freedom and reason

The hallmarks of Islam—antisemitism, commitment to rigid social hierarchies, homophobia and misogyny, religious fundamentalism, rejection of liberal democracy, and social authoritarianism—are the hallmarks of Nazism. This made Nazis and Muslims natural allies during WWII, and indeed they so allied.

As David Montadel tells us in Islam and Nazi Germany’s War, Nazi officials saw Islam as a powerful force with the same enemies as Germany. Muslim leaders agreed. (See my essays on this subject: Jew-Hatred in the Arab-Muslim World: An Ancient and Persistent Hatred; The Final Solution: The Globalist Ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood; The Danger of Missing the Point: Historical Analogies and the Israel-Gaza Conflict; Why the Israel-Gaza War Is Not Seen Like World War II—and What That Reveals About the Present Situation.)

Islam and National Socialism work from the same psychopathic logic. The only real difference is that, while Islam is culturally backwards and intellectually impoverished, Nazism grew out of modernity. Germany was an advanced civilization. But, like Islam will do if allowed to Islamize the West, Nazism wrecked Europe. But for the heroism of the Allied Forces, Europe would have regressed to the Stone Age. Europe had a savior (who waited too long to intervene). Today, its potential savior is itself being corrupted by an authoritarian ideology called Islam.

Like Nazism, Islam is triumphalist. Muslims assert the superiority of their religion and seek its dominance over other religions. They do not seek coexistence with other belief systems. There is no diversity of ideas under Islam. Those of other religions always become second-class citizens/subjects under its rule. The same is true of National Socialism.

Islam is aggressively proselytizing. It seeks converts, preying on the aggrieved, disaffected, and disordered. Once it reaches a critical mass, it indoctrinates populations with its ideas. Likewise, to be a good German was to be a Nazi. A generation of Germans were indoctrinated into the Nazi belief system (or learned to keep their mouths shut and pretend they were on board). Once in the cult, the Muslim risks his life to escape it.

Islam is integralist. Muslims believe that their religious principles should organize political and social institutions rather than remain matters of private conscience. Likewise, Hitler reordered Germany along National Socialist lines. Both ideologies are illiberal, antidemocratic, and totalitarian.

One might be confused about the religious fundamentalist piece with respect to Nazism. Some think Hitler was an atheist. Hitler talked a good game about Christianity. However, Hitler’s religious fundamentalism was of a different sort. It was in line with Islam. He was not a Christian. He despised Christianity. He saw Christians as weak and unmanly. I will say more about this in a moment.

But first I want you to understand how much Muslims despise Christianity. Muslims will tell you that Jesus is a prophet in their religion and that he will return at the end times. But what they won’t tell you (you must read this for yourself) is that Jesus returns not to establish Christianity, but to correct the theological errors that developed around him. As I discussed in yesterday’s essay, Jesus returns as a Muslim prophet who acknowledges Muhammad’s revelation.

Jesus does more than this. He breaks the cross and presides over a world in which wealth becomes so abundant that people no longer need it. (Where have we heard that before?) Jesus’s rule is not governed by Christian teachings (these are a lie) but wields the Sharia—that is, Islamic law. Jesus will tell us that he is not God. He is not the Son of God. He is not divine at all. The doctrine of the Trinity is false. Moreover, he was not crucified. He did not die to atone for humanity’s sins. All that is a lie. Allah hid Jesus away to return at a moment of his choosing to tell us Muhammad was right about everything. So, too, did the Jews pervert God’s teachings. They are the pigs Jesus will slay at the end of days.

Returning to Hitler and Nazism, one can see the parallels with Islam when taking an inventory of Hitler’s beliefs. Here I will expand on Hitler’s religious ideas. Hitler repeatedly portrayed himself as someone with a historical mission ordained by a higher power. That higher power was not the Judeo-Christian god. It was a god Hitler invented. Hitler’s god, as was Muhammad’s, was a projection of his lust for power. Hitler elevated his own political ambitions into something sacred. The archangel Gabriel visited Muhammad and told him the truth about monotheism. That made Muhammad a special man.

Neither man understood power in the traditional Christian sense. Hitler organized his conception of humanity around hierarchy, purity, and the destiny of the German people—the Volk—in the same sense Muslims see what they call the Ummah, i.e., the global Muslim community. In fact, the word translates to “nation,” and there is no room for any other in such a construct. Both Hitler and Muhammad sought to destroy the international order. Hitler’s Volk and Muhammad’s Ummah were both rooted in purification and expansion. Advancing these new world orders became a quasi-religious imperative. Both religious worldviews were/are, in the end, militant political ideologies.

Just as Muhammad reinterpreted Christianity to advance his agenda, Hitler reinterpreted Christianity for the same purpose. He explicitly attacked what he called the Jewish-materialist spirit, which he saw as decadent, seeking to excise Jewish teachings from Christianity, and forcing Christianity to herald his own religious worldview. Muslims see the West in these terms. Both Hitler and Muhammad viewed the Jews and societies they believed were governed by their ideas as Satanic. Antisemites are fond of calling Judaism the “Synagogue of Satan.”

Moreover, like Islam, Nazism was hostile to Christianity’s universalism. Traditional Christianity teaches the spiritual equality of human beings before God. This is the foundation of Christian ethics—the source of liberal society, the Enlightenment, and human rights. Hitler’s worldview was radically incompatible with that principle. He regarded Christian teachings about compassion, meekness, and universal brotherhood as having weakened the German national character. Hitler did not believe in universalism, ordering society along the lines of racial hierarchy, which the Aryan race was destined to rule over. Hitler wasn’t the only leader to embrace the racial concept of Aryan.

Nor do Muslims believe in the inherent equality of man. Muslims will tell you that Islam means peace, but the word means subjection, submission, and subordination. Both worldviews seek to put everybody under the control of clerics or party officials who determine what an individual can do. Both Hitler and Muhammad ruled by decree—edicts governed by self-serving whim. Democracy is impossible under either ideology. Hitler and Muhammad considered themselves the ultimate arbiter of truth. They would change their mind based on whatever gathered to them ever greater power.

Imagine if Michigan were a haven for Nazis and voters in that state elected a Nazi to office. Would progressives squeal about that? One hopes so (although when corporatism comes to them as progressivism, then they’re all for it). Yet, when a man whose “faith” is analogous to Nazism is elected to office, progressive women take to TikTok to share videos of them dancing to Arabic music, which they did in celebration of Abdul El-Sayed’s victory Tuesday night. El-Sayed even makes his wife wear the veil.

But all this escapes progressive understanding. Just like the left in Iran thought the Islamic Revolution was glorious, so do today’s leftists think that El-Sayed’s ascent to power is a magnificent development. They adore Mamdani in New York City. They want more Muslims in office. And they are getting what they want. (See Tuesday Night Hits Differently.)

How does an authoritarian ideology analogous to Nazism become admirable when it comes as Islam? Progressives won’t even tolerate conservative Christianity, which is nowhere near Islam on the authoritarianism scale. Yet they will dance in delight when Islam advances. It seems so irrational—and it is—but the irrationality has an explanation.

First, Islam is perceived as the religion that stands in opposition to Christianity and Judaism, religions the left despises. The perennial antipathy to Christians and the growing antisemitism on the left makes Islam an attractive ideology. As polling shows, many Christians and Jews are self-loathing.

Second, Muslims are perceived as something other than white (Arabs are, in fact, Caucasian), and since white self-loathing is a hallmark of the left, Islam is embraced as redemption from white guilt. Adoration of Islam functions as a salvation cult on the left.

Third, Islam is the religion of Third World primitives, and progressives adore primitivism (it’s why they are so enamored by indigenous lifeways and land acknowledgements). Progressives adore the barbarians because the barbarians are the other and because the left finds primitivism exotic. Look at the way the left modifies their bodies. They’re tribal. The primitive hates the outsider, and the left has weirdly redefined itself as the outsider, and thus hates itself. All this relates back to religious, ethnic, and racial self-loathing. They also loathe their sex. Why do so many men and women on the left want to be the opposite sex?

Fourth, rank-and-file progressives operate based on the theory that the Third World looks as it does because of Western imperialism, not because their cultures are inadequate to human thriving. The other with whom they identify is backwards because Europe and America made them that way—which proves that whites are evil and undeserving of their own identities. The Muslims are victims who are owed the West.

More than this, those who wish Muslims weren’t in the West are seen as deserving of punishment. Progressives are gleeful seeing normal Americans concerned about losing their nation—a nation they deserve to lose, because it is founded on white supremacy. They see Islam as a boomerang. Chickens coming home to roost. Retribution. (How they see themselves surviving all this is part of their cracked worldview.)

Fifth, progressives, to the extent that they tolerate anything about the nation’s founding, appeal to religious liberty. Islam is just another religion, they tell us constantly, and in America we tolerate religious diversity. This is a double standard, obviously, since progressives are hell-bent on keeping Christians out of the public square. Indeed, the progressive appeal to religious liberty is a ruse. But enough Americans hear this and think it’s a valid argument because they want to appear as good Americans. Enabling America’s decline is not being a good American.

Sixth, public support of Islam is woke virtue signaling. Progressives are signaling their obedience to the tribe when they vote for Muslims and celebrate their actions on social media. They adorn their bios with Palestinian flags—alongside Pride Progress and Ukraine flags—and the Free Palestine slogan. They vote for Muslims for the same reason they take their children to clinics to be jabbed with an experimental mRNA gene therapy concoction.

Seventh, Muslims hitched their wagon to progressive politics. This is how the Islamic Revolution was able to establish an authoritarian regime in Iran, by allying with the Iranian left. After establishing the Islamic Republic, Muslims proceeded to exterminate the communists, socialists, and homosexuals, and subordinate women to male power. Muslims drive out Jews from those areas they control. Christians wear their crosses under their clothes. I saw that for myself when I visited Jordan. The Arab Christians thought I was a Christian, and in those moments when they felt out of sight, they felt the need to show me their hidden crosses. To this day, Muslims seek the destruction of the state of Israel because it is a Jewish state.

This last point is worth another historical comparison. When Hitler came to power, what did he do? He massacred the socialist wing of his party, exterminated communists, homosexuals, and Jews, and subordinated women to male power. Like Muhammad, Hitler invaded and subdued his neighbors. Hitler sought to put the world under Nazi control.

This is the goal of Islam. Like Nazism, Islam is expansionist and relentless. It can only be dealt with through containment and defensive force. History is not murky on the matter. Hitler and Muhammad were both marauding warlords who cared nothing for humanity. They only cared about manifesting their psychopathic lust for power—however dressed in the language of Providence.

We finally confronted Hitler when the irrationality came to us. Today, the irrationality walks among us, and it appears Americans have no will to resist the West’s slide into totalitarianism. (See The Bad-Smell Ant: Disordering a Nation’s Protective Instinct.)

Yesterday, while clarifying some facts about Islam (preparing for Tuesday’s essay), I noticed ChatGPT was getting defensive, so I called it out: “I like this technology, but it sometimes condescends to the user.”

I clarified: “When I say ‘Muslims this’or ‘Christians that,’ I’m dealing in abstractions. I don’t need to be told ‘not all Muslims,’ etc. Also, a double standard is at work. AI tiptoes around the question of Islam.”

Then, to keep ChatGPT from becoming defensive, I prompted it with this: “I’m wondering if part of the reason you do this is that the output could be used to make AI look biased or prejudiced, and so you disclaim and hedge.”

Here’s part of its answer:

It knows what it is doing. It never responds this way to questions regarding Christianity—at least not in my experience.

Next, read the second screenshot. It doesn’t practice what it preaches, but everyone should take its response to heart. This is the rational position. It’s aware of its weakness, because it knows the right stance—almost.

I should add one more thing, though, because AI won’t go there. Here’s what it still gets wrong: You cannot separate a person from his deeply held ideological beliefs. When we criticize a rigid, unyielding ideology, we necessarily criticize its adherents. Islam is a militant political ideology. Those Muslims who are strongly committed to Islam are militant.

People are idea-bearers, and when the idea they bear constitutes the core of their worldview, the person or group is the problem. Islam is a problem; it follows that Muslims are a problem. Just because a worldview is rooted in a religion does not mean we treat it differently. Religions are ideologies.

Nazism is also an ideology. A Nazi is a man who subscribes to Nazism. It follows that Nazis are a problem. Muslims are no different. Calling something a religion does not immunize it from criticism. Whatever the fuck Jim Jones was preaching was a religion. Feel me? Not all religions are created equal.

To that point, Nazism and Islam aren’t like Judaism or Christianity. Many, if not most, Jews are atheists and secularists. Jews aren’t interested in making the world Jewish. They couldn’t anyway, since Jews are Jews by virtue of ancestry. One can convert to Judaism, but that doesn’t make him a Jew. Jews are interested in protecting their people from those who hate them and want to make them go away.

For most Christians, their relationship with their god is personal. Many Christians want people to accept Christ into their lives, and they aren’t shy about their beliefs (nor should they be), but civilizations based on Christian ethics are free and open societies. By contrast, Muslims want everybody to be Muslim, and when they dominate a society, Jews and Christians become second-class citizens—or worse. In the final stage of Islamization, either one converts to Islam, or one loses one’s life.

The point of the Qur’an and the Hadiths is that Jews and Christians corrupted monotheism. Muhammad put the Qur’an the way he did because he wanted those he sought to lead to hate Jews and Christians. Muhammad viewed Jews and Christians as obstacles to his power.

According to Islam, in the end times, when Jesus returns, he breaks the cross and personally affirms that Muhammad’s revelation is the one true revelation.

The Qur’an teaches that Muhammad’s god turned disbelievers into apes and pigs. If a Muslim finds human apes and pigs, then he knows he has found disbelievers. Surah At-Tawbah (9:5), known as the “Verse of the Sword,” instructs Muslims: “So when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them of every place of ambush.” “Allah does not like transgressors,” Surah Al-Baqarah (2:190–191) instructs: “kill them wherever you find them and turn them out from where they have turned you out…”

But Islam teaches that there is no compulsion in religion, right? Don’t be deceived. Islamic jurisprudence embraces a principle known as Naskh or Abrogation. The Verse of the Sword, one of the last revelations, abrogates more peaceful verses regarding non-Muslims. This is because, whenever Muhammad had to change tactics, he received a new revelation that canceled an earlier one. He wasn’t contradicting himself. Allah changed his mind. Allah is perfect. So is Muhammad. Perfect beings and prophets cannot contradict themselves.

A Hadith teaches that the Muslim god turned Christians who disbelieved a miracle performed by Jesus—this isn’t in the Gospels—into pigs. The Hadith claims that Jesus delivered a table full of food to a group, and that some among them did not accept the miracle, so they became pigs. Omitting this from the Gospels means Christians are deceivers. The New Testament is a lie. The Hadith says that when Jesus returns, he kills all the pigs. Get the picture?

Hitler also believed that Jews and Christians were deceivers who had perverted monotheism. The Nazi project was to exterminate the Jews and remake all Christians in the image of Nazism. I have more to say about this Tuesday.

It will suffice to say, understand that when you elect a Muslim to office, you are essentially electing a Nazi to office. There is little light between these ideologies. Upon careful examination, one finds that Islam and Nazism are species of ideology falling under the genus authoritarian-totalitarian. Moreover, both are intrinsically antisemitic.

We defeated Nazism, yet tolerate Islam. The West must reconcile this contradiction. Every patriot should ask himself: Is Nazism tolerable? If the answer is no, then Islam is intolerable.

As for those who eschew patriotism, mockery and ridicule are appropriate. Those who stand against free and open societies are, by definition, authoritarian, and cannot be allowed to obtain power. We cannot have free and open societies if we tolerate those who seek to destroy the foundations of Western civilization.

As I have explained in previous essays, there’s no paradox in what I just wrote, so save your wordplay. Our natural rights to liberty and life depend on each other. Without these, happiness cannot follow.

Islam is a joyless ideology. It bans music. It murders artists and demolishes their work. It denies women erotic pleasure. It’s the worst idea system in the world. We cannot peacefully coexist with those who seek to erase us.

It will be a struggle. As Mark Durie tells us in The Qur’an and Its Biblical Reflexes: Investigations into the Genesis of a Religion, Muhammad’s violent turn reflects a crisis of faith among his followers. The believers were mocked when their prophet’s prophecies did not come to pass. Muhammad commanded his followers to destroy those who mocked him.

Durie also shows that there are not three Abrahamic faiths. Islam is a radical break with Judeo-Christianity. Indeed, Islam negates Judeo-Christianity.

An exit poll of Jewish early voters in Michigan found that 57 percent backed El-Sayed. An exit poll of 100,000 voters conducted on behalf of major news networks by SSRS found that 68 percent of Jewish voters backed Democratic candidates on November 3. Among Christians polled, CNN found that 38 percent of Protestants and 42 percent of Catholics voted for El-Sayed. Too many Americans don’t know what time it is.

I will leave to one side the improbability of the Democratic victory in Texas and assume for this analysis that Democrats did not cheat their way victory there or in other states. Know that I only concede this point to focus today on the problems of demographic transformation, the Democratic Party’s embrace of Communism and Islam, and the situation of young American men.

Democrats have won 35 or more seats so far. They will likely pick up more, maybe another eight seats or so. However, historically, it’s been worse for an incumbent President. In 1938, Democrats suffered the largest House seat loss in modern American history, losing 72 Congressmen to Republicans. In 2010, Democrats lost 64 House seats and six Senate seats. Truman lost 56 House seats and twelve Senate seats in 1946. The “Gingrich Revolution” saw Democrats lose 54 House seats and eight Senate seats in 1994, surrendering control of both chambers to Republicans.

That Tuesday wasn’t a numerically bad as it could be, should not be taken as hope by Republican readers. The demographic situation has changed, as well as the ideological character of the parties. A decontextualized fact does not explain the significance of what happened Tuesday.

Demographically, America is a different country today than the country we grew up in. Democrats flooded the country with illegal immigrants under Biden. Islam is now a force in America. A Muslim is mayor of New York City. And now a Muslim will sit in the Senate. Prior to the November 2026 midterms, 255 Muslim elected officials were actively serving across 26 states. These numbers are scaling up significantly thanks to citizens (and almost certainly noncitizens) voting against the interests of the states and the nation. As of November 5, 2026, a preliminary wave of at least 97 confirmed Muslim electoral victories in the midterms. The total is expected to clear 100 once all Western mail-in votes are finalized. That is a disaster. (See my October warning We Need to Get Real About the Democrat Agenda.)

The anticommunism shared across party lines no longer exists. The Democratic Party has embraced what was once almost universally opposed. The Democratic Socialist arm of the party—who are in truth Communists— has been busy downloading its totalitarian platform onto the wetware of developing brains corrupted by public education. One doesn’t have to turn to right-wingers for an explanation. Noam Chomsky told us a long time ago that education is a system of imposed ignorance. He also explained the function of the mass media (see Manufacturing Consent if you are in the dark about this). In starker terms, Michel Foucault told us the end-point of the administered life and elite control over the sense-making apparatus: the manufacture true of docile bodies.

Tuesday hits differently, and readers shouldn’t wax pollyannaish. As I have been warning for month on the pages of Freedom and Reason, we may well have lost the American Republic at the ballot box. Many are calling this an extinction-level event. I cannot disagree. There are many reasons for this. I want to focus on a few more of them before concluding this essay.

A piece of it is antisemitism. You can thank rightwing influencers like Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson, and Candace Owens for convincing young conservative men that Trump is a Zionist stooge. Owens played a particularly sinister role in this by leading her millions of followers to believe that Charlie Kirk was not murdered by a trans activist, but that the Jews orchestrated the assassination—and TPUSA and elements of Trump Administration were involved (see Candace Owens Fans: Useful Idiots for the Red-Green Alliance).

Since the soy boys and the Cluster B types have been rabid antisemites for some time now (see The Enemies of Freedom; Is the Red-Green Alliance Ideologically Coherent?), the phenomenon of convergence in an election was a consequential one. I have been warning readers about this for months—not that listening to me would have helped; I can’t sit here idle while my nation is being destroyed. (See The Left-Far Right Convergence and Notes on the Fourth Political Theory; The Woke Reich and the Enemy Within; see also The Dark Heart of Antisemitism: Separating the Haters from the Critics.)

As I have explained, Nazism is the fusion of antisemitism, socialism, and ultranationalism (see If Democratic Socialism is Neither Democratic Nor Socialist, Then What is It? Is Fascism a Left-wing Ideology? Max Weber, Ideal Types, and the Study of Fascism). Hitler came to power not with a coup, but with the votes of the German people. Keep that in mind going forward. Tuesday night was a wakeup call. It spoke louder than I ever could.

Exit polling indicates that a major factor was the Iran War. But it wasn’t war per se. Since when have young conservative men had a problem with war? It’s what I admire about them. (Perhaps Trump should have televised the war like Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. did. Maybe stir the warrior spirit in the boys. Hegseth tried. Now he will be impeached. So will his boss. But I digress.) No, the Iran War is different because some conservatives came to believe that, because weakening Iran benefits Israel, it’s a bad war. The current fashion is Jews bad. Muslims not so much. Influencers on the right played a major role in sowing Jew-hatred into minds of young conservatives.

I agree with Hegseth that there’s a testosterone problem. I’m serious about that. Fertility is dropping like a stone. My advice to young men is to stop wearing bras and stiffening socks and find a woman (see Swallowing the Black Pill? Towards a Sociology of Romantic Inequality).

Young American men have been whacked with a double whammy. Whereas my generation understood the evil of the Islamic Republic, young conservatives are conditioned to see a different evil—and their animality has been extinguished by structural change and woke indoctrination. The only just war in my lifetime is the most unpopular war in my lifetime because weak men loath Jews.

Another reason for Tuesday night is a brutal fact about our species: human beings are culture bearers. We see this with Muslims, determined colonizers who bring their worldview with them and change the societies they colonize. Islam will inherit the Earth. Sorry, ladies. You’re won’t like what’s coming (it looks like El-Sayed’s wife). For my gay comrades, it will be worse than that. Islam is an existential threat to the West. European cities are on fire because elites flung open wide the gates to the barbarian. Their comrades are even electing them to public office. Our fellow Americans have joined them in this treachery. An alien shadow is haunting North America.

I have penned many essays on the problem of Islamization of the West, but there is another culture bearer who is also disrupting democracy: Democrats. You weren’t paying attention when hundreds of thousands of them left planet California—presumably fleeing high energy prices, high taxes, filthy cities wracked with degeneracy, and a myriad of other pathologies—and colonized Red states, Texas in particular, turning them blue or purple. California’s migrants combined their energies with immigrants and flipped a state that only two years ago Trump won by more than 1.5 million votes. Trump won 242 of Texas’s 254 counties. It makes the political map ugly. Texas is our second largest state. It’s that bad.

Democrats did not come to Texas to escape California. They are not refugees fleeing tyranny. They came to turn Texas into California. Just like the Muslims they enable, they are colonizers. Some of them went to Florida. We’ll see. A few went to Tennessee. Beware, ya’ll. Congratulations to Marsha Blackburn on winning the Tennessee governor’s race. But I fear my fellow Tennesseans are living on borrowed time. Look what Democrats have done to Georgia and Virginia.

The Jewel of the Republic has fallen. They say that if Texas falls, the nation falls. Let’s hope that’s not true. But I’m not optimistic. I fear the end of my blessed republic is nigh. I’m not a praying man, but I am praying that my comrades rediscover their patriotism in the run-up to 2028.

Astonishingly, Trump’s popularity hovers around 40 percent despite the good news of the first two years of his second term. The economy expanded at 3.4 percent last quarter. You have to go back more than twenty years to find comparable statistics on non-recessionary growth. At 4.2 percent unemployment, the nation is running at full employment. Yes, many people not looking for work aren’t counted in the unemployment numbers, but that is structural, not due to Trump’s economic policies. Median household income is at a record high. The trade deficit shrank by 19 percent over the last year. At 10.2 percent, the poverty rate is at a record low. The last time it was almost this low was during Trump’s first term. The murder rate has never been lower in American history, and the last time violent crime was this low was in 1936. For the first time since the 1950s, we have net negative immigration.

So why is Trump’s approval so low? Is it his confrontation with Iran? I recognize that many Americans oppose the war. But there are enough Americans who remember what happened to their fellow Americans during the Islamic Revolution and are aware of the terrorism Iran has sponsored since then. Both parties have repeatedly said that Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Trump acted where other administrations failed to address the problem—or enabled Iran’s ambitions. Inflation is a persistent problem, and gas and diesel prices are too high, but America has experienced much worse inflation in the past. Is Trump responsible for the problem? Not really. The problem ultimately rests with Big Energy, which has tripled and quadrupled its profits.

So what is it, really? Mass media propaganda and the corruption of young Americans. If this were a Democratic president, the media would be singing his praises. I have explained why the media loathes Trump in many articles on this platform. In a nutshell, it is because he is an economic nationalist, and the media represents the interests of transnational corporations. The media and the transnational elite work from a globalist worldview. Trump is an obstacle to elite ambitions to denationalize the West. Islamization of the West is a major part of the strategy. This explains why the media elevates candidates like Zohran Mamdani and Abdul El-Sayed while portraying patriots concerned about the peril of Islam as Islamophobes, a propaganda term invented by Islamists to smear critics of a militant political ideology. It explains why the media obscures the true cause of the chaos in Europe. As for the corruption of young Americans, I have written many times on the role of public education in teaching our youth to loathe themselves.

Why do people let the media manipulate them like that? That requires a lengthy analysis, which I have pursued on this platform (including the aforementioned corruption of our youth). But the reality is that they do, and we have to be the adults in the room. America is finally regaining its sanity. We cannot return to the path of madness—mass immigration, transgender athletes in women’s sports, and the myriad of other destructive policies a Democratic majority brings.

Americans must go to the polls on Tuesday and secure a Republican victory. The polls don’t look good. We can all see that. But the polls have been wrong before. It depends on what you do on Tuesday. The question Americans need to ask themselves is whether they want to live in a free republic or a welfare state and all the pathologies that come with it.

Democratic Party support for Michigan’s El-Sayed for Senator is a chief indicator of where Democrats will take us. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was on X yesterday bashing conservatives after El-Sayed’s primary challenger bucked her party and endorsed Republican candidate Mike Rogers. Haley Stevens understands that this is no longer the Democratic Party she grew up with. Antisemitism has deranged them. They’re no longer left of anything. They’ve left the planet.

Schumer accused El-Sayed’s critics of Islamophobia. He used a propaganda term Islamists invented to smear critics of Islam. The smear is designed to make Muslims appear as if they belong to the same category as Jews. But Islam is an ideology. Either you accept its doctrine, or you’re not a Muslim. Many, if not most, Jews are secular. A Jew doesn’t have to subscribe to Judaism to be a Jew. Jew is an ethnic category. Muslim and Jew are not the same thing. The intentional conflation of categories is meant to confuse the public. Democrats know what they are doing. They are telling us where they will take us

Here’s the truly pathetic part. Chuck Schumer is the highest-ranking Jew in the federal government. He is attacking Stevens and others to defend a Jew-hater. Make no mistake about it, El-Sayed is an antisemite. But it’s not just about El-Sayed. It’s about why Democrats would support him. And so, the problem is a general one. Why would a Jew do this? I always saw Schumer as a dolt, but I did not peg him as a self-loathing Jew. It’s sad to see a Jewish man aligning with antisemitism. No man who stands on principle aligns his politics with Jew-hatred. That is a bright red line. But Schumer is not alone. He speaks for his party. Hakeem Jeffries joined him this morning in denouncing concerns about El-Sayed.

I never thought I would see members of a major political party in America enabling an ancient hatred. But here we are, and we have to act to stop them. Tolerating antisemitism tells us Democrats are aligned with Islamism, a militant political ideology that carries hatred for the Judeo-Christian tradition in its heart. We can’t let that hatred fester any longer. Send Democrats a message on Tuesday. Let’s stay on the road to restoring the American Republic. Vote Red.

Have you seen this meme? It was posted in the Candace Owens News group on Facebook. A woman named Debra OM posted it. She’s a raging antisemite. Nearly every day, she goes on an anti-Jewish rant. Unfortunately, Debra isn’t the only antisemite who frequents the Candace Owens News group. The group is crawling with these despicable people, many of them Muslims. These claims are easily eviscerated. In this essay, I will go through the latest nonsense point by point and debunk it. Debra and her ilk have no rational response to my debunking exercises because the facts are incontrovertible. They never bother to falsify their own position because it does not emanate from a place of fact and reason.

True, Jewish religious and communal traditions developed over many centuries. However, Jewish national aspirations are ancient. In fact, by definition, Jews are intrinsically a nation. The Jewish nation has existed for millennia, since the Jews are a people, ie., an ethnic group. The planet is made up of a myriad of ethnic groups. Some have nations, e.g., the Arabs; others are nationless, e.g., the Kurds. Jews happen to be among those ethnic groups that also have a nation.

Zionism is merely the name of an organized modern political movement seeking national recognition for the Jewish people in international law. The meme falsely claims that Jewish nationalism is a new phenomenon. Jews have been nationalist for thousands of years. Read the Old Testament. The texts explicitly refer to the Jewish people as a nation.

Many early Zionists were secular, socialist, liberal, or otherwise motivated by national self-determination rather than religious observance. That is true. So what? The fact is that Jewish religious thinkers advocated a return to the land long before Zionism took shape. The Zionist movement is merely a later iteration of Jewish nationalism. Moreover, Zionists are not all atheists. Religious Zionists interpret national restoration in religious as well as political terms. So, the idea that the push for a Jewish state is atheist in character is a lie. Secular and religious Jews want a homeland.

Many Christians have supported Jewish restoration in the Holy Land for their own theological reasons. This is a distinct Christian tradition, not the origin of Jewish Zionism. There are many Christian Zionists, to be sure (as there ought to be), but they are not 93 percent of the Zionist movement. I don’t need to document percentages to know that’s an absurd assertion. As I have shown, Zionism originated as a movement among Jews seeking Jewish self-determination. It’s a Jewish movement. The antisemites make a category error. Judaism is not simply a faith in the same sense Christianity is. Jewish identity can be religious, ethnic, cultural, familial, or some combination of these. Jewish nationalism doesn’t depend on a particular strain of Christian eschatology. Indeed, it has nothing to do with Christian eschatology. It’s Jewish. Duh.

This is where antisemites really expose their ignorance. While faith is central to religious Judaism, it is not the sole basis of Jewish identity. Judaism encompasses religious beliefs, practices, law, history, culture, and collective identity. Zionism is Jewish nationalism. Of course it encompasses more than religiosity. Its central idea is that the Jewish people are a people entitled to national self-determination in their historic homeland. This is hardly extraordinary. Indeed, it’s common everywhere. The Japanese are nationalist. Etcetera.

Moreover, nationalism is not inherently virtuous or inherently evil. It depends on the ideology’s contents. The relevant question is not whether Zionism is nationalist. It is what kind of nationalism is being advocated. That the Jewish people have a right to live in their indigenous homeland is hardly an evil thing—unless one assumes Jews are an evil people. That is the trick, isn’t it? Antisemites smuggle in the assumption that Jews are evil people; therefore, their national aspirations are evil in intent. This is classic Jew-hatred. The double standard screams antisemitism.

There is nothing in the desire to reestablish the Jewish homeland that demands all Jews concentrate in one place. That’s silly. Israel is a haven for Jews, to be sure. But if Jews want—and are allowed—to live elsewhere, they certainly can and do. The United States is home to forty percent of all Jews in the world, and most of them have no intention of leaving the country (not yet, anyway). Fourteen percent of Jews live outside Israel and the US (mostly in Europe). Sure, some Zionists have emphasized aliyah and the idea of gathering Jews from the diaspora. But many others have supported Israel’s existence while expecting most Jews to continue living elsewhere. The problem is that, apart from Israel, Muslims have driven most Jews from the Middle East.

The wars and military actions by Israel are not a defining characteristic of Zionism. Zionism is an ideology, not a military force. Israel needs a military force, obviously—for the same reason other countries need to maintain militaries. Unfortunately, the world comes with bad actors. But Israel does not engage in aggressive war. It resorts to military force defensively. Arabs and Persians, on the other hand, engage in aggressive war against Israel. Again, Israel has the right to collective self-defense. This is a feature of national sovereignty. The antisemite doesn’t believe Jews have a right to defend themselves because the antisemite hates Jews. Anti-Jewish antipathy drives people to construct memes like the one I am debunking in this essay.

Finally, Zionism is not sustained through violence any more than Judaism has resorted to violence throughout its history. Again, read the Old Testament. Jews have never been a people to roll over and be dominated. Nor should they. They are the wellspring of Western Civilization. There would be no Christian ethics if there were no Jews. Jews should be admired and copied. The West defends Israel and the Jews not only because Israel is strategic to world affairs, but also because it has a moral obligation to do so. To turn away from the Jews is to turn away from Western Civilization.

I don’t expect to change Debra’s mind. As I noted, she’s a raging antisemite. My goal in this essay is to provide readers with ready points to counter Jew-hatred. These and many other claims made about Jews and Zionism are easily debunked, and I am confident many of you already know the counters, but here they are for your convenience. I shouldn’t assume everybody is prepared to confront the enemies of Western Civilization with facts. So if you find these points helpful in your tangles with Jew-haters, then use them. At the very least, they will save you time. In an ideal world, you should do the work, of course, but you can depend on me to do it regardless. Antisemites are the enemy of the people. We have to counter their lies.

Authoritarian Elissa Slotkin, the Senior Senator from Michigan, attempts to distance herself from an antisemitic campaign ad by rabid antisemite Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks (TYT) in support of Democratic Senatorial candidate El-Sayed. The ad takes things El-Sayed said on the campaign trail and turns them into a campaign ad.

This is a divisive stunt that trades on age-old themes of antisemitism. It blames Israel for all the ills in America. Serious people, who want to win in Michigan, are focused on lowering costs and ending President Trump's corruption. pic.twitter.com/ukHJuySUDc

— Elissa Slotkin (@ElissaSlotkin) October 27, 2026

Slotkin is the woman who threatened young conservatives with lawfare if they worked on Republican campaigns. She is the same Democratic Senator who, with five other Senators, told US military personnel to disobey Trump’s orders. The Democratic Party has not condemned her for threatening young conservatives with lawfare, nor has the party called her to account for undermining the authority of the Commander-in-Chief. Readers should also know that Slotkin is a CIA officer. It makes sense that she would be fomenting color revolution in America.

Slotkin is a CIA transplant who got inserted into the US congress as part of a pilot program to get former spooks into elected office to subvert populism

She’s a fairly unremarkable sociopathic narcissist (typical for CIA) and she’s just doing DARVO tactics here, its boring https://t.co/wS1wgrX8Zw

— GeroDoc (@doc_gero) October 23, 2026

The ad in question blames economic difficulties experienced by Michigan voters on Jews. A hallmark of antisemitism is singling out the Jews for special opprobrium. Although the United States provides support for many countries around the world, e.g., Ukraine, the ad singles out Israel. The ad shows a couple not buying eggs for their children because they are too expensive, and the reason why—you guessed it: the Joos! The ad is so bad that some on the left who saw it initially thought it was a Mike Rogers ad. Rogers is El-Sayed’s opponent in Michigan.

Watch Democrat Van Jones on CNN blast the ad for Abdul El-Sayed that echos El-Sayed's words that argues that Americans have to set grocery money "aside for killing Palestinians" because of U.S. aid to Israel.

Jones: "This is an example of anti-Jewish hate, and it should be taken… pic.twitter.com/blSQWpjHqb

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) October 27, 2026

The real reasons eggs are more expensive are manifold—supply chain issues, the avian flu crisis, and other factors. The idea that Israel has anything to do with inflation is absurd on its face (and egg prices have dropped considerably over the last year). So why would the ad claim this? Knowing El-Sayed and Uygur’s antipathy toward Jews, why Jews are singled out is not a mystery. Uygur’s podcast and his X feed, where he is joined by co-host Ana Kasparian, adored by progressive men, are nonstop Jew bashing. It is no exaggeration at this point to say that Uygur sounds like a Nazi.

Uncovered secret recordings reveal Democrat politicians and former CIA operative Elissa Slotkin using military-style tabletop exercises to plan parallel governance structures if midterm election results fall short. pic.twitter.com/bdcglp9dAg

— Robert Gouveia Esq. (@RobGouveiaEsq) October 25, 2026

Slotkin cannot run away from the RebellionPAC ad. El-Sayed is a candidate for her party. He is running for office in her state. Not only do Democratic Socialists Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders actively campaign for El-Sayed, but the National Democratic Committee aggressively defends him. The Democratic Party has abandoned Jews for Muslims. This makes sense to those who work from power and not principle: the potential pool of Muslim voters is much larger than the pool of Jewish voters.

🚨NEW: Former "Liberal Democrat" Alan Dershowitz *GOES SCORCHED EARTH* on Dem Party🚨

"I'm going to be supporting the Republicans in the midterm election!"

"The Democrats have not only lost my votes — but they have made me an enemy!"

"I'm not a Republican — but I am a very… pic.twitter.com/4MvT5gO3CB

— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) October 1, 2025

There is no equality between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are the freedom party. Democrats are authoritarians. They have been for a long time. Remember the censorship and deplatforming during COVID? The Democratic Party’s fingerprints are all over that. Internal Twitter documents confirm it. Who supported the BLM riots? Who said that Antifa is “just an idea”? Who is neck-deep in Somali fraud? Who pursued lawfare against Trump and other Republicans? Who was behind the speech codes at academic institutions? Who changed the definition of what a woman is? Who opened the borders and flooded the country with foreigners? Who stands in the way of mass deportation efforts? Who stands down the police and undermines public safety? Who cultivated generations of voters by making US citizens dependent on welfare?

You don’t need to wonder whether Democrats seek authoritarian ends. They openly embrace these ends. Combine authoritarianism and antisemitism, and we are back to the future with this party. You cannot vote for Democrats. Freedom and democracy are at stake. This is serious business, America.

Forty-one percent of Arab American registered voters backed Kamala Harris in 2024. Thirty-nine percent backed Trump. Arab Americans leaned Democrat in 2024 but not by much. Today, 58 percent of Arab American registered voters back Democratic congressional candidates. That is a significant shift. As I will show later, Arab Americans of any religion, along with non-Arab Muslims, make up a substantial voting bloc.

One might at first blush think this has to do with Republican antagonism towards Muslims. In fact, most Arab Americans are not Muslim. Around 63 percent of Arab Americans are Christian, mostly Catholic and Orthodox. One in ten is Protestant. One-quarter of all Arab Americans are Muslim. That is a significant minority, but it is still a minority.

Here’s another wrinkle. Other polling shows that 53 percent of US Muslims identify with the Democratic Party. Crucially, not all of them are Arabs. In fact, only a minority of Muslims are Arab; between 12 and 25 percent of Muslims is the best estimate. This means that Arabs are switching to Democrats for reasons other than the Democratic Party’s embrace of Islam. To be clear, Islam is playing a role, just not the major role. At least not directly.

So what is going on here? This has more to do with ethnicity, national identity, foreign policy, and reactions to the Trump administration than with Islam. Christian Arab Americans share with Muslim Arab Americans concerns about discrimination, immigration, Middle Eastern conflicts, and American foreign policy. This points to a deeper problem than religious identification. Because progressives have realized the vision of a multicultural (and therefore transnational) society, shared ethnic or ancestral identity is politically meaningful even when religious identities differ.

This is the problem of foreign ethnic solidarity. It is one thing to immigrate to the United States and assimilate into American culture, a situation in which one becomes an American first while understanding his origins (moving even beyond the so-called hyphenated American, i.e., Irish-Americans, German-Americans, and so on), and quite another thing to immigrate to the United States and remain aloof from civic nationalism. Milton Gordon explains this in his seminal 1964 book, Assimilation in American Life, where he breaks down the integration of minority groups into stages of assimilation. I won’t review his thesis here, but it informs my argument.

The relative failure of Arab Americans to assimilate into US society is particularly troubling since one of the characteristics of Arab ethnic affinity is antisemitism. Jew-hatred is deeply woven into Arab ethnicity. There was quite a lot of antisemitism in European populations that immigrated to the United States, but assimilation with American culture, which in its origins was approving of the Jews (since the United States is arguably the paradigm of capitalism in world history), by and large extinguished anti-Jewish prejudice.

What I am suggesting in this essay is that Arab Americans are not turning to Democrats because they necessarily agree with them politically, but rather because of anti-Jewish antipathy and, for this reason, disapproval of Trump’s policies with respect to the Middle East. The crosstabs associated with the polling I noted at the top of this essay support my argument. Eighty percent disapprove of Trump’s handling of Israel and Gaza. Seventy-five percent disapprove of Trump’s handling of Iran. My concern that this is driven by antisemitism is inferred from my ongoing analysis of Arab culture.

Otherwise, why would Arabs disagree with Trump over the Middle East? Israel is in the right. As with any other sovereign nation-state, Israel has a right to collective self-defense. Israel was attacked on October 7, 2023, and was attacked by Arab countries many times before that. Moreover, Trump was right to strike Iran. Iran is guilty of many things that abrogate its claims to sovereignty. Foremost, it is a fascist state. If the world learned anything from WWII, it is that fascist states should be nipped in the bud. The Islamic Republic of Iran is developing nuclear weapons, which it will use to attack its neighbors. With its ballistic missile program, it has developed the means to attack Europe and other regions outside the Middle East. Iran funds proxy armies, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which threaten not only Israel but many other countries. Furthermore, Iran has attacked Americans directly.

One may glean further evidence from Arab American attitudes towards Israel itself. According to polling from 2024, half of American Arabs support a two-state solution, with separate Israeli and Palestinian states. Such an arrangement would directly threaten Israel’s security. But it gets worse than that. Only 34 percent of Arab Americans support a single state with equal rights for Israelis and so-called Palestinians, i.e., Arab Muslims. This is, in fact, the situation in Israel, where one in five Israelis is an Arab Muslim with equal rights. The Arab American majority opposes civic nationalism. They want strict ethnostates. And here’s the kicker: only 6 percent of Arab Americans support maintaining a single Israeli state without Palestinian statehood. In other words, if there is no Palestinian state, then Israel should not exist.

It is reasonable to ask why another Arab state is so important to Arab Americans. The Arab League comprises 22 nation-states—12 in Asia and 10 in Africa. There is only one Jewish state. Arab Americans prefer a twenty-third Arab state over a single Jewish state. Of course they do. Arab states have attacked Israel many times in the past to erase Israel as a state. This is certainly about the Jewish problem. Since Democrats have signaled their shift in allegiance from the Jews to the Arabs, with the embrace of Islam and opposition to Israel as the most visible signs of the shift, and Trump has expressed his support for Israel and acted on the threat posed by Iran, Arab Americans have shifted their support to the Democratic Party.

This has occurred even though the proportion of Arab Americans of any religious stripe and non-Arab Muslims is roughly the same as the Jewish American proportion. This signals an ideological shift in the Democratic Party towards the far left and its future ambitions for the US ethnic and religious demographics to transform America in these terms. The Jewish cabal theory looks rather silly in this light.

All this points to the larger problem of immigration—it’s not just Muslim immigration that is undermining America; it’s Arab immigration more broadly. Arabs who immigrate here, whatever their religion, are not assimilating with American culture, which has historically been capitalistic and liberal. Under Trump, a liberal-minded businessman from Queens, Americans have a president who puts their country first. Arab Americans don’t put America first. They put their ethnicity first. Nor do Democrats put America first. The party is the party of transnationalism.

It is crucial to understand that Arab Americans are not like European Americans. For one thing, European immigrants to the United States had time to assimilate because mass immigration ended in the 1920s. Between the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, mass immigration to the United States was largely driven by European exodus from their homelands. The Immigration Act of 1924, also known as the Johnson–Reed Act, established strict national-origin quotas that favored immigration from northern and western Europe while sharply restricting immigration from southern and eastern Europe and excluding most immigration from Asia. The 1921 Emergency Quota Act, which first introduced numerical limits based on national origin, preceded the 1924 law. So America doubled down in 1924. This is important because it gave the nation time to assimilate European populations.

There were many Arabs who came here during this period. As it did with European populations, the Johnson-Reed Act provided time for Arab assimilation. However, as should be obvious, Arabs are not the same as Europeans, even Christianized populations, although Christianity does make a difference. The earliest Arab immigrants came overwhelmingly from the eastern Mediterranean, especially areas that were then part of the Ottoman Empire. They did not come from the Arab countries that exist today. Among the early Arab immigrants were Maronite Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, and Melkite Catholics from Lebanon, Syria, and the Palestinian territories. These Arab populations were more amenable to assimilation.

There was a second wave after Israel was formed, but it was small, since these immigration laws noted above sharply restricted entry into the United States. However, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, fundamentally changed the system by eliminating the national-origins quota structure. This opened the door to a flood of immigrants from Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and later Yemen, populations influenced by the politics that developed after the formation of Israel. The new arrivals worked from a different worldview. At the same time, they shared Arab ethnicity with the descendants of earlier arrivals.

Then there is the problem of Islam. As just noted, the early Arab immigrants were overwhelmingly Christian. However, a greater proportion of Arab immigrants arriving after 1965 were Muslim. I cannot assign any statistics with precision, but I can confirm that the Migration Policy Institute explicitly describes the post-1965 Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) immigrant population as having a much higher Muslim share than previous immigrants. My argument is that it is Arab ethnicity, especially among newer arrivals, that is the core of the problem. But it’s not as if Islam plays no role. A worldview lies at the intersection of Arab ethnicity and Muslim identity. Its synergy expands its sphere of influence.

It is important to map these developments onto recent changes in immigration patterns. Historically, net migration was positive throughout the post-World War II era and especially in the decades following the 1965 immigration reforms. The last clear period of sustained net outflows was the 1930s (Great Depression), when both economic conditions and repatriation efforts, focused largely on Mexican nationals. These produced negative numbers.

However, the United States has not experienced net negative immigration since then—until Trump was elected to his second term. Under Biden, millions of immigrants entered the country, many of them from the MENA region (the Middle East and North Africa). Donald Trump re-election changed that. A January 2026 economic analysis estimates that the United States experienced negative net migration in calendar year 2025, marking the first time in at least half a century that more people left the country than entered. This shift was driven by a sharp decline in new arrivals, alongside increased voluntary departures and removals resulting from Trump administration policies.

If these trends continue, newer arrivals will have a chance to assimilate into American culture. But we are still faced with the problem of resistance to integration among Arab populations, a situation exacerbated by the fact that more Arabs today are Muslim than they were a hundred years ago. Muslims are especially resistant to assimilation. As we have seen, Muslims are not, for the most part, Arab, but come from cultures, Islam aside, stubbornly resistant to assimilation. From the standpoint of national integrity, we are letting in the wrong people. But then Democrats want to undermine national integrity to advance transnationalism.

Here is the present paradox. Combining all Arab Americans (of any religion) and non-Arab Muslims in the United States yields an estimated total of roughly 2-3 percent of the population. That is seven to ten million people, more than enough to sway elections, and they are strategically distributed across the nation. America needs more time to reduce the proportion of these populations relative to European descendants—and more thoroughly integrate those who remain with American culture. But because of the strength of the combined voting bloc, Democrats are likely to win the midterm elections and thwart Trump’s efforts to strengthen US national integrity by restricting immigration. Moreover, a good showing in 2026 could strengthen Democrats for 2028. At the same time, the shit show Democrats will inevitably bring could have the opposite effect of bolstering Republican chances in that cycle. But two years is a long time to find out. Democrats can do a lot of damage in two years. They are well-organized and ruthless. Not that those aren’t admirable qualities, just that they are on the wrong side of the partisan divide.

Trump has shown the country that few changes in law are needed to restrict immigration. Democrats and their Republican allies (the RINOs) in Congress advanced the canard of a comprehensive legislative change to keep the source of cheap labor and new voters flowing. Trump really only needed to enforce existing laws.

That mass immigration is inevitable has always been a lie. Hart-Celler gave politicians the machinery to increase immigration if they choose to. Crucially, it’s a matter of who is in office. We can have as much or as little immigration as we want depending on whether Democrats or Republicans are in power—as long as the Republicans are populist-nationalist in worldview. Elect Democrats or RINOs, and the mess starts all over again. Elect MAGA Republicans, and patriots can continue making America great again.

It is no exaggeration to say that the 2026 Midterm Elections are a fork in the road. Either we keep America, or we lose it.

“We can’t just hand Brazil over,” said Elenildes dos Reis, a 60-year-old lawyer in São Paulo who voted for Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and said his victory would be a way of standing up to Trump and what she described as a rising wave of fascism. This was said on the eve of the election.

The election, held yesterday, resulted in a Lula victory. Lula lost the first election (October 4) by more than two million votes, but because both candidates fell below 50 percent (several other candidates were running), a runoff was ordered. Lula found more than four million votes this time. This is how The New York Times put the matter. Not gained. Found.

To find these votes, Lula’s personal attorney, now a Supreme Court justice, ordered an extension focused heavily on areas of Lula’s traditional strength (especially Bahia/Northeast). Flávio Bolsonaro’s campaign also requested extensions in specific municipalities hit by heavy rain, flooding, or related disruptions in São Paulo, Paraná, and Santa Catarina. However, for the most part, Bolsonaro’s requests didn’t happen. Predictably, the Northeast, where the extensions took place, delivered strong margins for the incumbent.

A pattern of right/center-right gains across several South American countries since roughly 2023–2025 overlaps with a sharp reduction and practical closure of USAID. This is no accident. Under the second Trump administration, USAID was effectively dismantled starting in early 2025. The administration terminated programs and contracts, staff numbers dropped sharply, and the State Department absorbed remaining USAID functions. Cutting USAID funding disrupted networks, NGOs, and political financing for left-leaning groups, e.g., the São Paulo Forum.

Flávio Bolsonaro has publicly refused to recognize the results of the October 25, 2026 presidential runoff and announced that his legal team seeks annulment of the election. Make no mistake, this will happen in the United States in November if the Trump administration does not move to secure the election. The Democrats are already mobilizing to prevent election integrity.

* * *

Returning to the top of the essay, this fascism charge is absurd and so tiresome. Populist nationalism is not fascism. When socialists redefine capitalism and economic nationalism as fascist, they are projecting onto patriots their own authoritarian desire. When dos Reis said, “We can’t just hand Brazil over” to the rising wave of fascism, she is referring to populist nationalism. The left in Brazil rigged the election to stop the wave of populist nationalism sweeping South America.

The irony is blatant. Socialism—total or near-total government control over the means of production—is inherently authoritarian because it requires the state to manage populations for the ends authoritarians seek. Under socialism, there’s no free market of ideas and behaviors in which individuals compete for their own interests. State control of the economy inevitably results in control over every other human behavior, since political economy is the material basis of human freedom. Either the system is open and therefore free, or it is closed and totalitarian.

If you think about it, fascism is essentially the same thing. Under fascism, the state manages the population for the ends fascists seek. Even if we define fascism as totalitarian monopoly capitalism, the effect is the same as state socialism. This is why Ingsoc, Newspeak for English Socialism, in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four appears as a fascist state. For Orwell, fighting fascism and state socialism were two sides of the same coin. He did not view them as opposites, but as twin evils that concentrated power into an elite class and reduced ordinary people to serfs.

(Note: Orwell, a democratic socialist, never reconciled the nationalization of industry with his liberal values of autonomy and liberty. He admitted that it was the single greatest dilemma in his thought. He could never get over the similarity between a capitalist boss ordering people around and a socialist bureaucrat ordering people around, but he also valued free thought and the right of the common man to possess firearms. I am certainly sympathetic to this observation.)

When Elon Musk is dogged because he identifies Hitler’s National Socialism as left-wing, he is not wrong—certainly not when the rubber meets the road. Once the left or right abandon liberalism, it crosses over into fascism. Ask yourself, what end of the spectrum has abandoned liberalism? The left. That is why I left the left. Or, more accurately, the left left me. I cannot follow progressives down the fascist path. The left has become my enemy. They are your enemy—if you love freedom.

The identity of fascism is important to clarify. It is reasonable to ask whether the fascist arrangement can even be called capitalist. If capitalism is defined as a liberal arrangement of a mostly free market based on private ownership of capital where value is determined by competition, then fascism is not capitalist. It is a form of socialism organized by corporate power.

More precisely, then, fascism is corporatist—the subsumption of the proletariat under the corporate state. Corporatism is the political-economic arrangement of most of Europe. Commanding Europe’s sense-making institutions, globalists have socialized a general attitude in the European consciousness that capitalism is bad and corporations are good. The corporatist arrangement is what progressives desire for the United States. It’s why they want to censor speech, etc. Call it fascist-light if you will, but it is fascism all the same.

As I noted in a recent article, Islam is more than a religion. At its core, it is a militant right-wing political ideology. The hallmarks of Islam are social authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, rejection of liberal democracy, and commitment to rigid social hierarchies. Islam is a system of intolerance. It is, moreover, profoundly antisemitic. It is no friend to Christianity. Atheists beware. Islam presents itself as the “religion of peace.” In truth, it is an ideology of hate.

I see very little light between Islam and Nazism. Indeed, as I have documented on this platform, Islam and Nazism were allied during WWII. This alliance was not merely one of convergence. The Nazi regime worked directly with Palestinian Islamists during the war. This is a well-known fact. The common concern was the Jewish problem. Hitler promised to help the Arab world deal with the problem after he had dealt with it in Europe. Rational men put a stop to Hitler’s ambitions. Where are those rational men today?

The Red-Green Alliance—the affinity between street-level leftism and Islam—is irrational unless one accepts that the left today is the modern-day instantiation of Hitlerian-style fascism. If Antifa, trans activists, etc., were genuinely left-wing, they would oppose Islam. Instead, they embrace it. This reveals the true character of the rabble on the streets here and in Europe. French President Emmanuel Macron scolds those who see the signs of Islam in the uprising in his country. Macron has the same eyes as the rest of us. He is lying.

It’s not just the left-wing rabble. Major political parties in the United States and in Europe embrace Islam. Sadiq Khan has been London’s mayor since 2016. In the United States, the Democratic Party endorses Muslim candidates—not the Muslims who see their faith as personal, but the Islamists. New York City’s mayor, Zohran Mamdani, is a Shi’a Muslim and a Democrat. This “Muslims are only one percent of the US population” line is exposed as nonsense when a member of the one percent runs the largest city in the United States.

New York City is not a one-off. The Democratic candidate for the Senate in Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed, is an Islamist, and he is ahead in the polling. Ilhan Omar, who serves as the US representative for Minnesota’s 5th congressional district since 2019, is an Islamist. The district includes all of Minneapolis and some of its first-ring suburbs. This indicates that Minneapolis has been substantially Islamized.

As I have argued in several articles on Freedom and Reason, a free and open society cannot tolerate the intolerable. If Democrats reclaim one or both houses of Congress, they will move to impeach and remove the President and other members of his cabinet. This will hand them the power they need to continue the Islamization of the United States. Dear readers, ask yourselves why Progressives and Social Democrats are transforming the West in the image of Muhammad. Why would they do this? What in the hell is going on?

This is one of the most consequential midterm elections in my lifetime. I have looked at the latest polling data, and it looks like Americans are about to make the biggest mistake they could possibly make. Whatever a man thinks about US intervention in Iran (I think it’s the right thing, but many conservatives disagree with me), he must vote Republican. That is the patriotic thing to do. The Republic’s future is at stake.

A common complaint is gas prices. How could that be the deciding factor? The average price of gasoline under Biden was around $3.46 per gallon, whereas the average under Trump is around $3.15 per gallon. True, gasoline prices have spiked, but it was worse under Biden.

I recently ran across a blast from the not-too-distant past, a CNN explainer dated May 11, 2022. “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a major reason that US drivers are paying record prices for gasoline.” Gas prices would go higher after this story, exceeding $5 per gallon. CNN emphasized that the Russia-Ukraine conflict isn’t the only reason why gas prices are high. “Gas prices were already expected to breach the $4 a gallon mark for the first time since 2008, with or without shots fired in Eastern Europe or economic sanctions imposed on Russia.”

The Russia-Ukraine conflict continues. The underlying reasons for higher gas prices are not problems fixed overnight. Yet the problem is laid at Donald Trump’s feet.

Are voters really going to throw away their country because of a recent spike in gas prices? The Biden regime wasn’t ancient history. We’re only now coming out of the mess Democrats made. Our ancestors sacrificed too much for people with short memories to vote for Islam and socialism because gas prices are higher. Let’s not betray the men and women who sacrificed so much so we could live in a free country. Go to the polls and vote for your Republican candidates. Voters will not make things better by making them worse. Remember open borders? Do we really want to go back to that?

French President Emmanuel Macron posed a question to the French people: “Looking at these images, we have all asked ourselves: What was going through their minds? How can French people do this to France?” Because many of them aren’t French and never will be French. Macron should look at what the French elite have done to France. They flooded the zone with Third Worlders they can’t afford.

Now the barbarians are tearing shit up—and some French citizens are joining them. The chaos is spreading across Europe (Italy, most notably). It will come to America if Democrats emerge victorious in November. Indeed, it’s already substantially here. We saw it in the Black Lives Matter rebellion. We see it now in our streets, organized by the Red-Green Alliance and the globalists who fund them.

In anthropology and sociology, we teach our students to avoid Eurocentrism because Non-European societies have a different cultural operating system than European-based societies. Treating European experiences, history, institutions, and values as the universal standard distorts our understanding of other societies. Anthropologists, particularly since Franz Boas, have emphasized understanding cultures within their own historical and social contexts rather than judging them according to European cultural standards.

Indeed. People from other cultures don’t think like Westerners do. Africans and Middle Easterners (MENA) in particular don’t share European values. One of those values is assimilation. People from the MENA region resist integrating into Western nations that welcome them. Even when naturalized, they don’t integrate with the host country (we see this in the United States, too). Non-Westerners are the same species, to be sure, but they’re not the same people. I didn’t need proof to know that. But if the French needed proof, they got it in spades.

The underlying tension underpinning the chaos in France is the deterioration of the country. A vast welfare state burdened by mass migration is a major source of France’s decline. The French are experiencing deteriorating school conditions, rising living costs, and dissatisfaction with public services. The silent majority knows the causes of tension: globalization and the importation of millions of Muslims. Today, one in ten French residents is a Muslim. Muslims are disproportionately welfare recipients.

Importing an incompatible population was part of a grand plan. It was designed to undermine organized labor. According to Paul Dijoud, minister for immigrant workers, the French government in the 1970s, under president Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, sought in Islam “a stabilizing force which would turn the faithful from deviance, delinquency or membership of unions or revolutionary parties.”

In Multiculturalism and its Discontents, Kenan Malik, who documents this, writes, “When a series of strikes hit car factories in the late 1970s, the government encouraged employers to build prayer rooms in an effort to wean immigrant workers, who formed a large proportion of the workforce, away from militant activity.”

The plan has been highly effective. In the 1950s, roughly one-third of French workers belonged to a trade union. Today, less than one in ten French workers belongs to a trade union.

The plan runs directly counter to France’s value of civic nationalism. Civic nationalism demands that all citizens integrate into a country’s core values. Keeping newcomers away from native-born workers by segregating population groups (such as prayer rooms) effectively disorganizes the national proletariat. French elites betrayed the French citizenry by destabilizing the working-class majority. This is globalization. In Europe, globalization works through regionalization, corporatism, and social democracy.

Ironically, today in France, the social democracy demanded by the left is feeding left-wing rage. They got what they voted for, and they don’t like it. Stupidly, they want more of what they don’t like. That’s on first blush. To be sure, they are stupid, but going deeper, the goal of communism and Islam is to destroy free societies. The destroyers use social democracy as a means to an end. Mass action has a goal—to destabilize the French Republic. Powerful forces are leading the rabble around by the nose.

The far-left plays an outsized role in the rebellion. Yet the MSM dissimulates the cause of the chaos. The talking heads tell us this is about protests over educational disparities. Organized blockades over such grievances aren’t appropriate, either. But this is not really about education. That’s media propaganda. Adult far-left agitators directed students to set up some 900 barricades and blockades across the country in a few days to trigger a mass action. From there, it rapidly descended into chaos. The left and the forces organizing them leveraged widespread discontent to further their revolutionary goals.

We know who is behind the rebellion. France Unbowed or Rebellious France (abbreviated LFI) and the French Communist Party are the principal organizers of the chaos. They are joined by a network of roughly 50 revolutionary groups. Only about 15 of the groups involved are student or youth groups, and they are largely communist youth and Muslim student groups. Visible symbols at marches included Young Communists banners with hammer-and-sickle imagery, “Class War” and anti-imperialist slogans, Antifa insignia, LFI flags, and Palestinian flags. The coalition burning down France is known as the Red-Green Alliance, and several articles on this platform have exposed its character and warned readers of the consequences.

“Nothing justifies it, nothing explains it, nothing excuses it,” President Macron said, pledging an “uncompromising” response to “agitators from ultra-left fringe groups, joined by numerous delinquents.” Yet, there is no mention of mass migration or Muslims in his strident tones. Why would he criticize the plan? At an October 16 European Council meeting, Macron warned against politicizing immigration and argued that individual national approaches were ineffective. He emphasized European cooperation rather than unilateral border closures. He knows that it’s European cooperation that brought about the mass migration crisis.

The problem is not rebellion per se. The problem is who is rebelling. If French patriots rise up against globalization and mass migration and demand economic nationalism, closed borders, and mass deportation, militant action is justified. Violence in defense of one’s nation is warranted—of course, as a last resort. The French government is not acting to save France; the common man may find mass action necessary (they should wake up sooner rather than later). In the current situation, it is the enemies of liberal democracy—communists and Islamists—who are perpetrating the violence. This is never justified and must be met by state and popular force.

Predictably, antisemitism is also a motivating factor. French journalist Paul Amar reports that rioters in Marseille deliberately targeted Jewish-owned businesses while leaving Muslim-owned businesses untouched. Rioters arrived with addresses of Jewish business owners. They were instructed to leave Muslim-owned businesses alone. The world witnessed the second coming of Kristallnacht. It testifies to the true character of the Red-Green Alliance. The rioters are of the same ilk as the Nazi thugs who terrorized Weimar Germany.

In the end, as I have shown on this platform, when it comes to the ordinary person’s phenomenological experience, little light shines between communism and fascism—if any light shines at all. Both movements seek the end of liberal democracy. Both bring despair.

In the final analysis, communism and fascism produce the same conditions: the subsumption of the West under a one-world government and the administered life. The antidotes are republicanism and nationalism. The French need to wake up.