integral part of British society. For example, in 2021, Bristol University Press published a book about Cohabitation and Religious Marriage—distributed online by Cambridge University Press—containing an essay praising the Sharia courts. Bristol University, incidentally, offers a Sharia-compliant loan program for Muslim students.

Even an “award-winning,” female-led firm of solicitors in Manchester, voted the “UK’s Number One” by The Times, provides advice on “Divorce[,] Sharia Law[,] and your legal rights in the UK.” This follows the trend, given that, in 2022, the U.K. Law Society appointed a Muslim as its president, and a DEI protocol called the “Muslim Employment Charter,” which, news coverage of it says, is meant “to make law firms more Muslim-friendly,” has “a major international law firm onboard.” Undergirding that, a 2016 poll showed that 40% of British Muslims supported “implementation of elements of Sharia law,” holding steady from a 2010 poll—one which also revealed that a third of British Muslim students supported killing in the name of Islam.

Halal meat

Like Judaism, Islam maintains specific requirements for meat preparation, but, unlike Jews, some Muslims have been demanding that Islamic dietary practices be made the norm for all, rather than the exception.

In 2024, the Cowbridge Comprehensive School in Wales announced that it would serve only halal-slaughtered meat in its cafeteria. Despite the fact that only 0.2% of the local population is Muslim, the school went ahead with this gastronomic alteration “in response to community needs.” As far back as 2013, The Guardian found that “Three-quarters of schools under Waltham Forest Council control [in outer London] serve only Halal meat.”

Additionally, school food handlers have been fired for serving non-halal meat to Muslim children, and there is evidence that Islamic food producers (as an example of financial jihad) use their profits to support Hamas.

U.S.

America’s position on the road towards Islam dislodging constitutional government is certainly well behind the U.K., but the evidence shows that the seeds have been sown. The same refusal to, in Condell’s words, “name the poison” which exists in England prevails in America, paving the way for far worse to come.

Muslim Brotherhood

Founded in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna (Egyptian Nazi sympathizer and leader of anti-Jewish riots) to spread the rule of Islam across the globe, the Muslim Brotherhood has operated all but freely within the United States for decades.

In 2004, the FBI discovered a Brotherhood manifesto entitled “An Explanatory Memorandum: On the Strategic Goal for the Group In North America.” The chilling document, dated May 22, 1991, proclaimed that the Brotherhood’s take on the American Dream was

a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

That sentence—alluding to Qur’an 9:33’s command to make “the religion of truth to manifest… over all religion”—also sums up the Brotherhood’s strategy for defeating the American way of life. Through quiet subversion and clever deception; through inviting Americans, “by their hands,” to dismantle American civilization for them; through the Sharia doctrine of taqiyah, the concept of deception and propaganda in the furtherance of Islam. This has chiefly been done by abusing the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom and Americans’ rightful disdain for bigotry in order to seek that welcoming culture’s elimination. Through use of harmless sounding front-groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and Muslim Students’ Association (MSA), the Brotherhood has worked tirelessly and successfully to further its destructive aims within the framework of American civic life.

Perhaps the most powerful front-group is CAIR, a lawfare organization which regularly libels good-faith critics of jihad and Sharia as guilty of “Islamophobia” and “hate.” In 2024, for example, its Oklahoma branch applauded the defeat of a state bill banning Sharia—which provably oppresses Muslims—because, contrary to the primary source evidence, “Sharia law teaches tolerance and respect for religious diversity.”

CAIR has good reason to be so combative and aggressively dishonest, since, during the infamous 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial, it was exposed as the Brotherhood’s foremost America-based Hamas money-laundering operation. CAIR’s leader, Nihad Awad, has openly said that “I am in support of the Hamas movement”—itself a Brotherhood off-shoot. And, despite the FBI severing ties with them in 2009, Awad and CAIR enjoyed the Obama DOJ’s protection, and even advised the Biden White House on the subject of “Islamophobia.” It was only disavowed at the presidential level in 2023 after Awad said that October 7 made him “happy.”

The MSA, too, wields immense power as the mother organization of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), the nationwide campus mafia which terrorizes Jewish college students. SJP and its allies managed to devote roughly the entire 2023 and ’24 academic year to ferocious pro-Hamas protests, while intimidated yet supportive administrators enabled and protected it. The MSA also has a da‘wah (proselytism) wing, which attempts to convert college students to Islam, and is involved in trying to make campuses more “Ramadan-friendly.” Administrators should know that—according to the example of Muhammad—Ramadhan is not just an Islamic holiday but a month-long spree of jihad in which hundreds of innocent people are killed every year, as those who kill during it are sure to enter Paradise. And MSA or SJP members see victories as Islamic victories. Particularly in the context of anti-Semitic BDS resolutions passed through student governments, MSA affiliates have celebrated with chants of Allahu akbar! and jubilant social media posts such as “Hamas & Shariah have taken over UC Davis.” (The day after that UC Davis resolution passed, the Jewish campus fraternity was vandalized with swastikas.) During the 2024 pro-Hamas protests, Muslim students at Columbia and UCLA who were part of the illegal encampments held prayer ceremonies as a visible gesture of victory.

And while government has been nearly unable to react to the deafening storm of anti-Jewish campus jihad, it has managed to place the Muslim Brotherhood in a position to influence religious freedom policy (the perfect domain of Sharia normalization). In 2024, the Biden administration announced the appointment of Mohamed Elsanousi, a longtime ISNA member, to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Elsanousi must be fully aware that almost nobody in government knows anything about the Brotherhood’s network, since he proudly includes his 12 years as a senior member of ISNA in his official online bio. A bio which also boasts of a bachelor’s degree in “Sharia and Law” from the International Islamic University in Pakistan.

Mosques

As terrorism expert Steve Emerson’s award-winning 1994 film Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America documented a generation ago, throughout the 1980s and beyond, Brotherhood operatives regularly fundraised for overseas jihad in mosques and at conferences across the country. Some keynote speakers—such as al-Qa‘idah co-founder Abdullah Azzam—were active terrorists on leave from the Afghan, Chechen, and Israeli theaters. These coincided with the growth of Usamah bin Laden’s recruitment and fundraising network, which eventually spread to 35 countries worldwide, as well as a minimum of 38 American cities.

It is known today that many individuals tied directly to 9/11, and the major jihad episodes prior to it, were, from both within and abroad, associated with the Masjid al-Farooq in Brooklyn. The mosque, founded in 1976, was a major fundraising center for al-Qa‘idah and Hamas going back to the 1980s, but none of this was fully understood prior to 2001. Despite everything discovered after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and even 9/11, the mosque’s brightly colored façade still graces Brooklyn with open doors.

This inability on the part of government and law enforcement to investigate mosques has undoubtedly resulted in unnecessary confusion, not to mention human carnage. One of the most egregious examples is the case of the Islamic Society of Boston, founded in 1981 by convicted terrorist conspirator Abdulrahman Alamoudi, with the late Brotherhood “spiritual leader” Yusuf al-Qaradhawi as a board member. Since then, the ISB and its ISNA-owned “mega-mosque” off-shoot, the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, have produced 14 (known) associates, former members, and students who are at large, dead, in prison, or have been deported for involvement in terrorism—including the Boston Marathon bombers. It was this mosque which, in 2010, asked a field trip group of local high school students to participate in Islamic noontime prayers.

Local researchers formally briefed the FBI (at its request) about the mosque as far back as 2009, detailing its terrorist connections and vile curriculum, including instructions on wife-beating. But, at a congressional hearing two months after the Marathon bombing, FBI director Robert Mueller claimed that he knew nothing about the mosque’s leadership or conduct.

The Qur’an

The free speech and establishment clauses of the First Amendment allow Americans to criticize or mock any religious text, but, in the eyes of the U.S. government, the Qur’an has been off limits for years. America is still a mostly Christian country, but disrespect shown towards the Christian Bible is never nearly as controversial as any slight to the Qur’an’s dignity.

In 2005, a series of guidelines were issued for personnel serving at Guantánamo, requiring those guarding terrorists to wear “[c]lean gloves” if a copy of the Qur’an must be touched, and to treat it “as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art.” When an obscure, attention-seeking Florida pastor put the Qur’an on “trial” and burned it in 2011, President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and General David Petraeus vigorously condemned the burning of the “holy Qur’an.” Because Muslims in Afghanistan rioted and murdered at least 14 people in response to the pastor’s actions, the U.S. government chose to elevate a bound sheaf of paper over Americans’ First Amendment rights to be peacefully crude or offensive.

In the course of Operation Enduring Freedom, American leaders chose to transplant Afghan morality to America—arguably placing Qur’an 9:33 over the Constitution they swore to uphold, protect, and defend.

A fitting post-script is that, in the midst of the Biden administration’s catastrophic 2021 pull-out from Afghanistan, CNN claimed that a Navy veteran, Zachary Young, had somehow committed a crime in selflessly rescuing women and children from the clutches of the victorious Taliban. Nearly three years later, in its defense against Young’s well-deserved $1 billion defamation suit, CNN’s legal team cited the fact that the Taliban has “implemented Sharia law, banning women from leaving the country” as reason for their innocence.

As Klavan admonishes: “With just a little intellectual dishonesty and some unprincipled sniveling, we can put an end to Islamic slaughters peacefully by eliminating their cause: our freedom.”

“Islamophobia”: a weapon of abusive psychological warfare

The term “gaslighting” will appear constantly in any serious abuse counselor’s materials, but the easiest way for an abuse counselor to endure relentless public abuse is to admit the truth that “Islamophobia” itself is the most powerful form of socio-political gaslighting in recent history. It is a method for convincing good people to doubt objective moral reasoning. Reasoning which makes it clear that Islam, both in theory and practice, suffers from severe moral inadequacies, and that having the freedom to condemn injustice wherever it may be includes within Islam. There is nothing irrational, for example, about fearing courts which could, can, and do refuse a woman’s plea for a divorce on grounds of physical cruelty.

Additionally, Marxists traveling under the fake passport stamped “liberal”—who watch The Handmaid’s Tale, a dystopic fantasy of Christian misogyny, and rejoiced at Obergefell v. Hodges—consistently denounce anyone who criticizes evil when it comes from Islam. The Handmaid’s Tale very nicely captures Islamo-Nazi-occupied Iran—where 184,000 girls under the age of 15 were “married” between 2017 and 2022—and Obergefell would never exactly make it to the Supreme Court of Afghanistan, but, even so, people who claim that all cultural values are equal are never so polite to their own. Accusing the truly liberal of “racism” for their concerns is not only racist against Muslims—making them, like toddlers, beneath honest, well-intentioned moral criticism—it also is factually absurd. If Islam were a “race,” then there would not be Muslims of every color—including Muslims who own African slaves. Islam and Sharia are ideas, and, as Sam Harris said famously on Real Time with Bill Maher in 2014, “We have to be able to criticize bad ideas… and… Islam, at the moment, is the motherload of bad ideas.”

The word “Islamophobia” itself has drunk much ink in recent decades—some deserved, most not—and, frankly, should have died of thirst in the choking ash of 9/11. Despite masquerading as a rhetorical air raid shelter for a persecuted minority, it is known to have been first popularized in 1989 following British Muslim pressure groups’ support for Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa for the murder of Salman Rushdie. So, too, given that the cutting edge of British society scandalously sided with the world’s first true Islamic terrorist state against a mild-mannered immigrant novelist, its very origins indicate that Muslims in the West were (and are) hardly as persecuted as advertised.

Identically to interpersonal abuse, the only cure for gaslighting, as for “Islamophobia,” is to reject it. “Islamophobia” is as real as waiters’ fear of the booth fairy, and civilized people must likewise disown it, condemn it, and drown it in suitably abusive humor.

“When you get to the stage where anyone criticizing your beliefs is automatically deemed to have a mental illness,” to quote Condell once more, “that is a sure sign of mental illness. It’s also cultural terrorism.”

Is hope worth our time?

The Western world must understand that it is worth more than the sum of its shortcomings. It is built upon the ideas of individual liberty, God-given dignity, and personal responsibility. Islam, sadly, is not compatible with these values, espousing diametrically opposing ones.

It must be restated that opposition to Sharia is not only an act of Western self-interest, but of empathy. Islamic legal and cultural practices, even now, harm Muslims far more than non-Muslims. It is Muslim women and children who are beaten and raped, dwarfing the number of non-Muslims subjected to the same crimes. Those who express moral disapproval of Sharia do so because Muslim suffering at the present moment irks them as much as their own in the coming years.

Finally, Islam, like the West, despite everything, may be in trouble, too. Even in the face of its vigorous birth rate, Islam’s rate of conversion is anemic. What’s more, its apostasy rate is massive, enough for prominent imams to express public bewilderment—one calling it an “avalanche.” Ex-Muslims are now prominent on YouTube and social media, and their following, while dwarfed and subject to Internet censorship, is reliably growing.

Like Muhammad’s following before them, theirs can be neither ignored nor discounted. Their knowledge and courage may be part of a blind, suicidal West’s last chance for survival—for they, unlike us, know that Andrew Klavan’s “advice” was a joke.

Sharia is not a system which any Western person would—even should—perceive as morally recognizable.

The fear of being labeled as “Islamophobic” has caused far too many people to avoid examining the problems that come with normalizing Sharia.

A poem by Darren Glick

Pakistan is in the news again with horrifyingly brutal murders of people over allegations of “blasphemy.”

A Pakistani man who was visiting the country’s Swat Valley as a tourist on June 20 was accused of blasphemy. On such hearsay, he was beaten to death, then his body was set on fire by an angry Muslim mob.

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) reported:

The mob severely beat the man, identified as a resident of Punjab Province, and dragged his burning naked body through the streets… Swat police chief Zahid Ullah said police officers initially rescued the man from the people who attacked him and sheltered him at a police station in Madian.

…[T]he mob broke down the gate of the police station and entered the building. They then poured gasoline on the man and set him on fire before dragging his lifeless body as they continued to beat him.

The rioters also burned three police cars and set fire to the police station, the journalist said. The incident started when a number of people accused the man of having burned pages of the Koran in his bag and started a fight with him. When it was announced through mosque loudspeakers that a “blasphemer” had been rescued by police, a crowd converged on the police station.

Another horrific lynching captured on camera took place on a university campus in Pakistan. The victim was Mashal Khan, a university student who described himself as a “humanist” and “liberal.” He was lynched by an angry Muslim mob on the premises of his university, the Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan, in 2017 over allegations of “posting blasphemous content online.” His attackers were his classmates and university employees. 

Khan was a successful student of journalism and debated observant Muslims at university over Islam and religion. The debates, however, were increasingly followed by threats. A friend of Khan’s who spoke to the BBC said that Muslims at the university threatened Khan because they thought he was an atheist or agnostic and they thought he could influence other students. In televised comments, Khan criticized his university for its alleged corruption. After the murder, Pakistani police confirmed that Khan did not commit any “blasphemous offense.”

A retired Pakistani professor, whose son incited violence against Khan by accusing him of blasphemy, told the BBC:

“Mashal was committing blasphemy. According to the law, nobody should commit blasphemy. Otherwise, he will be hanged… Mashal is responsible for his own death. If my son commits blasphemy and somebody kills him, he is responsible for this too.”

Fahim Alam Khan, a journalism student, told RFE/RL’s Radio Mashaal:

“When I reached the dorm, I saw Mashal had been badly beaten. They had ripped his clothes off and were hitting him with stones, clay pots, sticks, rods—anything they could get their hands on,” he recalled. “Then they kicked his bloodied, lifeless body down the stairs.”

Nirma Khan, a student, said her peers wouldn’t dare report any teacher for misconduct or incompetence. 

“Any kind of criticism, particularly questions about what happened to Mashal Khan, are off-limits,” she said. “The families of many of my female friends refused to let them return to the campus after the killing.”

Nazia Khan, another student, said the attack brought an end to freedom of expression.  

“Everyone is afraid of being accused of blasphemy,” she told Radio Mashaal. “The narrative some religious fanatics constructed was so effective that even some of Mashal Khan’s supporters distanced themselves from him.”

Ziaullah Hamdarad, a professor of journalism, paid a price for standing up for the truth. Court testimony would absolve Khan of the blasphemy charges, but the threats that followed forced Hamdarad to leave Pakistan. He moved to the United Kingdom and continued his career there.

“Khan’s brutal murder stirred up so much fear that 99 percent of teachers remained silent after his murder,” he told Radio Mashaal. “They should have denounced his murder and gone to his house to offer their condolences.”

The fear was so pervasive that scores of students and faculty members refused to talk with Radio Mashaal, citing concerns they would be targeted. Interviews with parents, students, and faculty have suggested that any mention of Khan’s murder—along with any debate, discussion, or freedom of expression over sensitive issues—remains off-limits even years after Khan was absolved of blasphemy.

Ahsanullah Zaryan, a poet and former student, said religion could not be discussed in any form at the university. He said that while studying Pashto literature, he faced a backlash after writing a verse that criticized those who utilized religion for personal gain.

“The pushback forced me to remove the verse from my poem,” he said. “It takes a great deal of courage to discuss any controversy after Khan’s killing. Most of us just keep silent when we sense our views might be labeled as controversial.”

According to Islamic scriptures, both blasphemy and apostasy are crimes punishable by death. The website “The Religion of Peace” explains:

When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (since it is killing someone who deserves to die). Acts that define “leaving Islam” and being subject to execution include:

• to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future
• to deny the existence of Allah… or any of his attributes
• to be sarcastic about Allah’s name, his command, his interdiction… or his threat
• to deny any verse of the Quran
• to mockingly say, “I don’t know what faith is”
• to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah.

The deadly, Islamic teachings regarding “blasphemy” and apostasy are also threatening the security and free speech of Western nations.

In 2006, for instance, tens of thousands gathered throughout the Muslim world—burning European embassies, issuing threats, and taking hostages—in protest over 12 caricatures of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad that were first published in a Danish newspaper.

Author Sam Harris writes:

It is time we recognized—and obliged the Muslim world to recognize—that “Muslim extremism” is not extreme among Muslims. Mainstream Islam itself represents an extremist rejection of intellectual honesty, gender equality, secular politics and genuine pluralism. The truth about Islam is as politically incorrect as it is terrifying: Islam is all fringe and no center…

Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe. Throughout the E.U., Muslim immigrants often show little inclination to acquire the secular and civil values of their host countries, and yet exploit these values to the utmost—demanding tolerance for their backwardness, their misogyny, their anti-Semitism, and the genocidal hatred that is regularly preached in their mosques. Political correctness and fears of racism have rendered many secular Europeans incapable of opposing the terrifying religious commitments of the extremists in their midst. 

In an effort to appease the lunatic furor arising in the Muslim world in response to the publication of the Danish cartoons, many Western leaders have offered apologies for exercising the very freedoms that are constitutive of civil society in the 21st century. The U.S. and British governments have chastised Denmark and the other countries that published the cartoons for privileging freedom of speech over religious sensitivity. It is not often that one sees the most powerful countries on Earth achieve new depths of weakness, moral exhaustion and geopolitical stupidity with a single gesture. This was appeasement at its most abject.

The same people who burn down streets and kill people over a few cartoons are silent or even supportive when their Muslim brothers elsewhere kidnap, rape, and beheaded innocent victims. There are almost no Muslim objections to these atrocities because they are committed to advance the cause of Islam.

“That Islam is a ‘peaceful religion hijacked by extremists, is a dangerous fallacy,” writes Harris and asks a significant question that urgently awaits an answer: “How should the West proceed its dialogue with the Muslim world?”

Euphemisms, political correctness, cowardice, silence, or appeasement have proven ineffective. Instead, they empower Islamic fanatics not only in Pakistan, but also in Europe. 

Despite Pakistan committing barbaric crimes, the country remains the EU’s second biggest trading partner and enjoys a smooth diplomatic relationship with the EU executive without sanctions or boycotts.

The West’s confusion over Islam, as well as the weakening of its own Judeo-Christian faith and heritage is naturally playing into the hands of Islamists. Islamic fanaticism is constantly strengthening worldwide. It’s high time Western nations put values and principles first over misguided strategic interests to protect themselves from the barbarity that the world often witnesses in Pakistan and other Islamic nations.

Dmitri Shufutinsky argues that Islamists and Marxists have conquered social movements in the US and the West, using them as vehicles to promote their ideologies and undermine Western democracy. He calls for a return to focused social movements that avoid being co-opted by unrelated causes.

“Islam is one of three Abrahamic faiths and has more in common with Judaism and Christianity than not.”

For the first half of my life, I believed this to be true and would have accused anyone who said differently of xenophobia (the term “Islamophobia” had yet to be invented). My belief was that the god Muhammad wrote so much about is also the G-d of Avraham, Yitzhak, and Yakov. And my stock response to anyone who tried to explain that Islam is, in fact, hostile to Judaism was: How can that be? The patriarchs are no less important to Muslims than they are to Torah observant Jews, la? 

I said and believed these things because I had not yet been exposed to the supremacist beliefs that form the core of Islam. Not “radical Islam,” but Islam as it can be readily understood by anyone who reads the Qur’an word for word and is aware of how those words have been put into practice. Not just during the 7^th century, but during every century since then. Those supremacist beliefs do not allow for the kind of sincere dialogue that the interfaith movement has been advocating for since 9/11 (even if there are a handful moderate clerics who might want that dialogue to bear fruit), and the lip service paid to it by the likes of CAIR (which has been placed on the UAE’s list of organizations linked to terrorism due to it being an extension of the Muslim Brotherhood) only serves to normalize the mistaken belief that the West would not be in conflict with the Muslim world if it had dealt more fairly with that world in the aftermath of the fall of the Ottoman Empire (the last form of the Islamic Empire). Had that empire not been defeated, it would have continued its policy of expansion and the Islamization of all that it expanded into. But because the Muslim world lost its empire and all the hard power that it made possible, it came to rely on a softer approach to achieving the primary goal of Islam.

The secular, post-imperial reality that now defines the West offends the Islamist and, for Muslims who live in the West and embrace Sharia, the answer to the problem presented by that reality is to form communities that are at least partially beyond the reach of Western civil society. In just two decades, a Muslim enclave in Dearborn, MI, became a supermajority that is capable of passing Shariah-based ordinances, like the one that forbade Christian evangelists from preaching in public lest their words reach the ears of a Muslim in violation of Islamic law. 

In East London, an even larger Muslim majority has established a network of some 89 Shariah councils that decide any and every legal issue that would normally be decided in a court of British law. This may not seem as dramatic as a once American city thumbing its nose at the U.S. Constitution, but the real-world effect of this alternative and opaque system of law is that it can and does deprive the most vulnerable members of East London’s Muslim community of their rights under British law. Conflicts of interest in a community that is defined by equal measures of dependence (women are largely dependent upon men unless they belong to a subset of posh, upwardly mobile Muslim families) and interdependence (many Muslim families are linked or related in more than one way) are just as inevitable. All of this results in a form of segregation that should be given at least some of the attention that is directed toward “institutional discrimination,” “systemic racism,” and the like.

It should also be acknowledged that Dearborn and Islamic London, which have long supported Hamas and Hezbollah, have something other than a cleaving to Shariah in common: both commemorate Ashoura and march in the thousands to remind themselves of the death of their prophet’s grandson at the hands of his enemies, the Umayyads. Once a minor day in the Shi’a calendar, Ashoura was reimagined by the Ayatollahs of Iran to feature messaging that parallels the “imperialist West” with the Umayyads and those who pursue jihad (terrorism) with Husain Ibn Ali, the martyred grandson of Islam’s originator. According to Avril Haines, U.S. Director of National Intelligence, U.S. intelligence agencies have “observed actors tied to Iran’s government posing as activists online, seeking to encourage protests, and even providing financial support to protesters.” 

Ashoura, as it is now popularly commemorated in Dearborn and East London is, in every way, an export of the Iranian regime and a near exact replica of the anti-American and anti-Israel Ashoura staged in Tehran on the first day of the Islamic calendar. And because Shariah is a wedge against assimilation or bridging tradition with secular and democratic values, it is no coincidence that this latest Iranian propaganda effort has been hugely successful in Dearborn and London. And because the objective of this propaganda effort is to spread and intensify anti-Western animus among and in Muslims living in the West, that propaganda effort taken together with Sharia as it is allowed to be put into action in the West should be considered an existential threat to the internal security of any country that has already experienced an Islamist terrorist attack, homegrown or otherwise. 

It should be said in no uncertain terms that the average Muslim is not to be considered an enemy of the West. For it is written, “Let sin be finished from the earth, and evil be no more. My soul will bless God, Hallelujah!” (Tehillim 104:35) These words should inspire us to separate, in so far as possible, the bad ideology from the ideologically possessed and target what possesses them. This dovetails with the Christian verse “Because your fight has not been with flesh and blood, but with Principalities, The Rulers and The Powers of this dark world and with wicked spirits which are under Heaven.” (Ephesians 6.12)

As poetic as these words may sound, they tell us how to fight an enemy that acts through those who will not be aware that they are little more than avatars and disposable vessels. And when caught in a system that limits who and what they might become, they may be hard pressed to imagine a better way and embrace a God who never commanded anyone to conquer the world and place it under the dominion of just one faith. 

The best weapon against any bad idea is a better one and the good things that come from translating it into action. So, when those loyal to the Iranian regime or any Islamist entity spread hatred that is meant to incite violence against Jews, Israel, and the West, we must love ourselves and our way of life in ways that offend and even shock the hateful. Above all else, we must counter their false sense of primacy with the light of civilization. That light is cast by the U.S. Constitution and those who stand by it as much as it is by Britons who have not yet traded their heritage for a place in the post-national order that the new ruling class has been using mass immigration and social displacement to bring about. But this light is cast best by Torah, which commands us to love both truth and peace, but to love the truth best (Zechariah 8) no matter where the truth takes us.

Islam is a religion that insists on global adoption of its laws and customs, even in non-Islamic countries.

One of the most enduring questions Jews and non-Jews have asked for centuries is why do Jews continue to overachieve in every professional, intellectual, and artistic field?

The answer can be found in just three Aramaic words: Dina d’malchuta dina. Or in English: “The law of the kingdom is the law.”

The phrase is actually an edict Jews have been admonished to uphold as far back as the time of the prophet Nehemiah in the fifth century B.C.E. It basically means that when Jews live outside of Israel and under non-Jewish sovereignty, they must adhere to the secular laws of those non-Jewish countries with the same loyalty as Jewish religious law.

Nehemiah gave this advice in Hebrew to the original diaspora communities exiled to Babylonia, but it was the rabbis of the period after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. who fleshed out the concept and passed it down to their rabbinic heirs from the period of the Talmud all the way through the 20th century.

From a logistical point of view, one can see the wisdom of this policy. Without Jewish sovereignty, the best way to avoid chaos throughout the Jewish world was to find the non-Jewish nations where Jews could thrive as loyal residents of those nations, if not as full citizens.

Beyond the basic survival mentality of dina d’malchuta dina, there are also just the organizational advantages to consider. As Jews spread out further and further across the globe over the centuries, they didn’t always bring with them a sufficient number of rabbis to answer their communal questions or adjudicate disputes. The often distantly removed rabbis wisely abdicated much of their authority on more secular aspects of life to the non-Jewish  leaders of the increasingly further flung areas where Jews were settling.

But here come two essential questions: what does dina d’malchuta dina have to do with Jewish achievement? And why have Muslim communities, which have so vigorously rejected a similar code of basic conduct by insisting on spreading Sharia law, regressed so much by comparison?

To start the process of answering these questions, we must first examine the prevailing explanations for the outsized Jewish achievement in modern world history.

There are a number of theories, but the consensus usually hovers around the idea that the Jewish tradition and requirement of education and lifelong study is the key. Education is the key to success, we’re (rightly) always told, and there’s certainly plenty of evidence for that as long as you don’t confine your definition of “education” to formal book or school learning.

Some of the purveyors of this idea are aware that the rabbis substituted pre-rabbinic Judaism’s focus on sacrifices and Temple rituals with the philosophy that Jews must all strive to study the Torah day and night. Naturally, this requirement produced a highly literate people who upheld a tradition of intellectual development, regardless of how religiously observant individual generations remained over time.

But respect for education and the edict to study Torah day and night can’t possibly be the reason why Jews have simultaneously produced great rabbinic scholars, scientists, philosophers, comedians, technical wizards, and filmmakers.

To achieve all that, you need not only the cherishing of education but a strong tradition of intellectual and cultural exchange between people inside and outside of your community.

Why is this important? Because, throughout human history, there has been no better catalyst for advancement than the exchange of ideas among people. The evidence for this is infinite, but the history of China is perhaps the best macro-geographic example.

Chinese civilization was centuries ahead of Europe and even the Middle East in ancient times, but began a steady decline starting when systematic construction of the Great Wall began in the 15th century during the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644). After that time, China’s increasing isolation from its neighboring traders and scholars slowly put that country into an intellectual and cultural form of stasis. For example, at exactly the same time the Renaissance began to flower in Florence, China had the largest merchant fleet in the world, whose ports of call stretched from Japan and Indonesia to East Africa. But, in 1434, the emperor Zhu Zhanji banned outbound overseas trade—partially because the government could not exercise absolute control over it. By the time of the Modern Age in Europe—though the Forbidden City was as wealthy and powerful as it had ever been—China was one of the most backward nations on earth.

Now, after fewer than 100 years of renewed full interaction with the rest of the world—and some would say that interaction has consisted mostly of industrial piracy and plagiarism—China is again one of the world’s most modern technological powers, and that’s despite its lack of any modernity in its totalitarian political environment.

Dina d’malchuta dina forced Jews to embrace a cross-cultural, international, and even interfaith openness and awareness that we wouldn’t necessarily have adopted without it.

The awareness aspect was how it started: How can Jews faithfully follow the secular laws of the land if they aren’t even informed about what those laws are? Right away, this created a more engaged Jewish community wherever they lived across history. That increased awareness has almost always led to an evolving level of engagement, depending on the extent of human and political rights Jews have enjoyed in different societies over time.

Inevitably, Jews of all religious levels of observance have eventually felt compelled to weigh in on the laws and other aspects of their home countries. Sometimes this led to heavy Jewish involvement in political movements, at others it led to more of a tacit acceptance of things and hopes for something better in the future. This is precisely the reality that produced—in the same country at the same time—Jews joining the Bolsheviks on the one hand, and rabbis who simply prayed for G-d to “bless and keep the tsar far, far away from us!” (with apologies to the Shalom Aleichem) on the other.

But the example of late tsarist Russia should not mislead people into thinking that only more secular Jews have engaged in outward political movements or the affairs of state throughout the history of the diaspora. 

The legendary achievements in science and politics that define the life and teachings of Maimonides are perhaps the best example of that. Not as historic, but often quite impressive, are the cultural and political commentary we often get from more publicly engaged ultra-Orthodox leaders from Lubavitch to Aish Hatorah, etc.

Politics and culture don’t even provide us with half of the story. Science and technology’s increasing role in the day-to-day lives of humanity have made them just as important to follow for Jews and everyone else as the rise and fall of kings and empires. Jewish engagement with and contributions to modern scientific advancements absolutely grow from the same tree planted by the dina d’malchuta dina ethos.

It’s also even helped to enhance religious Jewish thought. Instead of being threatened or flummoxed by great non-Jewish thinkers, our most astute rabbis throughout history have been able to bolster Jewish beliefs and observance by showing how powerful non-Jewish thought is still in line with our own ethos. So, too, they have been able to explain why those beliefs may be well-meaning but off the mark. Engaging with and exposing themselves to non-Jewish thought has often resulted in something like intellectual calisthenics for the rabbis since the time of Aristotle.

But this paradigm hasn’t always served the Jewish people well. From a religious standpoint, this very open engagement with the more impressive and enviable aspects of non-Jewish society has often fueled excessive assimilation and a more radical turning away from Jewish life and traditions. It’s a fair question to ask whether persecutions and forced conversions have erased more Jews from the world over the past 2,000 years than has the allure of non-Jewish culture and society. Similarly, it can be argued that the dina d’malchuta dina commitment to pluralism often stunted any hopes for a return to Jewish sovereignty over time.

This especially seems to have been the case during the Napoleonic Era. Napoleon, who was bent on replacing the established monarchy in Europe, saw the Jews as a logical replacement for many of the members of the aristocracies who had mismanaged European society for generations. In return, Napoleon didn’t just give citizenship to Jews everywhere his armies conquered: he also offered the Jews of Europe a chance to establish a continental Sanhedrin, and even a chance to re-establish some kind of sovereignty in Israel.

But there was just one problem: the Jews of France and wider Europe simply weren’t ready for the offer. Nearly 2,000 years of following the dina d’malchuta dina ideal created a people so comfortable in its virtual “second-class” status. Sadly, it would take the extreme persecution of organized Russian pogroms and the Nazi Holocaust to snap most Jews out of it.

On the bright side, the centuries-long tradition of Jewish engagement with the non-Jewish world gave the modern Zionist movement many of the tools and leaders it needed when anti-Semitism woke so many Jews out of that subservient slumber. Zionist thought leaders from the secular Theodor Herzl to the religious Rav Kook to the strong Jewish self-determination icon Ze’ev Jabotinsky used the tools of secular public discourse to advance their variations on Zionist philosophy. To put it in modern terms: Writing about Zionism and Zionist action in the vernacular of modern political discourse and action wasn’t the Jews’ “first rodeo,” and that was partially thanks to dina d’malchuta dina.

The emergence of the state of Israel has provided a good antidote to the failings of dina d’malchuta dina as well. Nevertheless, it’s obvious that we can’t say that Jews in America and other major areas of the diaspora have “snapped out of it.” When we see so many Jews from former Treasury Secretary Jack Lew to Senator Bernie Sanders seemingly so eager to show how loyal they are to their presidential employers or secular political movements, it’s hard to deny that the dark side of dina d’malchuta dina is still a formidable problem.

But what about everyone else? Specifically, how has it worked out for those who reject this kind of cross-communal and societal engagement? That’s where that global push for Sharia law by Muslims in every nation where they are found today comes into the conversation.

Like the regressive results China suffered from its quite literal closing off to the rest of the world nearly 600 years ago, Muslim society has gone from holding a position atop the scientific and economic world to a steady decline since the 12th century. The rise in the post-colonial age of the Muslim Brotherhood and its project of subjugating the non-Muslim world has not only exacerbated that regressiveness, but also threatens to plunge the rest of the world into darkness.

As Muslim migrants from Europe to the United States increase in number, there has been little evidence that their communal leaders will change their insistence on dominating every aspect of their lives in a way that is completely the opposite of how dina d’malchuta dina has pushed Jews to getting ahead of the rest of the world time after time.

The good news is that some political and religious Muslim leaders clearly realize this and are doing something about it. In the political realm, Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Muhammdd bin Salman is opening up his country to the rest of the world in ways his predecessors would never have imagined. Meanwhile, Indonesian Muslim religious community leader Kyai Haji Yahya Cholil Staquf is a pioneer in the efforts to create a worldwide acceptance of pluralism among Muslims. Not coincidentally, both bin Salman and Staquf basically advocate for their nations’ normalization with Israel.

But they are still in an extreme minority. From the suburbs of Paris to the streets of Dearborn, Michigan, too many Muslim communities are being kept in the Dark Ages. Worse yet, the economic and cultural disadvantages the demand for Sharia law bring with them also create a fertile ground for violence and crime. This is not because of poverty, but because of the intellectual close-mindedness and a lack of in-person interactions which lead to the dehumanization of others. The Muslim neighborhoods in Europe and increasingly here in the U.S. that have become de facto “no-go zones” for police and other authorities might as well be re-named “no success zones,” too.

Because so many Western societies and their governments are so weak and corrupted, those pushing for Muslims to be allowed to install Sharia law wherever they go feel emboldened to continue in their efforts. But they can’t possibly feel emboldened by the residual results.

Jews got the gift of a key out of the virtual prisons created by overly insular communities. That key was dina d’malchuta dina, and we can only hope Muslims and others learn to embrace it as well.

“The future belongs to those who show up.”
—Mark Steyn, GB News, June 14, 2022

It seems to be a recurring theme of free societies in the modern age that they are often the last ones to realize they are at war.

In 1933, America, England, France, and the other nations which had won the First War wanted no part of another one. People naturally felt that millions had already died; why more? But the Führer, who had suffered the same battles and festered in the same trenches, shared none of their revulsion for war. He believed that only more battles were the answer. With every violation of the Versailles Treaty, act of re-armament, and blood-curdling rally, the former Allies never even mustered serious diplomatic protest. If there was a problem, it was at the other end of an ocean, a channel, or a border. The louder Hitlerian intentions were shouted, they thought, the less seriously they should be taken. Yet “Peace for our time” meant exactly what it said: “our” time and “our” values. Hitler, however, lived in his own time and had his own values. And by 1939, it was too late. Appeasement and disapproving statements made no difference. The West was at war.

Decency perceived as weakness

Since 1945, the West has arguably become the victim of its own decency. As it was for Neville Chamberlain in 1938, peace (correctly) is still a Western value. The West is a cooperative, not an adversarial, civilization, whose wealth and success are built upon the peaceful, voluntary exchange of required or desired goods. Today, however, many if not most of the societies the West has welcomed into the United Nations General Assembly ascribe to the adversarial system, in which wealth and power are obtained through violence and theft. Diplomacy and tolerance, to them, are virtues of the already defeated.

Not long before his attempt to steal a fifth of the world’s oil industry for himself, Saddam Hussein chided American ambassador April Glaspie that “Yours is a society which cannot accept 10,000 dead in one battle.” The West’s concern for life and belief in the value of the individual, he believed, was its Achilles’ heel. In the short term, of course, Saddam’s heartless boast ended up as famous last words: his invasion of Kuwait, met with rare Western decisiveness, was a military catastrophe which his regime barely survived.

Yet, a generation later, those humane values have been perverted against themselves. While no American should ever scoff at any person’s death—let alone 10,000—moral clarity has been replaced by mere moral ideals. Western humility has, through decades of KGB propaganda and academic misinformation, become the basis of moral malaise. For the West to believe in itself as a good place, and a source of good for the rest of the world, is derided as primitive, “Eurocentric” bigotry. And decent people, appalled at the idea of being unkind to other societies, force themselves to agree. But the very moral idea of a bully—like Saddam—being villainous is itself a Western one. Western civilization is based upon the Ten Commandments, not on which warlord has plundered the most from whom. Now, under the spell of this self-loathing, the bullies’ victims are taught to see fighting back as the true sin. Retrospectively, the Nazis would be the victims and the British the crazed killers.

Threatened from all sides

The 1930s have, in part, returned; and while the menaces are many more, just as then, little is being done to combat them. And what complicates any plan of response is that so much of what seeks to conquer the West comes from within.

Mass immigration from cultures in which every prejudice the Second World War was fought to destroy are part of everyday life makes liberal societies’ values of equal justice and rule of law foreign in their own lands. Leftist sympathizers with the enemy span the breadth of “educated” society, who, in the quest for absolute power, use as human shields, battering rams, and cannon fodder all the “oppressed” peoples about whom they claim to care. And retrograde reactionaries (out of deluded spite, never above sympathy with the enemy themselves) retreat into conspiratorial, isolationist schizophrenia and are resolved, at best, only to fight small portions of the coming war. 

These delusions corrupt so much of Euro-American civilization that Winston Churchill might well today be hanged as an “infidel,” “racist,” “traitor,” or all three for demanding “victory at all costs.”

The far enemy

The West—comprised of America, Europe, its former imperial dominions, and Israel—is also beset from outside. The main driver is weakness. The effects of prolonged socialism, ruinous economic policies, Marxist cultural rot, a politicized and useless educational system, the despondency which comes from far-off success, and mirror-image reactions to these failures, among much more, signal a society’s decline. Smelling blood, the predators converge toward what they see as a crippled civilization—in fact, one crippled by its own hand.

Abroad, a new evil “axis” has emerged comprising Russia, China, and the worldwide agents of jihad, led by the Islamic regime occupying Iran. This alliance, as unlikely and awkward as its counterpart nearly a century ago, is born of international isolation and a common cause to destroy its once-dominant rivals.

The “old” enemy, Russia, seeks to restore a bygone empire of terror. The “new” one, China, aspires to a new empire stretching across the Pacific and even beyond. And the enemy which seems “newest”—but is actually the oldest—now represented by the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic regime, and their regional proxies, per the Qur’an’s command, dreams of a world ruled by Islam.

All three entities desire as much of the globe as they can snatch, but the majority of their influence is maintained “softly”: through bribery, strategic debt bondage, disinformation, financing of home-grown anti-Western movements, purchasing Western institutions’ support, and more. Still, these united enemies have many differences: Islam’s contempt for communist atheism, China’s genocidal fears of Uyghur separatism, Russia’s hatred for its rebellious Muslim population, and long-standing Sino-Russian mutual loathing, to name a few. So many are their differences and areas of distrust that one could ask if these powers comprise one front or two. Foreign policy experts can legitimately debate this question, because each actor has its own distinct interests, which can conceivably clash. Still, the fundamental fact is that the old-style, centralized, imperial aspirations of Russia and China are (for now) compatible with the subversive aims of global, borderless Islam.

It is also possible that, in their arrogance, the Chinese and Russians believe they can control their Muslim allies, and even defeat them once the West is finally vanquished. As the world saw during the Soviets’ disastrous invasion of Afghanistan, they are mistaken. Jihad—where the delights of the next world repay the sacrifices of this one—is very often stronger than regular armies. The worldwide caliphate, regardless of sect or which government directs it, if not confronted, will win in the end.

The far enemy comes near

Coming forth from abroad, migration by the many millions from societies which often condemn the West’s values threatens social cohesion, especially in Europe. First encouraged to support the unsustainable socialist welfare state, these “guest workers”—frequently the biggest welfare recipients themselves—never left.

Some assimilate, but many do not, and sometimes insulate themselves into “no-go zones,” where ruling civil and criminal laws do not apply. Though the West’s unique idea of citizenship is completely non-racial and meritocratic, objective, non-racial concern over this demographic shift is denounced as unacceptable.

That gangs of Muslim men, for example, groomed, trafficked, and raped countless underage girls in northern British cities for years does not matter: both the police and media have refused to see that this type of “multi-culturalism” was impossible. So, too, when visible acts of jihad occur (the rapes technically counting as jihad behind closed doors), the suspects’ motives remain “unclear.”

This new electorate has also arguably pushed Western governments toward more anti-Western policies, such as anti-Zionism. And, in the face of this assault, European populations, for so many decades neutered by the self-centered “present-tense” psychology of socialism, are neither having children nor showing significant interest in maintaining their morally superior values. As commentator Mark Steyn said of the Scottish fertility rate (1.31 children per woman in 2021), “The future belongs to those who show up, and the Scots aren’t showing up.”

The near enemy

At home, the most privileged among us are indoctrinated to loath their own civilization based upon exaggerated remembrances of its genuine past shortcomings. They are taught to adopt a soulless narcissism which whittles morality itself down to little more than the chance to be the protest heroes society largely no longer needs.

Indeed, they are not without support. Copious funding from Islamic dictatorships and communist syndicates helped such ingrates usurp much of American higher education in the space of one semester, while terrified yet sympathetic administrators hid and lied for them. Openly supporting designated terrorist organizations and throwing tantrums that Israelis were not dying in exponentially larger numbers than their murderers, the ingrates were mostly let loose to encamp and riot. Even though it contravenes (already childish) university speech codes, such “hate” is evidently only hateful if it is against people useful to the West’s adversaries. Similarly, astounding moral atrocities—Arab slavery in Africa, the imprisonment of political dissidents in China, Islamic child marriage, human trafficking on the U.S. southern border, and the mass rape of innocents in Israel—elicit no pity on their part, because their perpetrators, like themselves, are enemies of the West.

Further, on the established governmental level, leftist politicians bow not only before the near enemies—the overgrown children whose miseducation they enabled—but also the far enemies. In 2010, the Obama administration sold a Russian state-owned company approximately 20% of America’s uranium reserves. In 2015, it signed a Munich-style pact with Islamic regime allowing it to produce nuclear warheads. Later that year, Angela Merkel opened Germany’s borders to unvetted, unrestricted migration. In 2021, the Biden administration withdrew from Afghanistan while leaving the Taliban priceless American weapons. In 2022, it waived Trump-era sanctions against the Islamic regime. In 2023, it sought to renew a deal which would allow China to steal more sensitive American technology. And, in 2024, it threatened to withhold shipment of vital bombs to Israel if it dared strike harder against Hamas.

As their appeasement of the Islamic and Hamas demonstrates, the politicians, too, seem to delude themselves that the Islamic powers can be harnessed or controlled with money and treaties. In reality, of course, just like the Chinese and Russians, they will be eaten, too—if, maybe, last. The same can be said of the Biden administration’s cowardly eagerness to cooperate with the Chinese-dominated World Health Organization and world government-advocating World Economic Forum, a body which welcomed the Islamic regime’s vile foreign minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian—killed in the same helicopter accident as President Ebrahim Raisi—as an honored speaker.

Also at home, America’s most discredited political movement is being cleaned of its 1930s dust. Once buried by the realities of Soviet proxy aggression and then largely irrelevant in the years after 9/11, Lindberghian isolationism has rocketed again to popularity among “populist” pseudo-conversatives like Tucker Carlson.

Like their predecessors, they insist that the West’s overseas enemies should be left to themselves. Even worse, they share the same naïveté which defines their more guileless leftist counterparts. They, too, believe that Russia, China, and occupied Iran hold up peace as superior to war, and only go to war in response to undue provocation. In addition to his bizarre and misinformed praise for Russia, Carlson himself has even swallowed the Chomskyite communist lie that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not just unnecessary but “evil.” The chief irony is that the only people who have ever been isolationists are Americans—never Nazis, Japanese imperialists, Muslims, or international Marxists. For them, as classicist Paul Cartledge described the ancient Greeks, “Peace was an interruption of war, rather than vice versa.” It was through the policy of peace through strength that Soviet communism collapsed, yet isolationists would prefer to dismantle Western military might and the deterrence which provably keeps peace.

The last great wave of American isolationism was immolated in the burning remains of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Now resurgent, it must be feared that another Pearl Harbor, or many, will be what immolates this new one. For we know the only “enemies” they are ready to fight are AIPAC and the “extinction” of white people. And if the West’s lack of borders genuinely horrifies them as much as advertised, then they can rest assured that withdrawing from the world’s problems will make no difference. Those problems are already here.

Why is failure an option?

On November 7, 2023, the cenotaph in the center of the northern English city of Rochdale was sprayed with the words “Free Palestine.” Rochdale was among the several towns in which Muslim rape gangs trafficked their child concubines unimpeded for years. That a hallowed monument dedicated to the courage of “the men of Rochdale who gave their lives in the Great War” should be daubed with a phrase symbolizing the very opposite is cruelly fitting. Perhaps no image can more perfectly illustrate a war against a once-great, now surrendering, West. Those who intend to show up are indeed seizing the future from those who do not.

With few (if any) Churchills this side of the horizon, is there hope? For now, Chamberlainian appeasement is all the world can expect in the face of the most concerted and complex example of civilizational war in history. If the will to fight is not there, then, like France in 1940, the West itself will fall.

If, however, there are still those left who grasp what they are likely to lose—that the West is humanity’s greatest, most righteous achievement—then perhaps our society’s finest hour is yet to come. If we honor our cenotaphs, then we will have the self-respect and confidence never to break when the storm comes. If we are willing to truly understand our enemy and are resolved to deny them our humiliation, then there is hope. Fighting back at all is what terrifies bullies the most. Fighting back is what will bring us to the “broad, sunlit uplands” Western civilization is due.

The bridge to the utopia that they imagine is the destruction of every principle, ideal, and institution that has defined the West since its greatest societies threw off the shackles of monarchy, serfdom, and religious dogma centuries ago. Moral confusion of the kind that is so prevalent on university campuses today is key to the destruction of those things and took hold when too many institutions of higher learning “diversified curricula,” which is to say, replaced classical, pro-Western, and objective academia with content that is meant to promote an anti-Western and even Marxist-Leninist and Islamist worldviews. 

Joseph McCarthy, for all his paranoia and political opportunism, was right. The Reds are among us. For them, college students and the young in general are weapons to be used against us and a way of life that allows for progress even when that progress is phased or gradual. This brings us to the reason why Israel and the Jewish people are so heavily targeted by those who leverage calls for increased diversity, equity, and inclusion for far-left ideological and political gain. It is seldom acknowledged that Marx’s earlier writings were more anti-Jewish than anti-capitalist. For Marx, capitalism, as it existed during the Industrial Revolution, was a Jewish invention and he approached “the Jewish question” and capital in the way many Christians  approach  the story of Eve and the apple, which is to say that Marx taught that the Jewish lending and merchant class brought the original sin of capitalism into being. 

That Marx was himself Jewish by descent, attached to, but estranged from “bourgeois Jewry” and terrible with money is the subject of another conversation (a conversation in which we might address Marx’s self-loathing and poor familial relationships).  But the only thing that one needs to understand about Marxism is that it is not so much a philosophy as it is a religion. And like all religions of its kind, it is resistant to deconstruction, criticism, and rationalism. And because Marxism is all of those things, it became the perfect vector for a new strain of anti-Semitism, one that pretends concern for all nations and peoples while surreptitiously promoting the hatred of just one nation and people. 

Wherever Marx’s materialist theory gained traction, anti-Semitism, in addition to a hatred of the modern, capitalist West, blossomed. And it was in that milieu of reactionary hatred that Maxine Rodinson, the famous French Arabist (and Marxist) convinced his audience that the State of Israel is colonial in nature if not literally a colony of some empire. After all, how can the people who did the most to bring about the modern capitalist society not also be guilty of the crimes that spring from it? 

Never mind that colonialism is first and foremost the relocation of a group of people to a land to which they have no cultural attachment. That the left has forgotten that Jews originated in Judea and that every group that arrived in the Roman colony of Palestine during and after the first century should only be regarded as colonial transplants is Orwellian (think of the line from 1984: “war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength”). The blame for such amnesia can be pinned on Marx, Rodinson, and every other intellectual who chained their thinking to Marx’s. But the Marxist objection to Israel’s existence has less to do with principle and more to do with her Western and capitalist character. 

Not long after Israel’s founding, the Middle East became one of the most important fronts of the Cold War. Arab states that gravitated toward or even collaborated with the Nazis during the Second World War were more apt to partner with the Soviets while Arab states that practiced some form of neutrality during the war would come to face the West after the war. Mind you, none of these states supported the right of the Jewish people to pursue self-determination in their homeland when that right was first claimed, but, nearly a century on, persistent acrimony between Israel and Syria can be attributed to Syria’s closeness with the Soviet Union and now the Russian Federation and viewed, in part, as a function of the anti-Semitism shared by the two nations. But, of the two, it was always the Soviets and Russians who did the most to perpetuate that hatred and who saw their war with Jews and Zionism as one dimension of their war with the capitalist West, which brings us to the Russian project to inculcate Leninist-Marxism in leftist Western youth while framing Israel an imperialist aggressor and anyone who is party to a conflict with Israel as belonging to a proletariat victim class. 

Where the West once viewed all conflicts, the Cold War included, as material and fought them by the numbers, the Russians took a primarily psychological approach to the Cold War and spread Soviet doctrinal beliefs to and throughout Western academia using a missionary approach. It did so while manufacturing facts that its missionaries would claim are preexisting and immutable. Chief among those “facts” is the existence of an ancient Palestinian people and a land that has been Palestine for as long as it has been called Eretz Yisrsel and that would still be Palestine if not for Zionist usurpation.

That missionary work, the acceptance of this lie coupled with a normalization of Marxist-Leninist sociopolitical violence, laid the groundwork for the Western academic response to the October 7 Massacre with its denials of the barbaric nature of the attack, its conspiracy theory that the attack was allowed by Israel and that Israel is to blame for the rape, murder, and kidnapping of her own people. In that response, there is something akin to Holocaust denial, which hinges upon the hateful belief that Jews exaggerate, manufacture, and/or misrepresent Jewish suffering for collective and individual gain. And in the same way that Holocaust deniers once tried to gain entry to the academic mainstream, Marxist-Leninist deniers of the necessity of defeating Hamas in Gaza once and for all are attempting to mainstream themselves now, but with far more success. That success is due largely to the work of a Marxist-Leninist and Islamist  organization called Students for Justice in Palestine, or SJP, which has been allowed to operate on American campuses for over two decades now. Appallingly, SJP organized a “Day of Resistance” within a week of October 7 while publicly endorsing the crimes against humanity that Hamas undertook on that day. SJP even went so far as to share images and video of attacks on Israeli civilians while celebrating them. 

But understanding the evil of SJP and the movement it fits into is just as important as understanding the broader purpose of both. As the saying goes, what begins with the Jews never ends with the Jews and in this case, the Marxist-Leninist and Islamist goal of destroying the Jewish state is a steppingstone to a larger goal of destroying the West and replacing it with a utopia that Marxists-Leninists are naïve enough to believe is incorporable with the Islamist vision for humanity, which is anything but human. But that is what anti-Semitism and the fundamentalist ideologies that beget it do. They expel reason from all discourse before replacing all discourse with a demand that we in the West exchange our values and principles for what Marxist-Leninists and Islamists call justice, but that is really just a pathway to total power and control.

In many ways, Russia, China, and Iran are enemies with conflicting political, economic, and military goals. But, sometimes, the orbits of these three highly undemocratic and repressive regimes converge and produce either intentional or unintentional cooperation. Actually, it’s better to call it “collusion.”

Before you can outline how this is all playing out now, it’s important to define the key goals of each of these three nations’ foreign policies. Luckily, they all just need one word each. For Russia, it’s “chaos.” For China, it’s “dependence.” For Iran, it’s “destruction.”

Unfortunately for Israel, these three regimes and their policies have been colluding against the Jewish state more often over the last 10 years. In many ways, that collusion has become more problematic since October 7. The good news is that if Israel does finish off Hamas, much of the support system for this three-way Russian-Chinese-Iranian collusion will fall apart fast.

Russia’s chaos tactics

Let’s start with Russia and its chaos techniques. 

Today’s Russia is run by a former KGB operative in Vladimir Putin, who began a series of chaos-creating policies throughout the world after the U.S. and other Western powers imposed economic sanctions for his first major breach of Ukrainian sovereignty in 2014.

After that move, I warned that Putin was now acting like a wounded animal and that there was nothing he wouldn’t do to push back on the West and any semblance of world security and order. Nine months after I issued that warning, Russia had done just that. But, in particular interest to Israel, it had brought a massive military force into Syria to protect the Assad regime, and has thus complicated Israel’s efforts to thwart Hezbollah in Syria and Lebanon ever since.

To be clear, Putin hasn’t been sacrificing Russian military power in Syria out of any affinity for Bashar al-Assad. Officially, he’s justified the move to the Russian people as a strike against the Syrian rebels and their many connections to Islamist terrorist groups. Islamist terrorism is still a very sore spot in Russia because of the Chechen terror attacks years ago—a spot which has not stopped Putin from allying with Ramzan Kadyirov, Chechnya’s own dictator, in killing civilians in Ukraine.

But Putin is really doing it to help bolster Iran’s influence in the region and the resulting chaos ensuing from it. A Middle East that is more influenced by Israel and a moderate-moving Saudi Arabia is the opposite of chaos, and Russia is all about chaos. Since the Ukraine war exploded in early 2022, Russia became more aligned with Iran because of Tehran’s willingness to supply Moscow with killer drones and other weapons much more specifically suited to the war with Kyiv than Russia’s existing weapons cache.

Now Russia has thus become more willing to tow Iran’s rhetoric about Israeli actions in the Hamas war. Barely more than three weeks after October 7, Putin gave a live TV address that mimicked the absurd falsehoods about the war that we’ve become used to hearing from ignorant college encampment protesters, saying: “There is no justification for the terrible events taking place in Gaza now, where hundreds of thousands of innocent people are being killed indiscriminately, without having anywhere to flee or hide from the bombing.”

“Hundreds of thousands?” “Indiscriminately?” Really, Vladimir? Chaos, meet destruction. Destruction, meet chaos.

But as bad and transparent as Putin’s falsehoods against Israel are, never forget that, as a former KGB leader, he is well-versed in much more sophisticated forms of Russian misinformation, those that can truly damage Israel. For everyone who continues to brush off Putin as just a greedy thug, or Russia as just a “big gas station with nukes,” take note of this blast from the past of sophisticated Russian propaganda and chaos rhetoric: 

Russian disinformation tactics have hurt Jews probably more than anything else on earth, starting with the blood libels and Protocols of the Elders of Zion during the time of the tsars, to the KGB’s enforcement of the USSR’s official anti-Semitic policies, to Putin’s modern embodiment of KGB “psy-op” tactics in our own time.

We’ve all experienced these tactics from Moscow many times in the last several decades whether we realize it or not. In fact, one of the then-KGB’s most elaborate and ambitious disinformation campaigns sheds some light on just how good Russia has always been at inducing chaos and playing on Jewish vulnerabilities at the same time. 

For me that moment came when I was just 16-years-old and closely observed, along with much of the rest of world Jewry, the John “Ivan the Terrible” Demjanjuk trial in Israel. 

From the beginning, something seemed “off” to me about the whole process. I didn’t like that the trial was moved from the courthouse to a large theater. I bristled at the trial being used as an excuse to drag Holocaust survivors through their painful past once more. Also, it wasn’t a trial debating whether crimes had or had not been committed like the famous trial of Adolf Eichmann a quarter-century earlier. Instead, it was solely about determining if Demjanjuk was indeed the infamous Treblinka death camp guard known as “Ivan the Terrible.” I never found any of the identification testimony to be very convincing, and there was a big reason why.

He was the wrong guy.

As his fervently right-wing Zionist Israeli attorney Yoram Sheftel painstakingly explained in his book Defending Ivan the Terrible, Demjanjuk may or may not have been a Nazi sympathizer or even a low-level member of the German forces, but he was definitely not Ivan the Terrible, and, by the time the trial started, even the Israeli judiciary knew it.

But Demjanjuk was a patsy in the KGB’s desire to use the case of the still missing and unpunished Ivan to cool the growing ties between Israel, Ukraine, and world Jewry in their combined efforts to win freedom for Soviet Jews and undermine the USSR’s entire totalitarian regime. Fingering a retired Ukrainian American autoworker living outside Cleveland seemed to be worth it to the KGB in the Soviet Empire’s final years.

Luckily, the USSR collapsed anyway. Putin’s Russia endures, and it still uses these kinds of tactics with no worries whatsoever about the long-term costs.

China chimes in

China likes to bolster its power internationally by increasing the number of nations who economically depend on the Beijing regime for everything from infrastructure to foreign imports.

The infrastructure part of that equation is known as the “Belt and Road Initiative,” which, at best, makes many smaller nations rely on Chinese expertise and, at worst, makes them slaves to Chinese financing for that expensive (and collapsing) infrastructure forevermore.

Israel is getting an added bitter taste of this right now as the Chinese-operated ports in Haifa seem to be benefiting from their safer distance from Gaza while Israeli-operated ports in the city of Ashdod have suffered some disruptions.

This dichotomy is the latest in the long-running controversy over the Haifa ports, which created tensions inside Israel and between Israel and the Trump administration in 2019. Israel had been trying to balance its desire for more Chinese investments with security concerns and worries over how that could anger the U.S. The war in Gaza has only made all of those problems even worse.

But that doesn’t mean everything is going according to plan for Beijing. While its economic influence in the Middle East is growing, especially when it comes to financial deals with Saudi Arabia, its political influence compared to the U.S. and Russia is minimal.

Most analysts correctly point out that China believes the best way to increase that influence is to undermine American political power in the region. Since 2021, Beijing has been trying to do that by taking a page from the Russian handbook and promoting disinformation campaigns that portray the U.S. as supporting racist policies that harm fairness and justice. Now, this narrative has now been added to China’s rhetoric against Israel’s conduct in the Gaza war. It all mirrors the Chinese response to Trump administration and congressional objections to Beijing’s dissolution of Hong Kong’s remaining autonomy in 2019. China retorted with a series of public comments about how life in America is exceedingly racist.

That tactic should ring lots of alarm bells for everyone who knows, sadly, how popular claims that Israel is racist are throughout the world already. The only solace is that slur is so heavily repeated and contributed to by so many entities that perhaps China piling on this late in the game won’t make much of an influential difference.

Nevertheless, it appears Beijing sees using the Gaza war as an excuse to bash Israel aligns with its foreign policy goals overall. 

Iran’s destruction tactics

While Russia and Iran are both major agents of chaos in the Middle East, it’s important to note that while chaos is Russia’s direct goal, chaos is just an indirect result of Iran’s policies. 

The Iranian regime really only produces one thing: terrorism. That manifests itself mostly in its support for and control of its main foreign terror proxy armies: Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis (there are many others, but those are the Big Three). It also supports terror attacks all over the world with varying frequency.

It would be a mistake to think that Iran actually thinks of these terror armies as just chaos agents, because the real goal is for them to create as much death as possible, including the deaths of their own people. Iran sees itself not only fighting the West, but more primarily leading the war against Sunni Islam in a 1,400-year-old civil war for dominance of the faith. That means the deaths of Americans, Israelis, and Sunni Muslims all over the world are all fine by the mullahs in Tehran. 

Note that none of its terror armies are manned by Iranians, and only Hezbollah includes Shiite leaders with close personal ties to Iran. That’s the perfect recipe for a Tehran regime that feels comfortable sending these mostly non-Shiite fighters to their deaths as they attack other non-Shiite or non-Iranian fighters and civilians they may or may not care about slightly less. 

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Iran has enjoyed the added financial benefits of Russia’s procurement of Tehran’s killer drones. Now, since October 7, Iran has also enjoyed the rhetorical bashing of Israel coming from Moscow and Beijing alike.

How does this end?

The key question is how far Russia and China will go to back up Iran if and when Hamas does collapse and Tehran comes under inevitable added pressure from its other proxies to protect them better from a similar fate. Tehran suffers from a tremendous and justifiable fear that a collapse of Hamas will start a process that could lead to the destruction of the mullahs’ regime within one-to-two years. That’s what happens to tyrannical rulers who are suddenly exposed to their own people and allies as weak. 

It’s that panic over the possible domino effect a Hamas collapse would create that’s igniting the Biden administration’s efforts to do anything to preserve at least some remnant of the terrorist army. Too many supposed experts on the American political scene are falling for the head fake that President Joe Biden’s increasing attacks and false statements against Israel are the result of the Democrats’ worries about carrying the heavily Muslim-populated swing state of Michigan. In reality, the large number of pro-Iranian agents and sympathizers inside the White House and the State Department mean these moves to please Tehran. That desperation has led to some very obvious and flailing errors lately, including multiple incidents of U.S. leaders falsely claiming Israel had accepted ceasefire terms to which it had not actually agreed—or, in some cases, hadn’t even seen.

If Hamas does collapse, Russia’s chaos policy would likely push it towards not intervening in a meaningful way, as the power vacuum in Tehran would likely produce enough chaos of its own for some time. China would also likely stand back and work on starting over with any possible new regime in Iran that could be under greater Saudi influence just as Beijing and Riyadh continue to solidify ties. 

But, as long as Hamas survives, this recent trend of Russia, China, and Iran ganging up on Israel will continue, which is another reason why Israel needs to finish Hamas off.

When Yeshurun kicked
Ishmael cried out
Then Yitzchak laughed
Removing all doubt

A plague of ancient darkness
That storm has come around
Light dims and refracts
Silence, the loudest sound

Sparks of destruction
Reveal the familiar enemy
Igniting our soul
Curing our identity

The path is guided,
As The End draws near
United or divided
Through joy or through tear

Our compass in alignment
The Red Heifer beckons
The prophet preaches
While God reckons

Always darkest before the dawn
Before The Light breaches the night
It’s our partner in battle
Our holy weapon in this fight

We have terrorism masquerading as free speech; anti-Semitism is now a credential for the human rights community. New York’s governor has hopes of reinstituting the anti-mask law. It was repealed on account of the pandemic. It’s now once again necessary—this time to unmask violent anti-Semites who benefit from the anonymity of crowds and the darkness of night.

Do you believe that Islam is a danger to the West, and, if so, what do you deem the severity of its current danger?

I believe that Islam is two things in one. One it’s a religion. It has the attributes of a religion—the praying, the fasting, the belief in a transcendent, transcendental power. So, it’s a faith, but there is a much more important and more consequential characteristic of Islam, which is the political, and political Islam is a danger to the West. It’s a danger to the world, because the key component of political Islam is that, in order to worship God and in order to fulfill God’s commands, it’s not enough to pray and to fast and to pay charity, and all those religious aspects of it. You have to wage holy war against unbelievers, and bring the world under the dominion of Islam. And even if that costs the lives of Muslims, even if that costs and sows chaos, even it leads to wars, it’s all worth the sacrifice. And because that seed of political Islam, with that component of holy war, has not been fully challenged, Islam remains a threat to the world.

But, before I finish, I also want to say for political Islam and any other kinds of destructive ideas to be an actual threat to the west, the West has to be in a place of decline and demoralization. And I find that to be ultimately more of a threat: that the West has lost confidence in her own foundational principles, and in her own ideas and ideals. And that’s why political Islam today is a threat when it wasn’t a threat, say, 100 years ago. In fact, Islam—political Islam—felt threatened and was threatened by the West, and so that’s my sort of two cents on that question.

How much of the Muslim Brotherhood’s goals have been achieved, and are those goals on schedule?

So I think it’s important for your audience to know what the Muslim Brotherhood is, and, more importantly, to know who Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, was.

He established the movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, in 1928 as a reaction. And he wasn’t alone. There were others who, in the Muslim world at that time, felt the same way. The Muslim world was ascendant from the time the Prophet went to Madinah in the seventh century, all the way to the—shall we say—roughly the end of the eighteenth century, and then it begins to decline. The West becomes ascendant, and Muslim empires are invaded and colonized by the West. And, at the time, contemporary Muslim leaders responded in different ways. One way was to copy the West and to say, “Well, we concede they have defeated us” in the territories that mattered at the time, and that was military, science, technology, forms of government. “Right, and we have to become like them. We’ve got to copy them. The Empire is gone. We have to understand and accept the notion of nation states,” etc. A very clear example of a Muslim leader who followed and who went down that path is Mustafa Atatürk. He established a secular Turkey and put in place a military that would stop it ever from becoming Islamist. But that’s a story for a different time.

But there were others, and Hassan al-Banna is a very prominent one of those who concluded that “No,” the way forward was not to copy the West. It’s the opposite. It was to go back to the “fruits” of Islam, what made Islam great in the first place. And so we have to take away layers of history, layers of moderation, which he thought of not as moderation but as the seeds for decline. And so he went to this incredibly—what we in the West call—radical or fundamentalist or puritanical Islam, and the Muslim Brotherhood as a movement was the vehicle for establishing a vanguard, a place to launch that idea of his to bring back Islam as the dominant force in world affairs.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not just a local Egyptian project, but it was an international, global project. And it was two-faced. It had the face of, you know, addressing local Egyptian problems—poverty, lack of education, lack of other resources, and, of course, addressing tyranny, which is, unfortunately, what a lot of post-Islamic nation states stand out to be: they became tyrannical, authoritarian governments. And so, when Hassan al-Banna and those whom he inspired were addressing the issues of tyranny, authoritarianism, human dignity, lack of charity, great poverty, all of these things were real issues, but the remedy he was proposing was the one of political Islam. Islam has to come to power and take over political power, and those issues would be addressed, but it wouldn’t be enough for the Muslim Brotherhood to take political power and address what ails Muslims—it had to dominate the entire world. And, over time, it spread and spread far and wide and away from Egypt and its Middle Eastern locales. It started to come to the West, and I think one of the first organizations it started was the Muslim Students’ Association, here in in the United States.

But it wasn’t limited to the United States. It did the same thing all across Europe, Indonesia. I was a 14-year-old teenager, 15-year-old teenager, when I first encountered branches of the Muslim Brotherhood in Nairobi, Kenya, and its teachings. If you look at all the pan-nationalist or global Islamist movements, I would say, in 2024, the Muslim Brotherhood as an organization and a movement is the most successful. It’s even more successful than the Islamist-led projects by the Islamist government of Iran. And the Islamist government of Iran is using state power, which is it means it has infinitely more resources than a tiny movement that was founded by a low-level junior teacher. And yet the Muslim Brotherhood is, I would say, much more formidable than the Iranian Shi‘ah project to spread Islam and destroy the state of Israel.

Why do you think the murder, rape, kidnapping, and torture of Jews (children, teenagers, adults, and the elderly)—let alone that of women and children under Islam in general—elicit so little pity amongst so many in Europe and America, especially Western feminists?

That’s a very, very broad question, and it is the question of our time. But I think that speaks to the decline of the West and a lack of self-confidence; the emergence of a self-loathing narrative of the West, where the West fixates on things that Western civilization got wrong but eventually corrected. If you look at the reflection on American history, we no longer teach what’s great about America; we only teach the things that America got wrong. 1776 has to be replaced by 1619. If you look across the Atlantic, Britain and other European countries—because race there doesn’t really stick—it’s easy to accuse Americans of racism, but it’s different in Europe. So they’ve started to revive anti-colonial narratives. And if you look at these anti-colonial and anti-slavery narratives that are advanced by Western-born ideologues—socialism, Marxism, Leninism—these are ideas that were born in the West and spread in the West and beyond the West into other places. 

But this self-loathing is coming from American universities and the Islamists. The Muslim Brotherhood is delighted. The Muslim Brotherhood is exploiting this. And the Muslim Brotherhood is therefore able—if you look at this, the so-called “Red-Green Alliance”—the Council on American-Islamic Relations is able to convince their “red” counterparts that if they actually detest colonialism, as they say they do, then they must recognize that Israel is a white European settler state. Israel is the oppressor, and then violence, therefore, is wholly justified, and the victim victimized: a narrative that is the core foundation of what we call “wokeism” is applied to that conflict between Israel and the Arabs, and the Arabs in Gaza and in the “West Bank.” And so, from a narrative perspective, the young people who were indoctrinated with this wokeism have no inoculation, I would say, against the potent ideology of Hassan al-Banna and of Islamism. 

Everything that a young, shall we say, 21-year-old student in America can throw at an Islamist is thrown back right at them. You know, take the sexual violence of October 7—the way the women, the girls, even babies, were subjected to the most gruesome sexual violence—and you would think that every Western feminist organization, every Western man and woman would simply say, “Let’s just agree on that one and condemn that wholeheartedly. No, ‘buts,’ no ‘ifs.’” That can’t happen because we are saturated in this narrative that we have something to atone for. We have to atone for our sins of slavery, segregation, and colonization, for stealing land from the indigenous peoples of North America and Australia and New Zealand—that we are guilty of genocide, and so we’re guilty of racism. We have to atone, atone, atone. And so when these bad ideas come along, I think we’ve made ourselves vulnerable, dangerously so, to these ideas; to da‘wah, to the spread of radical Islam, through narratives, through non-violent means.

To me, I think we are losing. We’re losing the narratives game. We are no longer responding to these in the realm of ideas with the simple assertion of our ideas of human dignity and due process and curiosity and human freedom—that life matters more than destruction and death. We’re not responding confidently, and so we are. We’re allowing ourselves to be bamboozled and our young people bamboozled into letting them get away with these horrendous crimes against humanity. We are being told that we have to side with Hamas, the perpetrators of October 7, over the teeny, tiny state that’s been in existential crisis from the time of its inception.

Do you think the way the left expresses its support for Islam and the Palestinians racist because it insists on judging them by an infantilizing, bottom-drawer standard?

It is racist without question; and it’s racist again if you dig and drill through into this wokeist ideology of victim and victimizer. “People of color” cannot be victimized as they’re always the victims. The oppressor is the white man. What does it tell you? First of all, just think about “victim and victimizer” and “oppressor and oppressed.” For me, these words denote strength, and the assumption is people of color can never be strong. They can never be strong enough to oppress. It’s a factual lie. We know from human history, and we know all across the country where people, white people, have never set foot that people of color have been oppressing people of color. Black people have oppressed black people. I come from Somalia. We had a period of 20 years of rule by a tyrant who’s of my clan, and he had massacred hundreds of thousands of Somalis, and then we descended into civil war, and it was Somalis killing Somalis. And the same goes for everywhere. Syrians killing Syrian; Iraqis killing Iraqis; Arabs killing Arabs; Muslims killing Muslims.

The history of oppressor and oppressed is just human history. And if you take a small slice of it at one point where, yes, there were white people involved in oppressing not just people of color but also other whites, and you tell only that little bit without context, without anything, and you leave out the parts where there were hundreds of thousands and millions of white people who objected to these types of oppression—in fact, created societies that are stable, prosperous, and amazing—then what you get, I think, is this racist narrative: a truly racist narrative with the assumption that people of color are always victims. And if you then narrow it down to what’s going on between the Israelis and the Palestinians, then the Palestinians can never be held responsible for anything they do. They cannot be held responsible for taking women and children and using them as civilian shields, knowing that they’re going to be killed, knowing that the bombs will fall on them.

They are not held responsible for programming young children with suicidal ideas of martyrdom. They cannot be held responsible for refusing absolutely every single serious attempt at peace with the Israelis. They can’t be held responsible for what happened on October 7. It all has to be done by someone else. And so, you know, it’s racism of the worst kind, because the assumption is they’ll never meet the standards. See, Israel is constantly told, “You know, maybe it’s justified that Israel ought to defend herself against what happened on October 7, but then she has to meet these incredibly high standards.” So, the standards for Israel are higher and higher and higher all the time—and why? Because the assumption is, whether you like it or not, they are superior because they can’t meet these standards. Whereas Arabs and Palestinians—well, every time they pull out of the peace process, what does it tell you? Should we hold them accountable? Do we think that they, too, are endowed with reason and with intelligence? What does it say about what you are saying about the Arabs? What are you saying about the Palestinians when you keep making excuses for them?

They get a state Gaza, Hamas wins elections with the support of an overwhelming majority of the people who live in Gaza, and they govern like tyrants. They’re not held accountable. They kill their own people and subjugate them and imprison them. They are not held accountable. They take the resources the international community gives them to build a state, and, instead, they build tunnels and they buy rockets because they are so obsessed with destroying Israel, which is considered an enemy, rather than feeding and educating their own people and caring about the lives of their own people. They get away with it. They’re never held accountable. So there is no standard whatsoever to which the Palestinians are held at all for any length of time that can bring about a state of peace; and that, to me, is the purest of racism that we’ve ever seen.

It is racism against Palestinians. It’s racism against the children of Gaza. The children of Gaza deserve better. They deserve better leadership. And if the children of Gaza—every day, we are told, in wall-to-wall coverage, that’s why they’re flying these flags and why they’re out there protesting—the question is, if you really—if we really—care about Palestinian children and the children of Gaza and the West Bank, then you should be protesting for a better leadership. You should be protesting for the demise of Hamas, because it’s Hamas that keeps putting them in this situation over and over and over again. But that’s, of course, not going to happen, because, right now, the reintroduction of racism and tribalism is the human and Western collective madness that we’re riding on. It’s the collective madness of our time.

Can Israel actually trust any of the Arab countries which signed or say they want to sign peace agreements? If Iran just disappeared tomorrow, would they revert back to business as usual?

My advice to Israel, both the government and the people, is “trust but verify.” That’s a quote from Ronald Reagan. Yes, it’s true that some of the most important Arab countries have come ’round to accepting that Israel is here to stay, and they want to take it one point further and say “We want normalization along economic and maybe even security lines.”

Now, the logical conclusion of that is obviously to settle this—shall we call it the “Palestinian question”? And I think that Arab countries, like Saudi Arabia and the UAE and others, except Qatar—even Egypt—would like this normalization process to go on and to be concluded in ways that bring peace and security for the Arab side of the equation and the Muslim side of the equation, but also on the Jewish side. Actions speak louder than words. The UAE has demonstrated that she wants friendship by allowing synagogues, I suppose, even churches: allowing openly to recognize Israel and trade with Israel and that’s a good thing. The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, who is obviously in a much trickier position, has also expressed his desire for this normalization process. Egypt, Jordan—behind closed doors—you hear this desire for normalization, the recognition of Israel, the emphasis on what we have in common. More importantly, from the people of Iran, not the regime of Iran. It’s pretty obvious that the people of Iran feel no hostility towards Jews in general or Israel in particular, and that, in fact, many of them are actually supporters of Israel, and they come out openly, and they say it when they know that their own government is not going to lock them up and torture them and kill them and throw them off tall buildings.

But, yeah, going forward, I think we have to go back to where you started this conversation. With the Muslim Brotherhood. And that is taking us back to the realm of ideas: the idea of political Islam. As long as that idea is alive, and as long as that idea is followed by large numbers of people, as is the case today, then Israel and Jews, wherever they are, are not safe from that idea, because baked into that idea is the destruction of Israel, and that’s the destruction of Jews.

And so that’s where I think, when we are having open and honest conversations with leaders of Arab countries, is what are we going talk about. What are we going to do about the idea of political Islam now? For a country like Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the UAE, with authoritarian governments, up to a point, it’s easy for them to say, “Well, we banned the Muslim Brotherhood. Why don’t you ban them?” That’s the most common assertion that I hear when I go to various conferences and seminars and lectures. And, you know, Gulf Arabs talk about all the measures that they have taken to combat the Muslim Brotherhood and their ideas, and Salafism and various denominations of Wahhabi theology. We are open societies. We are liberal societies. We believe in freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of association, we believe in freedom of speech. And so, for us—and so it’s the same in Israel—it’s very hard for us to simply adopt the attitude of an authoritarian government towards an unwanted ideological movement. But, in the future, I think it’s going to have to be a collaboration between the countries that are the home of Islam—the countries where large numbers of Muslims have migrated to.

So, as long as the idea of political Islam is alive and well, and as long as Muslim leaders—political leaders, religious leaders, educational leaders—are not willing to engage with that idea in the realm of ideas, they will use military force. Hassan al-Banna was killed in Egypt, and many of the other Islamists that adopted his ideas were killed in Egypt. They were killed in Syria. They’re killed in Saudi Arabia. They’re imprisoned and killed in the UAE. But the idea is not dead. And I think this is the same question. When this campaign against Hamas, the military campaign, ends in a military victory, what are we going to do about the idea itself? To my horror, I mean, I’ve been speaking out against this since 2001, and I kept saying and repeat over and over again, “I understand that we are, militarily speaking, superior. I understand that, economically speaking, we have more resources.” But, this idea—Elon Musk called it a “mind virus”—that mind virus, as long as it’s lodged in the hearts and minds of numerous people who want to act on it, then we will run out of resources, and they’ll still be around. You’ve got to treat the mind virus first, and it is there, I think, the resources should be directed both in the West and there in the Middle East.

Some studies and some imams’ sermons show that Islam has an apostasy problem: while birth rates are very high, apostasy rates aren’t far behind, and the conversion rate is very low; do you think Islam is in trouble, that the imams’ fears of an apostasy “avalanche” are justified, and what could this mean for the world?

And this is tied to the question I just finished answering about the mind viruses. Again, because it is ideas and, ultimately, a religion based on fear alone is hard to maintain. So, if you stay within the religion for no other reason than that you are afraid, then the imams and the people who want you to stay in the religion rely only on means of intimidation to enforce the faith. So, of course, they are worried about an avalanche of blasphemy and an avalanche of people abandoning Islam, and it has happened.

And technology—I know we’ve said all sorts of bad things about technology. Lately, we’ve lost faith in social media and so on and so forth, but the new technology of the Internet has democratized the sharing information and knowledge so that it can now happen without the control and filters of, to a large degree, the state, of imams, and other theological enforces outside even of your family. So you are seeing more and more people leaving Islam and going on these websites and forming friendships with ex-Muslims and so on.

I’ve never had so many friends—“Muslim” friends—in my life, and they’re very sincere. And the abandoning of Islam as an idea is just as real. But what it tells me is these leaders, whether they are Western leaders or Arab leaders, who are struggling to fight the mind virus of political Islam should, in fact, not be afraid of fighting the idea on its own merits. It’s an idea, ultimately, that shouts from the rooftops, “We believe in death. You believe in life.” So if we were to go and fight this idea, collectively as Muslims and non-Muslims, we could say to the those who are pushing for political Islam, “There are more people who believe in life than death. You are about death and destruction, and we could win on the basis of the platform of ideas.” They are now winning without using military force.

When the Islamists were using terrorism—when they were forcing people physically, when they were blowing things up—they weren’t winning. They were, in fact, losing believers. ISIS lost Islam more believers than any other movement. So violence did not really reward them. What is rewarding is that they can go and find these young, impressionable, impressionable minds and fill their heads and hearts with these political Islam narratives. And that is where we ought to fight them.

And so I think the two things, those two questions, are tied together. You’ve got to fight this on the level of ideas, and I know that Muslim political leaders will fight them up to a point, but they’re afraid of going to the bottom of the idea, because that’s going to throw them in cognitive dissonance. Because that’s going to force them to take a stand on some of the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. And so, as long as that is the case, then Israel will need her Iron Dome in Israel. Israel will need to arm herself to the teeth, and maybe Israel and Jews themselves will need to get and engage in this battle of ideas.

You can never rely on others for your own security. You cannot rely on others. History has made that clear to you plenty of times.

The hijacking—nay, the occupation—of campuses by Hamas sympathizers has less to do with a conflict 5,000 miles away and more to do with dethroning America.

Despite being rooted in empathy, this coddling fantasy is the height of racism. It denies Arabs and Muslims—who, these days, serve as stand-ins for blacks or native Latin Americans—of their agency and keeps it in the hands of Eurocentric Westerners.

The layered approach to conquest taken by Islamism was made possible by Joseph Goebbels and his Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment, which made a religion of Nazism in the same way that Islamism disguises its political agenda as a religious one.

Dear President Shafik:

“In Lumine Tuo Videbimus Lumen”—In Thy light shall we see light. As an arriving Columbia College freshman in 1972, I read these words on the Seal of the University not really understanding what they meant. During the ensuing four years, however, I came to appreciate their meaning—that the pursuit of knowledge illuminates our path to truth and understanding and that Columbia would shine that light. Some fifty years later, I am heartbroken to see that the lights have gone out at my alma mater.

Immediately following the horrifying terrorist attacks of October 7, 2023, and before Israel had even responded, Columbia erupted in pro-Hamas demonstrations that stunned the campus Jewish community. The worst attack upon Jews since the Holocaust was literally being celebrated by significant numbers of students and faculty. Your response was to take the easy way out, i.e., to denounce the terrorist attacks while affirming the demonstrators’ free speech rights and paying lip service to your concern for the safety of all students on campus. What you failed to understand last October was that university presidents have free speech rights as well. You could and should have unequivocally condemned both the terrorist attacks and those who were celebrating it on campus. Not doing so was a failure of leadership.

Two fundamental lessons of history and parenting are that the absence of leadership is always perceived as weakness and the refusal to correct bad behavior inevitably results in more. You apparently have never learned either lesson.

Thanks in no small part to your weak response in October, the climate of antisemitism at Columbia has only worsened on your watch during the intervening six months. Over the past several days, including at the very moment when you were testifying on this issue before a House committee, the campus has turned into something resembling a full-throated antisemitic pogrom or a Nuremberg rally. Hundreds of individuals, many masked to conceal their identities, have been permitted to verbally and physically assault Jewish students based solely on their religion. Calls for further violence and terrorism against Jews in general and Israel in particular are screamed across campus, including throughout an impermissible encampment on South Lawn, and just outside the gates on Broadway. The situation has become so dire that just yesterday a rabbi at Columbia advised Jewish students to flee the campus and complete their studies online due to “extreme antisemitism.”

I am a First Amendment attorney in California. I devote a significant portion of my law practice to protecting the free speech rights of university students and faculty. Your insistence upon couching what is happening as a “complicated” tension between the free speech rights of pro-Palestinian protesters and the feelings of Jewish students is both incorrect and merely an excuse for inaction. Indeed, much of what we are seeing at Columbia constitutes incitement and true threats and is not protected speech. The conduct is severe and pervasive and so objectively offensive that it has denied its targets—Jewish students and their supporters—access to their educational opportunities at Columbia. Therefore, it constitutes unlawful harassment under both the university’s code of student conduct and the applicable law. The university’s attorneys have surely said as much to you; yet the crisis steadily worsens with no meaningful action on your part.

The university has the right to take steps to expel any student and to fire any employee engaging in harassment or violent conduct directed at members of the Columbia community based on their protected class, in this case toward Jewish students. Furthermore, the university has the duty to protect its students from outsiders who come to campus to prey upon them. 

There isn’t the slightest doubt that if this revolting and intimidating conduct were being directed at any other group of students based on their religion, race, or gender, Columbia would have put a stop to it on day one. It is only because the victims are Jews that Columbia has abandoned its moral compass. Shame on you for that, and shame on your entire administration. I am calling upon you to resign your office. You have had over six months to steer the university on the right course; instead, you are taking it and the brand over a cliff.

Finally, I am not some billionaire donor who can make headlines by turning off the donation spigot. I am simply one of thousands of alums disgusted with what the campus has become in recent months. Perhaps more importantly, this climate of antisemitism clearly could not have begun overnight in October but was years in the making yet was unnoticed or deliberately ignored by Columbia. Therefore, I am returning my diploma to you. After nearly fifty years, it is no longer a source of pride for me. I realize it is probably a meaningless gesture to you; but it is of tremendous symbolic importance to me.

Sincerely,
Arthur I. Willner (’76)

Nine years later, I found the spring. Without any maps. Without any one-to-fifty-thousand scale. It was my nose that guided me there: the road signs exuded their smells, and I followed them. I’ve always been hooked on signs.

The spring doesn’t appear on any maps; I had to scrape up its name from the depths of my memory. All kinds of names went through my head: Ein Eshkaf. Ein Sapir. Ein Shalosh. Ein Kubi. Ein Tamar. Einot Uzi. Einot Telem.

It’s hard to find, you told me, but I found it. Me. Not a tour guide or geologist, not some random hiker, but me, a lab rat who finds markers and traces in ammonia, ether, gray field-mice, who can do a dissection with her eyes closed, who carves things up and studies them. Me.

When you left—it was after the High Holidays, and life had returned to normal. Tasks that had been postponed lined themselves up in front of me, waiting to be completed. The days were marked by routine and uniformity.

When you took the car that night, I didn’t sense anything. And it is this void that reboots my acrimony every night, that coats my tongue with bitterness.

And this land, which knows all about leaving signs, could have made a little more effort on my behalf, could have sent a light breeze or a strangely shaped cloud. A colorful butterfly, maybe, or a mouse that refused to die on the sacrificial lab bench. It had happened before. But now, it wasn’t making an effort, it didn’t show me any signs. Not even when you took the car. So many times, when my hands reached out to give you the keys, my mind would reach out as well: to images and visions, hallucinations and fears. But this time? Not even the tiniest spark of electricity. No extra heart beats. My breathing was neither deep nor shallow, it was just normal: air going in, inflating my lungs, then escaping in a reflexive exhale of carbon dioxide. A process that was all drabness and dreariness.

* * *

There are so many words, my son, to describe what you did to me. You slipped away. You were called up to the heavens. You died. You were killed. You passed. You went. You ended. You were taken. You were cut short.

And it wasn’t a stray bullet that stole you away, my son, but the driver’s villainous sleep. A murderer, a master of her craft, she loaded a bullet, and there, between four and five in the morning, led you to your execution.

* * *

The signs came later. Too late.

But first came the announcement. The knock on the door. Who goes to visit someone at this hour? A short argument between me and Ya’akov over who would get the door. It must be someone looking for a neighbor who hadn’t bothered to hang a name plate. Ya’akov gets up and lets them in. A frigid silence fills the room, and Ya’akov’s baritone voice disappears. I stay on the couch, flipping through the newspaper.

Ya’akov comes in. They stay outside. His face isn’t closed, it’s open, and me? Not yet. He tells me, straight out. And all I can think is, I am bereaved. A bereaved mother in Israel. An angry mother bear.

What does a newly bereaved mother feel?

Nothing. Nothingness bloomed inside me. A field of nothingness took hold of my heart.

And then, only then, did small signs start cropping up. A little rain here, a little rain there. A rainbow arched over the village like an evil omen. The store ran out of bread and milk. A stopped-up sink unclogged on its own. Those kinds of signs, which we, in all our wisdom, associate with some kind of disaster.

* * *

Then, much later, millions of hours after the identification, it occurred to me that you were killed the week we read the story of Noah in synagogue. Words from high school, from the army, from my youth movement, floated around in my head and tried to activate my still-tied tongue: All flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. The end of all flesh has come. The earth is filled with violence. I will bring floodwaters upon the earth to destroy all life under the heavens.

But God didn’t come to me. He didn’t equivocate and he didn’t offer alternatives. And I didn’t build an ark to rescue your body.

Case closed. Casket sealed.

* * *

I wasn’t trying to cancel the evil decree. 

A lab woman is all too familiar with that moment when a living thing becomes inert. The laxness signaling the end. The loosening of the taut threads that had been connecting the now-limp limbs.

What I wanted was a deferral. If God had come to me, or sent one of his angels, I would have postponed everything. I would have turned the world’s activation dial, the one that illuminates the sun and turns the stalks green, and extinguished the light. I would have mixed the sugar into the water before putting in the coffee, like you did when you were in the army. One lethargic stir, then another. The coffee, my son, would cool down very slowly. The air would separate into tiny molecules, clouds of air would drift through space, and you—who always complained of being too hot—would ask for a sweater. With lazy, languid patience I would choose the big sweater with all those dozens of buttons, and I would button you up, one button after another. The words would come out smoothly and deftly, as if an invisible pen was writing it all down, so that if I ever wanted to find the spring, I would remember your precise instructions. Slowly, slowly, we would wrap ourselves in this interval of prolonged, and prolonging, time.

And then, only then, would I make the identification.

But the identification came quickly. Instantly. The people around me were saying something about hysteria. They were holding up Ya’akov. My daughters converged around me like a chorus of cicadas. I wanted to make sure. To feel your mole—the concave crater the size of a nutmeg seed—that had been left intact. To check your birthmarks. To see for myself that you were indeed released from your body, while the whole time my heart is waiting for the moment, that wild, benevolent moment that would prove that it wasn’t really you, that it was a case of mistaken identity, that you’d simply disappeared once again, losing yourself in some godforsaken spring.

* * *

Even before I found the mouth of the spring, I knew I was in the right place. I could hear tiny echoes resonating in my head. A rustle. A murmur. The original name of Eilat, Umm Rashrash.  The Hebrew word for poor, rushash. A weak heart. Tree roots. But the syllables didn’t fuse into a single, solid word that could illuminate the dark corners of my memory. Well-meaning branches spread their arms out to me, and, unencumbered by fear, I cleared out a spot and planted myself there.

* * *

In my bereavement support group, they said it was important to “let it out.” Let out the pain. Let out the agony. Let out the thoughts. As if it were actually possible to clear away the anthills of thoughts that had piled up over the years.

They warned me not to keep it in my belly, and I was reminded of a myth from my childhood: if you kept something inside, a film of white fuzz would grow on your tongue.

But in my case, my son, there is nothing to let out.

The patch of grass in my heart gets caught on the rough edges of my soul, and a terrible, silent nothingness takes over. Even my eyes aren’t working properly. My eyes used to generate tears on command. They would get me excused from boring classes. They would release tears when I was waiting my turn at the doctor’s office, when I found the book I wanted at the library, when I didn’t find the book I wanted at the library. Torrents of tears, at every opportunity. “If you’re going to cry, you could at least do it next to the Kinneret watershed,” you used to tell me whenever my eyes would swell up.

Now, even artificial tears don’t help. I am dry as dust.

We meet once every few months; Ya’akov drags me with him. I can’t interpret words anymore. Mumbled syllables move through my ears, and only later can I decipher “My heart told me” and “I had a feeling.” I study the faces around me; we have nothing in common but the thin, purplish bereavement circles around our eyes.

Once I nodded, unintentionally, and when the facilitator gave me an encouraging smile, there was no turning back. Grass and shrubs flew off my tongue, and everyone at the meeting stared at me with a look I recognized from the lab, a scientific look. They analyzed me; I was a synthetic sample. After that I never went back.

* * *

I’m here, my son, it’s me—your tall, fastidious mother who would never leave the house without make-up—stretched out on a barren patch of earth, curled up in your oversized sweater.

I didn’t pack any cosmetics; make-up is nothing more than an attempt to obliterate time. Among the dense, aging trees, wrinkles are a valuable asset.

* * *

Infinity is incomprehensible. And this year, the ninth, when the days started sliding and spinning around me, nameless and timeless, I decided it was time to take action.

The memorial service is uninspiring: one cliché chasing another over the grave. That teacher of yours repeats the eulogy he gave last year, word for word. The soldier who had been your girlfriend—the one who always reminded me of a deer in headlights—is chuckling with her boyfriend, sporting him like a bracelet on her wrist. I examine them with a new fondness, as if I were a photographer, floating above them while at the same time monitoring their every motion.

And suddenly, among the words and the eulogies, lovely sounds start playing through my head. A small, delicate bell resonates in my brain, lucid and pure. And between the “destroy the earth” and “the end of all flesh,” the sound of water flows through my body. And the earth filled with water.

Now I know that I am going.

A person who knows something is a different person altogether. Decisiveness floods the bones. The legs that drag me to the lab, day in and day out, are filled with tiny pulses of life. Instead of greeting my colleagues with a non-committal tilt of the head, I hold my head still. The nose that used to recoil from the smell of ammonia takes in deep breaths, and the hands that pour the borax are no longer trembling.

Decisiveness rushes into me, and that evening, Ya’akov asks what’s up with me.

* * *

Feverish from the unexpected joy, from the actions that would, at long last, latch onto my stagnating body, I packed a small suitcase. I didn’t tell Ya’akov what was up with me, I just hugged him happily; he didn’t ask questions or press me. Maybe he was so pleased with this new wife of his, he didn’t want to spoil anything.

Actually, I didn’t say anything to anyone. I wasn’t going to return to my boss’s kind eyes. For years now, he’s been afraid to fire me. After all, his gaze says, she lost her only son. I will do his dirty work for him. Surely my son’s death is not his fault. 

Nor, son, did I say anything to your chirping sisters, the quintet that used to huddle around you so adoringly. I worked quickly and quietly, like a lab-rat.

* * *

When I discovered traces of a campfire, I was filled with a joy I hadn’t felt in a long time. I gathered up the twigs that were piled on the ground; they seemed to be the remnants of birds’ nests. With expansive movements, I threw them into the fire, adding one small branch, then another, just like you taught me. Resisting the temptation to toss in the whole forest. Feeding a fire requires patience.

* * *

Once, when I was young, we—your grandfather and I—came upon a chilling sight. We were driving, and at one of the intersections, we saw a car go up in flames. People had gathered around, calling out to each other. I stared, enrapt, at the circle of fire, red tongues shooting out of it haphazardly, ruining the symmetry. 

Your grandfather tried to help. He got out of the car, a long iron rod in his hand, but he, too, was unable to break through the circle of fire. He returned to the car flustered and defeated.

The next day, the front page of the morning paper featured the circle of fire. And the family—there were two babies—that had burned to death. And the VW Beetle’s rear engine. And the time that was wasted before help arrived.

When you died, there was no circle of fire. The papers didn’t report it. Death, banal, in a tie and jacket, just came and took you.

* * *

I am sitting here, trying to count the days, but I can’t. Days have been broken, cut in half. Some hours go roaming through space, others hurry off like they can’t get away from me fast enough. I am enveloped in ambiguity, and it is suddenly imperative that I find the name of the spring. My damned memory, however, covers it up artfully, seducing me instead with false associations that only intensify the forgetfulness.

The food is gone. I do have money, and I could run over to the main street and buy myself something to eat, but the fasting has filled my bones with a dizzying heaviness, and I stay where I am, close to the ground.

These days, I am utterly fearless. Like you, who never experienced fear, who shook his head scornfully at the depth of the water in the Yehudea River and jumped. Who hiked through every village. Out there, in the world, they call this irresponsibility, but now that I’m here, only now, do I recognize that it was simply a lack of knowledge.

Fragments of time pass, and the heaviness in my body gives way to lightness. My stomach grumbles softly with an agreeable emptiness, and my tongue is coated with a thick, white film. There are many, many things inside, and I…  I don’t know how to let them out.

* * *

From the spring whose name I’ve forgotten, I drink until I’m sated. Sometimes I think about the outside world. About the note I left for Ya’akov. About his neck tensing up as he tries to understand, about his whole body clenching. I think about the warmth of his voice when he told the girls. Whenever I feel the urge to stand up, I distract myself with images of policemen, sniffing dogs, signs with my picture on them posted across the country. There is something wild and exciting about these thoughts, and my bereavement assumes a different demeanor.

* * *

I wasn’t alone for long; you had talked to me about this, too. I remember the image you used: “This land is a well full of people. If you throw a stone, you’re bound to hit someone.”

I knew someone was coming. A new wind was blowing in my direction, and fine dust was rising up from the earth.

The man arrived during one of the fragments of time. A man whose legs were very familiar to him, always ready to move, to walk, muscles and tendons bursting out, eager to help.

I didn’t light a fire; I just sat there, shivering, clutching my food to my chest. That was how he found me. He looked alarmed, but quickly erased the shock from his face, and, just as quickly, turned away, as if he had caught sight of something forbidden.

My body was weak but my mind was clear. I looked at the slender branches protruding from the trees, at the small animals scampering around my feet, sights that I normally couldn’t have seen without my glasses. The moon looked close. Distant sounds were getting closer.

The man appeared again, his arms full of branches. Mumbling to himself, he added them to the fire and lit the kindling, just like you used to do, my son. He moved slowly, patiently, until the fire was finally ignited and I could see a cotton beard, with a nose and two eyes swallowed up inside it.

In a soft voice, he asked if he could sit with me. He looked like a ventriloquist, the way his lips moved, hidden inside his beard.

* * *

The fragments of time came together, and words floated in space. Soft, soft words. He was sixty. Traveling through the country. Incapable of staying in his house: he’d always had a hard time inside walls.

And he didn’t ask, “And you?” He didn’t ask for anything in return. Every now and then he’d toss a couple of twigs into the fire and shift his position. He’d smoke a cigarette. Back when things were normal, I couldn’t abide smoke; even the smell of a wick in the lab would make me cough. But now I was breathing it in. Expanding my lungs to get them used to it.

Even as I sat there in my shabby clothes, I saw him looking at the gold bracelet on my wrist. I’m fifty-three, I told him. And he didn’t wrinkle his brow in horror, and he didn’t say, “You look great for your age.” He just sat there quietly, letting the information sink in. We didn’t bother each other. Sometimes he’d get up and go wherever it was that he went. I didn’t even crane my neck to see where he was sleeping.

I wasn’t afraid.

I didn’t ask him about his life, or where he was going. In the evenings I fell asleep curled up in your big sweater, empty with hunger, and a sudden flame would shatter the darkness in front of my closed eyes.

What did I do for all those days? I don’t have an answer. Time slipped away. Sometimes I would exercise. I’d go down to the nameless spring and immerse myself in the water, fully clothed. Sometimes I’d drift through the small forest and look for signs. Maybe you’d left a letter or a short note. Maybe you’d sat down to eat, right here, next to the tree.  It’s been nine years, but, my son, some people survive for thousands of years. Such are the foolish thoughts of bereavement.

The wanderer disappeared. Between the trees, the sun and the moon changed shifts, promptly, without wasting any time on friendly banter. And I didn’t care that he’d gone. The same way I didn’t care about how my skin was wallowing in layers of dust.

* * *

Then one evening, he came back. I was barely conscious, but somehow my mind managed to soak up the last sunbeams that burst through the leaves. My blurry vision doubled and tripled the man into a multitude of silhouettes. Cotton beards, soft and thick, came at me from every angle.

He bent down to me, looked deep into my eyes, and said, “You have to eat something.” His look wasn’t soft and consoling, but something in him looked familiar. There were purplish rings around his eyes, and I recognized him, and I identified him.

* * *

Then came the tears. Long years of drought had come to an end. Big round tears fell, and in my mind I could see them filling up the small spring.

He didn’t say a word, and he didn’t offer me a shoulder to cry on. And I remembered a phrase from the long-ago days, back when I liked to read: “A comforting indifference.” I couldn’t remember who said it, and I didn’t care.

The wanderer made me campfire soup, with a big potato floating on top of it. I chugged it down in big gulps, replenishing my reservoir of tears.

He knew I had identified him. Someone who has lost a child has a particular mark, and without introduction he said: “Twins.” They left me in Lebanon. And the words “left me” sounded so right, I almost laughed.

He smoked, and the combination of smoke and soup made me nauseated. Later, I fell into an intense, heavy sleep, the kind I haven’t had since you left.

When I woke up, I was ready to rejoin the world, which had already come to an end; perhaps it would never be destroyed again. My only worry was that I wouldn’t be able to find my Ya’akov in this new land.

* * *

He disappeared. Like a kind, old uncle with excellent manners and good taste, with a hollow voice like that of a withered tree in the desert. I thought of Elijah the prophet rising up to heaven in a whirlwind.

And all at once, the name of the spring came back to me: Ein Rashosh. The Spring of Hardship. A reckless, jagged name.

* * *

I emerged from the spring shabby and dirty. I could feel my body bounding with a new elasticity and lightness. The world looked different. Softer. Less angular.

And I knew that nothing had changed.

I didn’t know if it was the beginning of the week or the end, but either way, they would report more car accidents. In a dry voice, the announcer would tell us about the scandalous life of the driver responsible. I was familiar with all the predictable components: the rollovers, the sharp turns, the DWIs. All the factors that led to this one outcome, which resulted in so many purplish bereavement rings.

I knew. But I missed the girls. The way they gathered around me.

I missed Ya’akov. His warm baritone. His playful voices. Our Saturday night squabbles over the crossword puzzle. His large, kind hands. His longings.

I’m not alone, I repeated to myself, making sure my vocal cords still worked after so many hours of idleness. I’m not alone. There is a sun that is completely shining, and a gentle breeze escorting me out of Ein Rashosh. There are grandchildren who will, someday, gambol through the country, in springs, on hikes. There is a time for everything. Everything. And He will never again smite every living thing as He had done. And it is not yet the end of all flesh.

I am not alone, I thought, and I tried to unthink it.

Translation by Shira Atik

This cultural export—the Hollywood Western—framed a perception about the people who lived on the opposite shores of the Atlantic Ocean. It was an image of frontiersmen of quiet dignity, a people who could think for themselves and possessed the self-sufficiency to go it alone. Rugged nonconformists.

In 2005, I was publicly mocked as the Jewish Cassandra by a Jewish-American organization official.

“Sir,” I said, “No one listened to her, Troy fell, and she became Agamemnon’s sex slave. If this is really how you see me, why not heed me and my colleague’s warnings about the importance of the cognitive war against the Jews before it’s too late? Why not consider an Iron Dome against the propaganda?”

He walked away in a huff. It’s now 2024, and I’m ready to own my prescience.

I have always been an independent thinker, a pioneer, and a leader. I have rarely been a follower. I lack the knack of group or “correct” thinking. I’ve lived recklessly, unaware of how sharing my thoughts might endanger me, set me apart. I did not choose to be this way. I was “chosen,” so to speak.

When I was a child, I suffered my status as an outlier. I fit in nowhere; I was not like the other girls even though I wanted to be. I was not like my mother, and she punished me for it; no doubt, she felt I was proof of her failure to tame me, to bind my mind.

When I was about eight or nine years old, my mother brought a rabbi home to excoriate me for having joined Hashomer Ha’tzair (“A Godless, communist group.”). I then went and joined Ain-Harod, an even more left-wing Zionist group.

I was the “smartest boy” in my Hebrew school class, but it was 1952, and there would be no Bat Mitzvah for me. I took it very hard and ate a slice of non-kosher pizza for the first time—and did not die.

I was far too gifted and intellectually curious for my family. They feared me—and feared for me. And I ran wild with the boys, not understanding that I would always be judged by a double standard.

Against their wishes, I left home in Borough Park on a full scholarship to an out of town college. I never thought I’d return but, in a small way, I’ve done just that. Wait for it.

While I was long considered an uber-trendy radical feminist thinker, once I published The New Antisemitism in 2003, all of that changed. In it, I held the left-wing Western intelligentsia as responsible for Jew hatred, as I did the Islamic world. It was the first book of mine that was not reviewed—and reviewed positively—in the mass media. What I wrote led to countless dis-invitations, turned backs, and a purging.

To my amazement, I made some new friends. One poor soul, a conservative man, wrote a rather endearing review of this book. He was genuinely puzzled. But since he loved my support for Western civilization, he wrote: “I guess if it comes down to it, and a radical feminist is fighting in the trenches with me, on my side, then so be it. She is my ally.”

Despite all my 20th century pioneering feminist work, few feminists cut me any slack for my support of Israel and Judaism as well as for my writing about Islamic gender and religious apartheid.

I was actually purged from a feminist listserv group because I was a Zionist and had begun publishing my genuinely feminist pieces at conservative sites. (What could I do? The New York Times would no longer publish my work). For telling the truth about Islam’s treatment of women, infidels, dissidents, and homosexuals, I was accused of being a racist-Islamophobe and a right-winger. I lost friends and colleagues—and continued to do so, all throughout the 21st century. This happened before 10/7, and it prepared me very well for the profound and odious feminist silence that followed. Although women have always been raped in war-zones, (think Bagladesh, Bosnia, Congo, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Sudan), 10/7 was the first time that so many routinely indifferent people cheered the rapists and blamed the victims.

The fact that I was conducting studies about honor killing that tribal women of color relied upon did not matter. The fact that I worked with Muslims and ex-Muslims mattered less. Even the fact that I co-led a grassroots team that rescued 398 women from Afghanistan did not count. My Thought Crimes can never be forgiven.

I was cancelled long before the phenomenon gathered traction. However, in the long historical arc of free thinkers who’ve been jailed, tortured, burned at the stake, and sent to die in the Gulag, my punishments, while still real and painful, are different. True, like many others, I now write samizdat. More important, my feminist work has largely been written out of the feminist canon. However, these are relatively minor injuries.

My God! Think of what the political correctniks did to Socrates in 399 B.C.; Giordano Bruno in 1600; Anna Ahmatova’s husband and sons whom Stalin murdered or exiled for her Thought Crimes in the 1920s; remember Vladimir Bukovsky, Andre Sahkarov, Natan Sharansky—oh the list is long in Soviet Russia, Hitler’s Germany, but also in pre-communist and post-communist China and Cuba. I am not even getting into Iran or Afghanistan. That would require another very long piece.

Dissent is intolerable to tyrants. Yet, such regimes have been romanticized by too many: Western leftists, including Jews, feminists, academics, gays, and government officials–the whole bleeding lot of them.

In what way have I come full circle, at least a wee bit? In 1988, when I davened with the women for the first time at the Kotel in 1988 the experience wedded me fatefully to the struggle that would come, one that is still underway. Our vision involved group prayer with a Torah by women-only; we, the Original Women of the Wall, had not fought for the rights of Reform and Conservative prayer styles.

I immediately understood that what I wanted was to study Torah, and so I began to do just that, beginning in 1989. I had the best chevruta in the world, the late, great Rivka Haut (z”l) and whose idea it was to hold our prayer service at the Kotel instead of at the LaRomme Hotel. Eventually, we began to publish devrai Torah together and by and by, I began to write my own.

Here’s the full circle. My mother (z”l), who rarely approved of what I did or wrote, went to Eichlers on Thirteenth Avenue in Borough Park and bought a Chumash with Rashi’s commentaries; she inscribed each of the five volumes to me “with love,” and in the belief that “I would do great things in the world.”

Who would ever have believed this possible?

But there is also this. I recently reviewed an extraordinary book by Rabbi Hillel Zaltzman, titled The Jewish Underground in Samarkand. How Faith Defied Soviet Rule. Of course, these Chabad heroes perpetuated Judaism by teaching Torah to little Jewish boys, not girls. And yet, and yet, the piety of the women equaled that of the men. They did all that they could to preserve the sanctity of Torah learning and the dignity of their revered rabbis. 

The women viewed their separate roles as sacred and their domestic duties as prayers. I, personally, could not have lived their lives. I would have wanted to be in one of the secret yeshivot learning—but would that have necessarily kept a community intact and Judaism flourishing?

Imagine me having such a thought! I even surprised myself.

It is not uncommon for Jihadis to create an international outrage, debate, and narrative around human rights, brotherhood, right to religion, etc. They get people engaged in loud debates around these while they silently indulge in their favorite hobbies of severing heads and blasting bombs.

A poem by Darren Glick

I am back in the times where you couldn’t turn on the radio or open a newspaper (and you had to open a newspaper to get your “political information” school credit) without hearing (or reading) “we, proud Soviet citizens of Jewish Ethnicity, thoroughly condemn the militarism and barbarity of the Zionist State.”