freedom and reason

“Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to safeguard this right against any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a shari’ah prescribed reason.” —Cairo Declaration on Human Rights, 1990).

https://t.co/wEsq02Xy2u

— Andrew Austin (@andrewwaustin) August 23, 2026

Danny Burmawi is CEO of the Ideological Defense Institute and the author of Islam, Israel and the West. In his conversation with Jeremy Boreing, he explains the fourteen-century history of Islamic conquest, the red-green alliance, and why anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are not the same. I urge the reader to watch the entire video. Burmawi’s observations inspire this essay. My thoughts are my own. Burmawi was the spark.

* * *

Islam is not a religion of peace. The public is fed this slogan, but Islam actually means “submission” and “surrender.” Islam is an ideology of fear that moves under the mantle of religion. Fear-based politics are inherently oppressive. Islam seeks to instill in those it subjugates a radically different worldview than the one Western peoples have grown up with for centuries. Like Communism and Fascism, it means to change the nature of man, and, like those systems, it does this by frightening populations into passivity through intimidation and the promise of a final solution (see The Final Solution: The Globalist Ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood). Even when not openly belligerent, such systems are coercive and totalistic, and the specter of violence is ever present.

This is why, if you are a Muslim, you are not allowed to leave Islam without losing everything, including, potentially, your life. It’s why there is no prohibition against using violence to spread the faith or keep the people in line. A Christian may become an atheist without consequence. A Muslim who leaves Islam rightly fears death. Those who grew up in an environment of religious liberty, in significant measure made possible by the Christian ethic of voluntary acceptance of faith, are unprepared to reckon with a religion that has no such ethic.

It might be a good idea to consider, before it is too late, the following proposition: if an ideology does not respect the right to free conscience, speech, and publishing, then extending those rights to that religion is the surest path to annihilation of freedom altogether. (See Defensive Intolerance: Confronting the Existential Threat of Enlightenment’s Antithesis; Revisiting the Paradox of Tolerating Intolerance—The Occasion: The Election of Zohran Mamdani; Human Nature and the Limits of Tolerance: When Relativism Becomes Nihilism; The Bad-Smell Ant: Disordering a Nation’s Protective Instinct).

When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was presented to the world, Islamic countries rejected it. Rooted in Christian ethics, the Declaration asserted the rights of all people regardless of faith. Whatever kingdom the Judeo-Christian God may establish, that kingdom was in the future. Man can perform works of faith, but he cannot establish God’s kingdom. That endeavor is reserved for God.

For Muslims, all law comes from the Islamic god. Whether local or global, the law is sharia. God’s kingdom is already on earth, established by Muhammad, the last and final prophet, and all men are subject to it. In that kingdom, only Muslims have rights. Those who stand outside Islam are inferior castes. If they wish to have the same rights as Muslims, they must themselves become Muslims. And they may be forced to accept those rights whether they want them or not. So, in 1990, member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI). The CDHRI explicitly states that all rights within it are strictly subject to Sharia.

By contrast to Islam, Christianity is love-based. Christian ethics are virtue ethics, focused on developing a character that naturally produces good fruit and loving actions. They are rooted in natural law, which holds that God’s moral design is written into human nature and the order of things, equipping people with judgment to discern basic goodness. The New Testament does not have Jesus engaged in selfish action or violence—quite the opposite. Jesus lives an austere life, unconcerned with material things. He is depicted feeding and healing the poor and the sick. Muhammad was a warlord who killed people and used his angel Gabriel to justify his hypocrisy.

I hasten to clarify this: Jesus’s nonviolent approach does not mean Christianity is inherently nonviolent (see A Cross of Suicidal Empathy: The Woke Emasculation of Christianity and the Road Back to Integrity). To be sure, Christianity teaches its followers not to take revenge (this is why killing captives and the mistreatment of prisoners is ethically problematic), but it does not say that force per se is forbidden. Exercising force is not governed by the goal of making a Christian world, but by ethics. While admired for their faith in Jesus, Christian soldiers were not therefore instructed to quit soldiering.

In his teachings, Paul distinguishes between personal vengeance and collective force. Immediately after telling Christians “Do not repay anyone evil for evil” and “never avenge yourselves,” Paul describes governing authority as one that “does not bear the sword in vain.” Jesus himself tells the disciples: “the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.” (One may debate whether that means for spiritual warfare, but Scripture does not clarify.) When he tells his disciples to put down their swords, he does so in the face of civil authority, those who have the just power to exercise force over him. Jesus advocated for the authority of secular law.

I clarify this because an ideology of violence confronts the religion of peace (see The Red-Green Ruse: Clerical Fascism in Post-Colonial Garb). Adherence to a peaceful religion does not obligate Christians to stand by passively as a praxis of violence destroys their civilization and replaces freedom and the rule of secular law with the tyranny of religious clerics. Nowhere in Scripture are Christians expected to submit or surrender to illegitimate power. To do so would be to abandon Christianity, to lose one’s faith, and, for those of other faiths, except for Islam, invite the destruction of the system that permits them to worship other gods or no gods at all.

The truth is that the only system that allows for different faiths to coexist while encouraging religiosity is the Judeo-Christian system. Only that system demands civil rights for everybody regardless of conscience and the imperative to defend those rights—by force if necessary. To be sure, this means those of other faiths must show deference to law based in Christian Ethics, but doing so does not compromise their own faith in any way. It’s in the interest of all rational persons to accept a social contract that enshrines the freedom of conscience. Any person seeking to impose religion over another exposes himself as an authoritarian.

There are no civil rights. Nor is there tolerance for other faiths. One cannot even draw a cartoon of Muhammad without risking one’s head (Threat Minimization and Ecumenical Demobilization). And, since compromising other faiths is imperative in Islam, Muslims cannot show deference to any law that allows individuals to follow their own gods, however much they pretend to be tolerant of civil authority in the meantime. They are biding their time. When in power, Islam cancels secular law. No civil power outside Islam enjoys authority; the only legitimate law is Islamic law.

“There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” Yes, Christians also assert that their god is the only one, but not in the same tone of voice. Christians are those who willingly accept the Christian god, and they are free to abandon that god if they wish. A man may willingly become a Muslim in a society where he is not yet forcibly converted. Allowing Islam to colonize and establish power in Western societies inevitably results in a system in which other faiths are disallowed or subordinated. This end in Islam is not merely in potentia. History is replete with episodes of Islamic conquest. Muslims enslave and kill wherever Islam spreads.

One might object that the story of Christianity across space and time has also come with enslavement and killings. But these episodes are exceptions to the faith and not afterwards looked upon with pride. Except where necessary to defend civilization and one’s family from the violence of those working beyond authority, they are deviations from the faith. By contrast, violence is inherent to Islam. Enslavement and killing are not extraordinary in this religion, but necessary to it.

Christianity, the world’s largest religion (perhaps not for long), has proven attractive to good and normal people. No coercion required. The Gospel is indeed “good news.” Islam draws to it wicked men who use the Qur’an and the Hadith to justify psychopathy. Their perfect man is a psychopath (see The Peaceful Muslim and the Peril of Islam). Good and normal people are forced under Muhammad’s thumb from the grave (or wherever his winged horse took him). Islam wields the sword, not in self-defense, but in aggression and belligerence. Islam is a thug religion.

Islam is entirely incompatible with Christianity. The two religions cannot coexist. Islam is the antithesis of Christianity. Either one or the other prevails. As with the struggle of free men against Communism and Fascism, Islam mustn’t prevail. Only one is righteous. The other, wicked.

The proof is in the pudding. The Christian societies of the West are vastly superior to Islamic societies. And they are freer than Muslims societies. Every great civilization that has been Islamized lost its greatness. Muslims recognize Western superiority and the barbaric history of their own doing, which is why their clerics and intellectuals revise history to make Islam appear as the fount of wisdom and progress, then construct a conspiracy where the Christian and the Jew stole their knowledge and technology. The Qur’an Islamizes the present, just as it intends to Islamize the future. Islam is built upon deception, coercion, and violence. Free societies cannot extend their hand of friendship. Islam will chop it off.

 “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.” —George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

All arguments about the Rothschilds, etc., reduce to this: Jews are devious → their success is evidence of their deviousness → therefore Jews are devious. The formula’s circularity is obvious. The premise is smuggled in and represented as the conclusion. Keeping this in the realm of antisemitism, the success of other ethnic groups is not devious because other groups are not presupposed as devious. Readers should ask themselves: why are Jews singled out for opprobrium and not the myriad other groups that voice their interests in the public square? Antisemitism is a refuge of the simple-minded—and an instrument of those who would keep them so.

However, the formula has escaped the antisemitic realm. We see the same formula used to push the white supremacy trope: Whites are racist → their success relative to blacks (and others) is evidence of their racism → therefore, whites are racist. Antisemitism is the magic sauce that excuses envy and persecution of Jews. Its efficacy in obscuring power is proven by its persistence in space and time. Perhaps it was only a matter of crime before the downtrodden and resentful generalized the formula to cover all whites. At any rate, we’re in it now, and have been for some time (see Manufacturing Anti-White Bigotry: The Elasticity of an Ancient Hatred).

This is the essence of modern-day identitarianism. Identity politics is a reworking of class envy, transferring the antagonism from social class to race and ethnicity. While the class antagonism argument is not necessarily racist, the identitarian argument is by definition. This makes it especially dangerous. The target is no longer the class enemy. Selected racial and ethnic groups are the enemies.

To be sure, the rhetoric of class struggle still appears in left-wing circles, but not really in substance. If there is any substance there, it is tied to ethnic, racial, and religious identity. This makes the left-wing activism acceptable to corporate and financial power, which is why transnational elites bankroll the left (see Weaving America’s Destruction; “No Kings!” The Art of Turning Americans Against Their Country; Economic-Elite Domination and the 3.5 Percent Thesis to Get Us Back There).

National Socialism worked this way. The Nazis preserved the class structure by making Jews the source of German workers’ problems. Who were behind the Nazis? Financial and industrial power. Rejecting Marxism, which advanced a class-based politics, Hitler used ethnic socialism as a ruse to defang the worker movement. Capitalism was not the problem. Jews were the problem. And, for many, they still are.

This is the game transnational corporations are playing by funding the social justice movement. Corporate and financial power is not the problem. Whites are the problem. Western capitalist nations are flooded with racialized minorities to replace the native populations, i.e., white Europeans. And not just whites; in America, to make room for cheap foreign labor, those of black African descent are gathered into ghettos to live state-administered lives.

I have in the past resisted the argument that left-wing identiarianism is a species of neo-Marxism. I resisted this classification because left-wing identitarianism is contrary to Marx’s class-focused politics. Marx understood society primarily in terms of people’s relationship to the means of production—most importantly, the conflict between the bourgeoisie, that class that owns capital, and the proletariat, the class that sells its labor for survival (if capitalists find its labor useful).

Marx criticized political appeals that treated ethnic, racial, religious, or other identities as the fundamental source of social conflict for an obvious reason: such divisions obscure the underlying class relationship. In his view, capitalism encourages workers to identify with social groups rather than their class location and common material interests. In other words, manufacturing group division is a bourgeois strategy. Marx’s formulation “Workers of the world, unite!” expresses the idea that class solidarity should transcend those divisions.

This doesn’t mean Marx thought identity was nonexistent or irrelevant; rather, class position is fundamental to understanding capitalist dynamics. Identity is an elite tool to disorganize the proletariat and disrupt class consciousness. Hence today’s scene, where the working class stands on the sidelines while the sons and daughters of the middle class riot in the streets.

Marx was explicit about this. For instance, in 1864, Marx wrote a letter to Abraham Lincoln on behalf of the International Workingmen’s Association (the First International) arguing that overthrowing the slave system was a necessary step toward a more unified and emancipated working class. The abolition of slavery removed a fundamental division within American labor, that of racial caste. The American Revolution had inaugurated an era of middle-class ascendancy, he wrote. The Civil War would do the same for the working class.

Left-wing identitarianism obscures the underlying class relationship by treating ethnic, racial, religious, or other identities as the fundamental source of social conflict. Today’s left thus advances the bourgeois strategy of disorganizing the working class. At first blush, that puts today’s left outside Marxist politics. However, the modern left retains the logic of Marxism, namely the struggle of diametrically opposed groups, while recoding the antagonism in the identitarian language of “oppressor” versus “oppressed.” There are other species of neo-Marxism, but I am now persuaded to accept that left-wing identitarianism is one of them.

Moreover, in light of Marx’s advocacy of free trade as a means of impoverishing the working class to accelerate the momentum towards a communist society (see Marx the Accelerationist: Free Trade and the Radical Case for Protectionism), this species of neo-Marxism, enabled by transnationalism, can be rationalized by communists as a means to the same end Marx sought, thus making its claim to be a species of neo-Marxism stronger.

Not that I think most leftists today engage in rationalization. Rationalization requires some degree of intelligence. It is rather obvious that today’s leftists know not what they do. Academic and street-level left-wing rhetoric—a jumble of anarchist, communist, and postmodernist ideas— draws disordered personalities like flies to a decomposing corpse. How else are we to explain why a queer person marches with the Jihadists who would toss “her” from building tops if they ever get their hairy paws on power?

Tragedy awaits all of us in these developments. Today’s left forgets Marx and Engels’ warning in the Communist Manifesto that the revolutionary reconstitution of society may not lead to communism at all but instead to “the common ruin of the contending classes.” In that sense, however neo-Marxist today’s left might be, it is not really Marxism, since transnationalism’s goal is neither world capitalism nor world socialism but a global neofeudal order in which corporations become the new lords governing high-tech estates, on which the world proletariat, demoted to neoserfs, will be administered by self-righteous techocrats. That or a global caliphate. Either way, it will be a world of shit.

Progressives are in full panic over the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Trump Administration to develop a plan with the US Postal Service to make it more difficult to rig elections by distributing mail-in ballots to noncitizens. In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority lifted a lower court injunction that had blocked parts of the administration’s mail-in voting restrictions from applying to 23 states and Washington, DC. The court ruled the injunction out of order because no executive plan is currently before the nation. The Blue States jumped the gun.

Your Democrat friends who pretend to understand election law may be trying to confuse you about this by saying that Trump does not have jurisdiction over elections, whole or in part. They will claim holding elections is exclusively a state function. That is false in two ways.

First, federally delegated state authority is not at issue. Trump has authority over the US Postal Service. The Postal Service is an executive branch function. So is immigration control. As chief executive officer and chief magistrate, the President is well within his scope of constitutional authority and responsibility to ensure election integrity by tracking mail-in ballots. That is all that he is imposing: ensuring that ballots are delivered only to citizens who, in many states, do not have to prove their citizenship to vote.

Second, the Constitution does not grant to the state exclusive power to prescribe election law, i.e., the times, places, and manner of voting. This is a myth. If this were the case, then there would be no SAVE Act (which, to their great shame, Republican Senators are holding up). Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution explicitly states that Congress may at any time change voting rules and regulations in any state with one exception: the places of choosing Senators—and that exception was negated by the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913.

Democrats have always acted as if the American Republic is a confederation—when not in control of the federal government. Democrats even rebelled against the Union in the 1860s and took the nation to war over this lie. Somewhere in the neighborhood of a million Americans lost their lives, and Democrats lost their slaves. I won’t mince words: Democrats lie like dogs. Lying is in the party’s DNA. The truth is that Democrats oppose Trump on this issue precisely because the party depends on noncitizen voting to obtain and retain power. This is why they oppose the SAVE Act.

Presumably, a legal expert on a panel on MSNOW, one of the Democratic Party’s several propaganda platforms, slipped and said, “This is way too fragile a system,” before interrupting herself to say “the right to vote is way too sacred” to allow the Postal Service to monitor mail-in voting. Progressives know the scheme to rig elections to allow noncitizen voting is only a Congressional or Executive action away from collapsing. The SAVE Act and/or the exercise of Executive authority would end their scheme, and they would be relegated to minority status at the national level for decades.

Americans must grasp this: Immigration is not only a corporate strategy to displace and drive down the wages of American workers. It is a strategy to increase the populations of Blue states to amass a greater share of federal resources, obtain more Congressional seats, and gather more noncitizen voters. The dynamic is a vicious circle. When in power, Democrats expand mail-in voting (which should be banned), open the borders, and flood the zone with noncitizen voters, which in turn increases their power in successive election cycles.

Democrats cannot win on the merits. The majority of Americans do not agree with DEI, Internet censorship, lawfare, high taxes, technocratic control over education, health, etc., and all of the other authoritarian, identitarian, and redistributive bits of progressive praxis. Democrats have to rig the system to obtain the power necessary to impose on the American people the administrative vision of their corporate overlords. This corruption is also what lurks beneath RINO opposition to the SAVE Act.

People have been misled. Charlie Kirk did not say he was leaving the pro-Israel cause over ideological disagreements with Zionists. He said that, because of platforming issues, he may have to leave the cause. Some donors pressured him not to platform certain speakers (Tucker Carlson), effectively alienating him. He expressed his frustration about that. This was followed by a strategy session concerned with revamping pro-Israel messaging. Kirk never walked away from Israel.

That was on September 8, 2025. The next day, on September 9, Kirk said in a text that he was concerned that the left was going to kill him. Not Israel. Not Turning Point USA. The left. On September 10, a leftist named Tyler Robinson, to impress his trans lover, Lance (Luna) Twiggs, killed Charlie Kirk, an outspoken critic of gender identity doctrine and queer theory. Andrew Wilson of The Crucible, as promised in his debate with Candace Owens, brought the receipts to his livestream.

https://t.co/oKEeEWtySn

— Andrew Austin (@andrewwaustin) August 24, 2026

Here you go you vultures…

Doesn't look like IMessage to me…

Who is doing the walk back? pic.twitter.com/kRmGkLMvOH

— Crucible Updates (@CrucibleOnX) August 23, 2026

As I will show in a forthcoming article on this platform, Robinson’s bullets were inscribed with Antifa slogans using Twiggs’s Dremel. Robinson left a note under his computer keyboard for Twiggs confessing the murder. Robinson sent Twiggs text messages telling Twiggs where the note was and confessing again to Kirk’s murder. In those texts, he talked about the gun he used. He talked about everything. Ballistics, DNA, surveillance video, and a mountain of other evidence tell the rest of the story.

But the story was clear almost immediately after the event. I wrote an article about it the day after Kirk was murdered, on September 11, 2025. Charlie Kirk’s Killer is in Custody, and the Specter of Antifa was linked by RealClearPolitics, directing thousands to my platform. Nobody has disputed my core claims. I knew what the shooter represented because I had been studying Antifa and trans violence. I have published numerous essays about this on this platform before Kirk’s assassination. I know who these people are, what they represent, what they think, and what they’re capable of. Americans should be concerned about Antifa and trans violence.

Since Kirk’s assassination at the hands of Tyler Robinson, the far right, led by Candace Owens, in conjunction with organizations of the far left, has convinced many people that the Jews were behind Kirk’s death. The effect of their deceit has been the derailing of the momentum, on the right and the left, that was building to do something about left-wing violence in America. The left is now emboldened. Owens and her army of misfits, their conspiracies amplified by degenerates like Hasan Piker and the DSA crowd, are largely responsible for this.

* * *

It was only a matter of time before those on the far right who derailed the opportunity to confront left-wing violence in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination would come after Kirk himself. We are now hearing that TurningPoint USA was a Zionist organization and Kirk was killed by Zionists for criticizing elements of America’s close relationship with the Jewish state. For Candace Owens and her antisemitic brethren, Jews are behind everything, and Kirk sealed his own fate by serving the world Zionist conspiracy. The real story disconfirms the paranoid delusions of antisemites.

Turning Point USA was founded in 2012 by Charlie Kirk and Bill Montgomery. Kirk was only 18 years old. Montgomery was an older businessman and conservative activist who became Kirk’s mentor. Montgomery—not a Jew—helped Kirk turn his political ambitions into an organization, including providing early financial and organizational assistance. TPUSA emerged from the same political environment that put Donald Trump in the White House: the Tea Party and post-2008 conservative movement, with its emphasis on free markets, limited government, and opposition to progressive politics. There is no compelling evidence that a pro-Israel or Zionist organization was behind TPUSA’s creation.

As TPUSA developed, its financial and political relationships broadened considerably. Kirk’s pro-Israel stance attracted wealthy conservative donors, some of whom were Jewish and supportive of Israel, which is not a cause exclusive to Jews. Some of these donors (Foster Friess, Bernard Marcus, and Robert Shillman) had connections to pro-Israel political and philanthropic networks. TPUSA also developed relationships with activists and organizations and committed to defending Israel and combating criticism of Israel.

Finding such associations untoward requires an assumption that there is something sinister about Jews and the pro-Israel cause. This is an odd thing for a Christian to assume, considering that Christianity is rooted in Judaism. Jesus and his disciples were Jews, and Jesus’s teachings are based on the Old Testament. A central claim in Christianity is that Jesus fulfilled Jewish prophecy. Jesus was the Word made flesh, and the Gospel opened God’s covenant with the Jews to all mankind. The Christian god is the Jewish god. How could it be any other way?

TPUSA’s association with Jews does not mean the organization was established as a Zionist project or was corrupted by Zionism. Rather, a movement that began as part of the American Tea Party/conservative youth movement increasingly became integrated into the broader conservative political infrastructure, which included a significant pro-Israel component—as it should. Israel is not just the nation where Christian values originate, but is a Western bulwark against the Islamization project. Islam represents an existential threat to the West. Israel’s survival is bound up in America and Europe’s.

The reality is that the far right has turned against Israel and embraced Islam because it is, at its core, virulently antisemitic (see The Left-Far Right Convergence and Notes on the Fourth Political Theory; Trump’s Very Bad Deal With Iran and the Troubling Rise of Islamophilia Among Younger Conservatives;  The Dark Heart of Antisemitism: Separating the Haters from the Critics; The Woke Reich and the Enemy Within; Tehran Scuttles the Islamabad MoU and the Scourge of the Blue Hats). Candace Owens and her associates are attacking TPUSA because the organization is pro-Israel. The denial that Robinson is the assassin and that his deed was inspired by queer politics is rooted in an obsession with Israel and the Jews.

Kirk’s support for Israel is the result of his maturation, growing older and wiser and increasingly grasping the importance of the Jewish nation in defending Western values and the centrality of Judaism to Christianity. So, while TPUSA became an important vehicle for pro-Israel activism among young American conservatives, and Kirk’s connections to pro-Israel donors and organizations were real, these developments don’t establish that such interests created TPUSA or drove its core mission—even if that mattered. Later financial support, some of which indeed came from Jews, cannot be projected backward onto the organization’s founding or its core mission, which was to wake up America’s youth and organize them for political action. Rather, Kirk became increasingly outspoken in support of Israel and made Israel an important component of his political worldview because Israel matters.

It is true that Kirk eventually became critical of aspects of the pro-Israel political establishment and of some of his own Jewish and pro-Israel donors. His relationship with some of these donors became strained, particularly as he began questioning the influence of exclusive pro-Israel interests within the conservative movement. But the relationship wasn’t simply one of Zionist interests controlling Kirk or TPUSA; TPUSA was always—and still is—more than a pro-Israel platform.

It simply does not follow that a disagreement over platforming provides a motive for Israel or Zionist interests to assassinate Kirk. Indeed, others on the America First right are actually detrimental to the cause of Israel (and the West)—Candace Owens, more notably—and they remain very much alive. The turncoats have little to fear from the violent left because they’re doing the left’s work for them. And, objectively, they have little to fear from the Zionists. That Zionists are out to get American conservatives is a figment of the far right’s paranoid worldview. The left is a far greater threat to Israel and those in the West who support the Jewish state. Is Mossad assassinating the leaders of the left?

Globalization is the reason why nationalism has become a dirty word. Portraying nationalists as “nativists” and “racists” is elite propaganda designed to delegitimize democratic republicanism and marginalize patriots in their own countries. Multiculturalism and transnationalism will replace national culture and the nation-state.

What is the goal of communism? The elimination of nation-states, denationalization of citizens, and the establishment of a borderless world order run by a central global authority. Such a world would be a world of shit. Study the Soviet Union. The claims of Cold War anti-communism were true. Life under totalitarianism is a living hell in which millions perish, and the rest walk about like zombies.

Transnational corporations seek the same end, with the corporate state performing the same function as the world socialist state. The Democratic Party is the political organization that serves the corporate state. The party has embraced the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) platform. Here are some of the highlights: put corporations, financial institutions, and industries under state control; replace the US Constitution with a centralized state; abolish the police and prisons, as well as immigration enforcement agencies (open borders); center racial, gender, and queer “justice”—DEI, reparations, and all the rest of it.

Islamization and disruption of natural history (gender relations, family systems, etc.) are key elements of the plan. We don’t need to speculate. It’s happening before our eyes. We are literally at the point where women gather to defend a woman who sent her husband on an errand while she strangled her three children to death. The apparatus routinely rolls out mass psychogenic illnesses, and millions of brainwashed people fall prey to them. Clancy is not the only crazy lady. And there are plenty of crazy men.

The rule of a world socialist state or corporate state will be indistinguishable in man’s common phenomenological experience. Whatever the abstract analytical categories, the masses will suffer under authoritarian rule. An all-encompassing technocratic apparatus will administer their daily lives. It will tell them where they can go, what they can eat, and what they can say and publish. Freedom of thought will be extinguished by cradle-to-grave indoctrination. The apparatus will put words in our mouths and thoughts in our heads.

Remember what Winston, George Orwell’s protagonist in Nineteen Eighty-Four, told us about the Party’s core technique of control: “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” Education and the Culture Industry are already rewriting history. Take to heart Orwell’s warning, delivered by O’Brien to Winston in the Ministry of Love (newspeak for the Ministry of Torture): “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.” Orwell’s point is not just about the physical brutality of the totalitarian future. Orwell is describing a political system that seeks the permanent domination, obedience, and humiliation of the individual.

In the end, Winston came to love Big Brother. Our poor man was not only unfree, but his dignity was ground into dust by the boot of totalitarianism. Will we, in the end, come to love Big Brother?

We old dudes might not see this in our lifetimes. Not fully, anyway. But if we don’t stop this now, our children and their children will. History has shown us the future. Preserve your memory of that history. We can’t excuse inaction by saying we weren’t sure of what these tendencies entail. We know where this goes.

The Lindsay Clancy case is much more than the particulars. In the popular reaction, it is revealing of the difference between masculine and feminine sympathetic orientations that goes to the heart of the problem of empathy.

For those who may not know, Clancy is the Massachusetts mother currently on trial for killing her three children. She strangled 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan with exercise bands in January 2023.

Defense counsel acknowledges that she killed the children but argues that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and therefore not criminally responsible. The prosecution argues that the killings were deliberate and planned.

Both things can be true—and are. Clancy is sick in the head. The question is whether the defense argument negates the state’s position. That is a question of mens rea. But the public reaction goes beyond determination of criminal responsibility.

Hundreds of women rally for Clancy outside the courthouse, and a fundraiser for her parents has reportedly surpassed $800,000, with a $2 million goal. Why would women support a woman who murders her children?

I see this through the lens of sociology. I consider a father who commits essentially the same act under comparable psychiatric circumstances, confident that I would not see hundreds of men rally or raise money for him. Would hundreds of women rally or raise money for him? No.

If women describe a mother as sick, overwhelmed, or needing help while describing a father as evil, monstrous, or dangerous, despite comparable evidence of psychosis, then this is not a situation of general sympathy for the mentally ill. The societal reaction to violent deviance is gendered.

For men, murder is wrong. When men see a father or a mother who has intentionally killed his or her children, they see a murderer, and they demand justice for the children. Men are capable of understanding the role of psychiatric illness while remaining committed to the proper attribution of blame and the correct consequences for the killer’s actions.

Of course, a mother who kills he children is sick in the head. What does that have to do with holding Clancy accountable for her wicked deeds? Men remain Smith’s impartial spectator.

This is not true for women. All women? It doesn’t have to be all women. At least some women (not a few) empathize with the child killer if she is also a woman.

This is the flaw in empathy compared to sympathy. Sympathy allows a person to understand another person’s situation while retaining the capacity to judge his actions rationally. Empathy involves putting oneself in another’s place and becoming one with the situation, losing the capacity for objective and rational discernment. Women are more prone than men to elevating empathy over sympathy.

That’s fucked up, and it has general implications. It’s why we see so many women—and feminized men—enabling the delusions of their children in the trans phenomenon. Empathy dispossesses a person of the capacity to reason and robs them of their compassion for the victims.

It’s why we see women—and feminized men—embracing foreigners, defending black men who murder and rob people, and a myriad of other pathologies.

It’s why women support allowing men in women’s sports, locker rooms, bathrooms, and prisons.

It’s why feminist professors take young female students in the Gender Studies classes to mosques to learn how to properly veil.

It’s why Queers for Palestine, as crazy as that sounds (and is), is actually a thing.

This is a very real problem. It’s a civilizational problem.

* * *

Understanding this dynamic helps explain apparent contradictions in support for women who are criminally charged.

Consider the case of Shilo Hendrix, charged with disorderly conduct for using the word “nigger” in a park. She was acquitted of the charge related to her use of the word but convicted on another charge of disorderly conduct (which she is appealing) for her encounter with Sharmake Omar, the man who videoed the confrontation.

Hendrix also had defenders who rallied and raised money for her. Whatever their political persuasion, those who wanted her punished for words were decidedly progressive.

We might explain support for Clancy as exculpatory maternalism. This is where women’s harmful behavior is interpreted through vulnerability, mental illness, trauma, coercion, or maternal pressures in ways that can mitigate perceptions of personal responsibility. Yet exculpatory maternalism was not extended to Hendrix. Why? Because her “victims” were Somali.

Clancy kills her children, and progressive women empathize. Hendrix uses a word, and progressives seek jail time.

* * *

Progressives exploit the feminine sympathetic orientation (empathy) to advance their ideological and political goals. This works at scale because of the feminization of Western culture. Progressivism and feminization are mutually reinforcing.

The feminization of the West has advanced by portraying boys and men as inherently problematic because of their masculine orientation.

For years now, we have had to put up with this notion of “toxic masculinity.” Really? It’s masculinity that’s toxic? Is that why hundreds of women rally and raise money for a child killer?

I still describe my politics as feminist. But what I mean by that term is very specific: equal rights and opportunities for women—and equal responsibilities. My feminism is liberal. I reject all other species of feminism. The reason why should be obvious. The Clancy case is illustrative.

As for the particulars of the case, whether Clancy is mentally ill or not, she should be confined. A person who murders children cannot be trusted to freely move among us. She can get all the psychiatric care she needs in prison.

This man gets it.

Young Republicans are not bluffing. They will walk.

The GOP is currently on a suicide mission. The old consultant class still thinks they can keep the base with tax cuts, judges, and “strong on the border” messaging while quietly protecting the labor supply… https://t.co/DAT1a955pK

— Gregory K Bovino (@GregoryKBovino) August 17, 2026

The man who “gets it” that Gregory Bovino is referring to is Mike Howell, president of The Oversight Project. Howell has sued DHS to share the real deportation numbers. He believes those numbers are in the thousands, not the millions we were promised. He also believes that the self-deportation numbers are suspect.

Bovino puts the matter even better than Howell in the X post shared above. Is this why our man of the moment was sent packing? He not only doubts the deportation numbers, but Bovino estimates the number of illegals in our country to be much higher than current estimates of eleven to sixteen million.

Why isn’t Trump moving more aggressively in delivering the mass deportation agenda he promised on the campaign trail?

Part of it is the inaction of the Republican Party on this issue. MAGA was supposed to end the rule over the party by the corporations that control the leadership of the Senate.

This begs the question: why is John Thune Senate Majority Leader? He drags his feet on two intertwined issues confronting the nation: mass immigration and election integrity.

The answer is that he and other RINOs are operatives of transnational corporate power. They obey the donor class that exploits cheap labor and drives down wages for native Americans.

The TNCs don’t care that tens of millions of foreigners will end the American Republic because they don’t believe in the nation-state. From their standpoint, a cesspool of green-haired dysgenics and Muslim inbreds mob-ruling Western streets is an acceptable outcome if it means more wealth and privilege for them.

The United States is being deconstructed for corporate power and profit, and the people we elected to stop them are facilitating America’s destruction through inaction, at best, and complicity at worst. Either way, Thune, McConnell, and that crowd have betrayed America.

It goes without saying that Democrats are betrayers. They have been at this for decades. The party is the principal architect of globalization. But they couldn’t have done this without the complicity of RINOs.

MAGA was supposed to change that. The movement promised to root out the neoconservatives and bring the party to its founding ideals: those of the American system. Republicans have a majority with Trump at the helm, yet mass deportations are moving at a glacial pace.

If the Republican Party leadership were America First, then we would see ICE operations in cities across the country removing Mayorkas’s illegal alien invaders from our streets and sending them packing. Instead, Bovino is sent packing. And Howell has to sue the Trump Administration.

I voted for Trump to do several things. He changed the conversation on DEI and the gender identity madness. The SLPC has been exposed. I am eternally thankful for that. He put Bobby Kennedy (who I wanted as president) in charge of HHS. Among other things, we’re seeing real progress in exposing the vaccine scam. Trump has awakened America to the reality of widespread election rigging. He imposed tariffs on our competitors and cut taxes. His foreign policy has steered the Western Hemisphere away from the cancer of socialism. He even did something I did not expect him to: he confronted the Islamic Republic occupying Iran.

But one of the big-ticket items on my list of expectations—and the list of millions of other patriotic Americans—was mass deportations. Americans want the foreigners out of their country. They want jobs and safe neighborhoods. And they want to hand down to their progeny the America they grew up in.

Is Trump waiting until after the midterms to let it rip? Preying on feminine sensibilities, the media has mounted an all-out assault on mass deportations. I get it that the optics make it hard. But if that’s the plan—to downplay deportations during the campaign—it’s a nearsighted plan. Trump needs the enthusiasm of young Americans, especially men, for November, and watching Republicans fail to deliver on a core promise of MAGA has the opposite effect.

I am beginning to suspect Trump wasn’t serious about mass deportations.

Trump must know that, if Democrats win the midterms, they will be manically obsessed with destroying his presidency. The president will be a lame duck, and Republicans won’t be there to protect him when the House impeaches him.

If Democrats retake the White House in 2028, within minutes of assuming executive power, the new president will open the borders, and that will be the end of the Republic. Trump will have squandered the opportunity to save the nation, and despite all the great things he has done, his failure to deliver on mass deportations will be his legacy.

Imagine a seventh-century illiterate (probably) schizophrenic pedophile born in Mecca in the Arabian Peninsula who hallucinates an angel that tells him that God wants him to dictate a message to someone who could put it to parchment that, among other things, the Judeo-Christian tradition, with which the pedophile is familiar, is corrupt and that he has been chosen by God to correct the Abrahamic faith and align it with the doctrine of “Islam,” which in Arabic translates to “submission” or “surrender.”

Why do I ask you to imagine a pedophile? Because the man I have in mind married a six-year-old, then raped her when she was nine years old. Her name was Aisha bint Abi Bakr.

Further, imagine the man migrates from Mecca to Medina, establishes a home base there, assembles an army, then annihilates various tribes, many of them Jewish, beheading the men, raping the women, and enslaving the survivors.

This is not an exercise in imagination. This is Muhammad’s biography. I already gave it away by identifying one of his victims by name. I asked the reader to imagine it to gain some distance from the assumption that, because something is a matter of faith, it is to be taken on faith.

One would imagine such a situation to be troubling, yet I am recounting, in a thumbnail sketch, the origins of Islam, which projected Islamic doctrine far beyond the Peninsula. Today, that doctrine is the world’s bane.One would imagine such a situation to be troubling, yet I am recounting, in a thumbnail sketch, the origins of Islam, which projected Islamic doctrine far beyond the Peninsula. Today, that doctrine is the world’s bane.

Muhammad’s dictated text is the Qur’an, the primary political and religious text of Islam and arguably the worst book ever written. Today, adherents to the faith comprise more than two million of the Earth’s human population (8.3 billion). Fifty-three of the 195 UN-recognized countries and territories are Muslim-majority.

But Islam extends well beyond these countries and territories. The doctrine is in the West and is corrupting its institutions and its people. (See The Lessons of Medina and the Rational Men of the West.)

It is important to appreciate the importance of irreligious criticism. No ideological system is immune from scrutiny, even opposition. Just because an ideology contains unfalsifiable claims—such as the existence of angels, devils, or a supreme being—is no reason for making it off-limits to critique or condemnation. If the religious system is intolerable, then it must not be tolerated.

Indeed, tolerating Islam is like tolerating Nazism. Both are intolerable ideologies. There are differences, to be sure. For example, Germans did not have hindsight when they voted members of the Nazi Party into positions of authority who prepared Germany for dictatorship under the command of Adolf Hitler. The story is different with Islam. Hindsight is plentiful.

Almost 1400 years have passed since Muhammad’s conquests in the Arabian Peninsula. The world has centuries of history from which to judge the scourge of Islamofascism.

Rational judgment should result in a condemnation of Islam, a totalitarian ideology that allows no separation between church and state. Islam is not a personal relationship with God. Islam is a political system that demands hegemony over nations.

Yet people in Western societies are voting Muslims into office. The leaders of Western countries have welcomed into the West the ideology of a warlord that freezes in place the primitive, tribal culture that produced him. The doctrine carries forward his genocidal project.

There are other differences between Nazism and Islamofascism. As bad as the Nazis were, one has to acknowledge that they liked dogs and music and celebrated women. Islam comes with all the Nazi horrors and moreover dislikes dogs, declares music as haram, and loathes women. Even publishing cartoons of the prophet puts artists’ lives at risk. Islam is a paradigm of totalitarian desire. Islam is an inherently joyless ideology.

Yet we are told that describing Islam, documenting its entailments, and warning others of its peril is a special kind of “bigotry” called “Islamophobia.” Religious liberty, we are told, is sacrosanct, and therefore Islam is to be treated no differently than any other religion.

Hiding Islamofascism behind the language of civil rights is an intentional distortion of principle, designed to grant immunity from criticism and opposition to an ideology that is as bad as, if not worse than, National Socialism. In this regard, our worst enemies dwell among us. Among them are federal politicians, such as Bernie Sanders. Sanders and his ilk are useful idiots for transnational corporate power. This is what lies behind Islamization: corporate power. In that sense, Islam is the second-coming of National Socialism.

It is not that, when facing an existential threat, we must sacrifice civil liberties. This gets the problem the wrong way around. Just as criticism of National Socialism is necessary for survival, so we must criticize Islam, and for this, the right to speak freely must be protected.

But we have to do more than criticize. Legitimate constraints on liberty are already in place. The law already forbids harassment, intimidation, and threats as valid exercises of free speech. These restrictions are necessary tools for confronting those who intend to destroy our way of life. The harassment, intimidation, and threats Islam brings with it must not be legitimized with the rhetoric of free speech and religious liberty.

* * *

“But many Muslims are peaceful,” is the popular retort. “They are good neighbors who love their children. What about the peaceful Muslims?” What about them? What about them? This was also true of Nazis.

Qur’an Verse (5:60) “Say: Shall I inform you of (him who is) worse than this in retribution from Allah? (Worse is he) whom Allah has cursed and brought His wrath upon, and of whom He made apes and swine, and he who served the Shaitan; these are worse in place and more erring from the straight path.”

This passage is referring to the Jews. Shaitan is a demonic entity in Islamic theology and culture, comparable to Satan in Christianity. This verse (among others) is used to justify violence against Jews. Muslims are obsessed with Jews. The faith is intrinsically antisemitic.

We cannot exaggerate the significance of scripture. Muslims view Muhammad as God’s final prophet and believe the Qur’an is the most perfect book in the world. It is an instruction manual. Muslims have always viewed the Jews as bestial and devilish. The Qur’an told them so. They cannot doubt the scripture because it is the inerrant word of God.

The more devout the Muslim, the more dangerous the man. One must therefore always regard Islam with suspicion. Reformation might be helpful—that is, if Muslims can develop attitudes towards their religion similar to those of Jews and Christians, then they might here and there be less extreme. But given how historically recent Islam is and how mesmerized Muslims are by it, that will still leave a substantial proportion of the population adhering to an extremist ideology.

To be sure, one can find Muslims who are not extremists. Dr. Mehmet Oz, for example, born in the US to Turkish parents, is often described as a secular Muslim. His father had traditional Islamic views, while his mother and his own adult practice leaned more secular. Moreover, Oz married a Christian wife, and they have raised their children as Christians.

For this, many Muslims have criticized Oz for his alignment with the Republican Party. Thus, Oz’s secularism highlights the problem with Islam—and the Democratic Party. The threat is real. And it must be confronted.

Perhaps the most interesting—and troubling—thing about the Kirk conspiracy theories, especially the idea that the Jews were involved, is that they obscure the reality that antifa/trans violence is a serious problem in America.

It was trans activism that inspired the murder of one of the most prominent conservative leaders in our lifetime. Tyler Robinson explicitly said that Kirk’s hate could not be negotiated. So he murdered Kirk for his trans lover Lance Twiggs.

Yet, despite Robinson’s admission, Candace Owens fans twist themselves into overbaked pretzels trying to deny the only rational conclusion. They do this by denying the evidence and instead engage in the style of fantacism characteristic of paranoid schizophrenia.

Because of their antisemitic worldview, Candace Owens fans have become minions of the Queer movement. It’d be hilarious if it weren’t so dangerous.

Trans activists have to be guffawing watching faux/pseudo-conservatives divert attention away from the danger the queer movement represents to humanity (especially to children) by blaming Jews for Kirk’s murder instead.

Queers for Palestine suffer from Islamophilia, too, so they’re no doubt ecstatic about this. It’s no accident that pro-Muslim posts often appear in the various Candace Owens groups across the Internet’s social media space as frequently as Kirk conspiracy theories. Birds of a feather.

Candace Owens fans (when not actual devotees of that anti-Western combination moving undercover) are useful idiots for the Red-Green Alliance.

So it is no surprise that Hasan Piker proclaimed after Owens debated Andrew Wilson over whether alleged Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson is the shooter see (I’m Embarrassed for Other People, and Sometimes Stating the Obvious Feels Cruel, but Here Goes), “I’m a fan now.”

Piker commended Owens for casting doubt on who is actually responsible for the killing and thus, in his words, “single-handedly” diminishing the impact that Kirk’s assassination might have had on blunting left-wing extremism.

The Owens cult is a massive betrayal of everything Charlie Kirk stood for.

* * *

Rationally judging the winner of the Andrew Wilson-Candace Owens debate requires a basic understanding of the rules of evidence and inference. Owens fans do not work from reason but from emotions and feelings. They judge those who work from reason based on those standards, not from rational standards. They are Arthur Schopenhauer’s fools.

To understand why people followed Jim Jones or history’s other myriad charismatic figures who captured the attention of the masses, we have to study intelligence and psychology. We find in our studies that the less intelligent operate on feelings. Taking them systematically through the debate and showing how Wilson destroyed Owens in every exchange will usually prove futile.

The debate reaction is thus something of an intelligence test. Reviewing reactions across several social media platforms, it becomes obvious Owens’ followers are incapable of understanding what actually transpired. They cannot see how little she knows about the case because they believe she knows everything—and they know too little to grasp that she doesn’t. Nor can they know that she doesn’t possess the capacity for rational thought. They don’t know enough to know that. And they’re not willing to try.

It doesn’t register as significant that she didn’t know about the message Twiggs sent Robinson telling him to watch for the surveillance camera footage in which he appears. That’s not an insignificant fact. Yet Owens didn’t know it. She demanded a fact-check, not recognizing it would only amplify how little she knows about the facts of the case. For Owens’ followers, the claim that Robinson’s messages were coming from a source other than Robinson doesn’t register as fantastic. They believe that DNA and other evidence are hearsay in a probable cause hearing because Owens told them they are. They know as little as she does. This is why she is their queen.

Owens didn’t even know until recently that thunder is the sound of lightning. She wasn’t even aware that admitting this revealed her incapacity for drawing the simplest of inferences. This incapacity is tied to the intelligence quotient. It explains why she can’t pronounce rather basic words. (See Candace Owens is a Clinically Stupid Person)

I wish it were not true that there are dumb people in the world, but it is, and it is very difficult to get dumb people to understand that they’re dumb.

Charisma is not an indicator of general intelligence. Emotional intelligence and general intellectual ability are distinct phenomena. High emotional intelligence tricks dumb people. Owens has high emotional intelligence. She knows how to manipulate people. She is very good at it. (See Mistaking Our Species Innate Linguistic Capacity for Native Intelligence.)

Owens is the charismatic leader of a cult. She plays her audience like a fiddle because she makes them feel a certain way. She valorizes their shallow thinking by mirroring it. This is why her confidence impresses them—they see themselves in her. Her followers believe she won the debate for the same reason they’re pulled into her universe. If they were critical thinkers to begin with, then they wouldn’t be Owens followers.

The problem of charisma is a perennial problem across human societies. There will always be a proportion in any population that succumbs to the pull of charismatic persons who prey on dumb people. This can lead the rest of us to very dangerous places.

It’s not that Wilson should not have debated Owens. He did a useful thing. Some of those who thought Owens was on to something now see what a fraud she is. And they learned something about how logic works. But those whose eyes were opened are few. Wilson is working the margins. The reaction to the debate is more useful for researching the cult phenomenon. The Owens cult is public in a way that many other cults aren’t. This allowed Wilson to expose a cult leader before millions of people. That made the exercise worthwhile.

Karoline Leavitt is resigning from her post as White House Press Secretary. She says it is to spend more time with her family. TDS sufferers say it is because Trump exposed her to an Iranian assassination plot.

Maggie Haberman and White House spokespeople have stated that Karoline Leavitt was not on the decoy flight out of Turkey. Supposing she was, that would not explain her resignation.

Why haven’t other White House officials on the decoy flight resigned? Marco Rubio (Secretary of State), Scott Bessent (Secretary of the Treasury), Stephen Miller (Deputy Chief of Staff), and several White House staff members were on that flight. Yet they remain loyal to the President.

President Donald Trump was accompanied on the Air Force C-32A flight by Deputy White House Chief of Staff Dan Scavino, Executive Assistant Natalie Harp, Director of Oval Office Operations Walt Nauta, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Does it occur to TDS sufferers that, based on a credible threat that Iran intended to assassinate the President, putting the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Defense on the same plane would involve a monumental lack of judgment by those governing our nation?

The President’s life must be safeguarded above all others. Moreover, since the President was the target of the plot, his presence on board would have exposed others to greater danger. Hegseth is another prime target, so naturally he went with Trump.

This isn’t hard. Leave it to TDS sufferers to see a prudent move as something untoward.