Year: 2025

“We have to be honest with the American people. We are going to have to deal with the reality that people who are here illegally will be deported. That’s the law. And it’s something that we have to enforce.”—Barack Obama

I snagged the chart from the Migration Policy Institute. The number of deportations under Obama were lower overall than the two prior administration, but note the emphasis on removals relative to returns.

What’s the difference between removals and returns? Removals are formal deportations where an individual is ordered to leave the United States by an immigration judge or through a legal process. The individual must be removed from the US after they have been apprehended by immigration authorities, e.g., Customs and Border Protection (CBP) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Returns are voluntary departures where an individual agrees to leave the US without the formal deportation process. This happens when a person is apprehended but not formally removed through a legal proceeding. Instead, the individual is allowed to return to their home country without facing an official removal order. This process is handled primarily by CBP.

With respect to these numbers, we should reflect on how few illegal aliens were returned and removed during Trump’s first term. During Trump’s first go around, ICE deported approximately 935,000 individuals, including removals and returns. That’s remarkably low given the hysteria over Trump’s immigration policy. Remember the moral panic? Trump was Hitler. He was throwing brown people into concentration camps. The regime was separating families. The CBO were brownshirts. ICE were Gestapo.

It’s weird, because I lived through Clinton, Bush, and Obama, and I don’t remember any hysteria over returns and deportations during their presidencies. Sure, there were those who complained. But there was no hysteria. During Clinton’s second term, deportations averaged 1.7 million a year—nearly twice as many as Trump deported during his entire first term. Where was the moral panic?

What explains such a drastically different perception and reaction? I explained this in a recent article, but I will summarize my conclusion here. But before I do, I need to emphasize that it is not a party thing. Trump and Bush are both Republicans. Yet the response to their immigration policies were radically different.

The progressive media carried Bush in many respects. They clearly favored him in 2000 in his run against Gore. Their coverage of the steal in Florida favored Bush. They perpetuated the WMD lies and were cheerleaders for the Second Gulf War (just as they were cheerleaders for the First Gulf War). They promoted the Swift Boat smear against the Kerry campaign. They obscured the irregularities in that election.

There’s a reason why the media treated Bush and Trump differently. Trump is a populist and a nationalist and therefore a direct threat to the globalist agenda. In contrast, George Bush was a globalist and a neoconservative, which the progressive media promote. It isn’t because Trump is a Republican, but the wrong kind of Republican.

Which brings us to the explanation: the globalist agenda has moved into the next phase: open borders and mass immigration in order to disorganize nation-states. We see this in Europe, as well. There, the Islamization of the West is more obvious. But it’s a happening here, as well.

When Clinton, Bush, and Obama deported tens of millions from America this was useful because that was the phase of transnationalization focused on regional and global trade agreements, entrenching the global financial system, and offshoring capital and work to export processing zones across the Third and Second (then no longer communist) Worlds. It was useful to appear to have the back of the American worker by being tough on immigrants, cover while they were destroying the industrial base on which the American worker depended. They made up for the devastation with cheap products from China, as well as easy money and credit cards.

Having established the foundation of the New World Order, the second shoe to drop is the creation of a borderless world. This explains the manufactured hysteria over Trump’s policies. Through the use of the universal injunction and hobbling Trump’s presidency, globalists have effectively thwarted his immigration policies.

It was Joe Biden’s role to open the borders. He telegraphed the strategy during the 2020 debates. In so many words, he told immigrants and the human trafficking networks to get ready—immigrants were welcome in America. Schumer went on the record saying that, because native fertility rates are so low, we needed immigrants to replenish our ranks. Biden’s pick of Alejandro Mayorkas was a signal to the traffickers.

Today, they’re coming after Trump even more aggressively on the matter of immigration. They have to keep the millions that flooded into our country here—to make voters of them, to drive down the wages of native-born workers, and to disorganize communities. Trump is confronting a vast apparatus that is driving down his popularity by making it difficult for him to deliver on his campaign promises.

And that means that the apparatus is making it difficult for the electorate to have what they voted for.

The progressive media frame that Trump is now deporting two-year-old US citizens is among the more troubling frames yet. Not troubling because it’s true. At best it’s a gross misrepresentation of the situation. No, troubling because of how audacious the misrepresentation is. The argument that Trump deported US citizens is particularly egregious. One has to abandon basic reason to sustain the frame. It’s naked propaganda.

Suppose a German citizen who has lived in the United States for a number of years and while here has a child. Under the current interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the child enjoys birthright citizenship. The German citizen decides to go home to Germany. Is she going to leave her child in America because the child is an American citizen? It’s hard to imagine that she would. She is the child’s mother. I know if I were to move to another country, I’d take my kids with me.

You might be interested to learn that the child in this scenario is automatically a German citizen because Germany’s nationality law, like most nationality laws, is based on descent (jus sanguinis), not place of birth (jus soli). In other words, there is nothing controversial about a German woman living in America returning to her homeland with her two-year-old German child. A German family is going home to Germany—their language, their culture, their nation.

The same thing holds if this were a case of deportation. Suppose, for whatever reason, the German citizen is deported to Germany. She’s wants her child to be with her. Her child is a German citizen to boot. So naturally the child goes with her. The government isn’t “deporting a two-year-old American citizen.” The government is deporting a German citizen who is taking her German child back with her to Germany.

My hypothetical is identical to the case of the Honduran citizen with the two-year-old Honduran child born in America. The woman is being deported. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asks her if she wants the child to go home with her or have the child placed with another family. She wants to take the child home with her to Honduras. After all, like Germany, Honduras reckons citizenship by descent, therefore the child is a Honduran citizen. A Honduran family goes home to Honduras—their language, their culture, their nation.

Obviously the Honduran woman did not have a legitimate claim to asylum. True, Honduras isn’t the land of opportunity that the United States is (albeit cities like San Pedro Sula and Tegucigalpa do have areas with a growing middle class), but it’s not an abandoned airstrip on a remote island. You know how progressives rage whenever anybody describes the Third World countries as “shit-hole countries”? Surely progressives aren’t saying that Honduras is a shit-hole country. It sounds like, though.

And what about family separation? Do they want Honduran children staying in America without their mothers? That sounds like a historical desire that Democrats would find repellant (at least based on their rhetoric). Then again, the way things are going, with families increasingly depicted as traditional ways of organizing society best left to the past, who knows. Maybe don’t ask the mother whether she will take her child back with her to Honduras then. Maybe ask the two-year-old child. If she can know her gender identity, then she can know whether she wants to be in Honduras with her mom or in America with God knows who.

What about the cases of Honduran children with cancer? The progressive media are advancing this line, too. Not a big deal for our German citizen in the hypothetical scenario, since Germany has universal health care and, were her child to have cancer, it would be taken care of. But did you know that in Honduras there a thing called the Ministry of Health (SESAL), as well as a thing called the Honduran Social Security Institute (IHSS)? SESAL and (IHSS) provides free healthcare services to Honduran citizens. Guess what else they have in Honduras? Cancer treatment. Not quite the shit-hole country progressives thought it was.

This is a typical feature of propaganda. It’s like showing Trump in a blue suit at the Pope’s funeral and suggesting that blue suits are disrespectful and Trump is the only one in attendance wearing a blue suit. Not only are facts excluded, but the assumption is false. Here we are told that Trump is deporting two-year-old American citizens to God knows where without informing the audience that the children are Honduran citizens whose parents are being deported. When elites control the propaganda apparatus they can make nothing-to-see-here into all-important-things. They take the ordinary and make is extraordinary. It’s like a magic trick. It’s sleight-of-hand.

The propaganda frame makes it sound like ICE is snatching little children riddled with cancer from their parents and sending them off to some totalitarian hellhole. Again, Honduras isn’t paradise (where is paradise?), but it has a functioning democracy and rather forward leaning politics. Xiomara Castro, elected in 2021, is the first female president of Honduras. She’s a member of the Liberal Party. These Honduran kids are going to be fine in Honduras. Will you stop believing in progressive media already?

As an aside (maybe not), you might remember that Castro’s husband, Manuel Zelaya, refused to comply with a Supreme Court order, which led to the 2009 Honduran coup d’état. The day after the army removed him from office, the Honduran Congress impeached him. He deserved it for disobeying the Supreme Court, right? I don’t know. Soon after the coup, US President Barack Obama issued a statement: “We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there.”

Put in a pin in that for when Trump refuses to comply with a Supreme Court order (they’re already lying to you by saying he already did) and Congress impeaches him (which is what will happen if folks put Democrats in charge of the House two years from now) and the US Army ousts him. He won’t receive the Zelaya treatment.

No one is above the law, Democrats chanted in lockstep in reference to their persecution of President Donald Trump. But the hypocrisy of Democrats is unbounded. Democrats are condemning the arrest of Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan, warning it could threaten the rule of law.

Dugan is accused of obstructing a US agency and concealing an individual to prevent his arrest. On April 18, 2025, she allegedly helped Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an illegal Mexican immigrant facing charges of battery, evade arrest by federal immigration officials at the Milwaukee County Courthouse. According to the criminal complaint, Dugan, after becoming aware of the presence of ICE agents, directed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney to exit her courtroom through a non-public jury door, delaying his arrest. The charges carry a maximum penalty of six years in prison and a 350,000 dollar fine.

The hypocrisy is easy to explain. More than operating with double standards, progressives see the judiciary and the administrative state—when it carries forward their agenda—the same way Islamists see theocracy. Rule by clerics and technocrats is the antithesis of liberalism and republicanism. But this is the world Democrats want Americans to in.

The goal of a one-party state led by Democrats is to acquire power to put in place judges and administrators who advance progressive ideology. This is what lies behind the strategy of open borders. It’s why Democrats are especially outraged by the arrest of judges who interfere with deportation. Democrats want to keep every illegal alien in America, even terroristic gang members, because they believe that most of them will vote for Democrats out of appreciation for allowing them to enter and stay in our country. Deportation is a direct threat to the party’s objective. And so, Trump is an “authoritarian.” That means that democracy and the rule of law don’t matter. And that means they never do except as instruments for advancing the progressive agenda.

DEAR DEMOCRATS, who are furious with the FBI arresting 2 judges in the past 24H.

Why don't you listen to your media?

"No person is above the law."

"No man is above the law."

"No one is above the law."

"Nobody is above the law."pic.twitter.com/3J499aLbWf

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) April 25, 2025

To cut through the fog of ideology, controlling immigration is a federal obligation—and it is necessary: without control over our borders and who is allowed to be in our country, we have no country. Judges that interfere with deportation efforts are activists in the globalist project to erase borders. They should be removed and their courts defunded or abolished. If they break the law, then they should be arrested and prosecuted.

There is nothing authoritarian about any of this. Nationalism is not inherently authoritarian in character. Nationalism is a set of moral and political principles centered on the belief that a group of people who share a common identity—through culture, ethnicity, history, and language—should form a sovereign nation-state. Every patriotic American should be a nationalist. More than this, every person who believes in the Enlightenment project should be a nationalist.

A child of the Enlightenment, the modern nation-state emerged in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Enlightenment ideas about popular sovereignty, combined with the revolutionary experience of overthrowing aristocracy, led to peoples redefining themselves as nations of citizens rather than subjects of a king. The modern rule of law emerges from this arrangement. Liberalism and republicanism represent the apex of this development. Lose these and lose freedom.

Progressives’ fellow travelers give away the game. Today on X, none other than arch-neoconservative Bill Kristol writes: “If they were arresting judges in another country with an authoritarian-inclined (even if democratically elected) government, we’d be alarmed.”

Note that Kristol, who has for a long time now aligned his opinions with Democrats and progressives (really, there is no light between neoconservatives and Democrats, since the former is merely the rebranding of Cold War progressivism), doesn’t care if the government was democratically elected. He doesn’t believe in republicanism. He only believes in advancing the progressive cause. This might sound odd given that Kristol is a neoconservative. But the reality is that, in light of common elitism, neoconservatism easily converges with progressivism.

Recall what Kristol’s father, Irving, the “father of neoconservatism,” once said: “What’s the point in being the greatest, most powerful nation in the world and not having an imperial role?” This is the heart of neoconservatism: to use U.S. military power to usher in a New World Order. And neoconservatism is merely the rebranding of Cold War progressivism.

I responded to the son’s post that, if another country were arresting judges who were illegally thwarting the will of the electorate, then we would be applauding. This is because we believe in the rule of law and democracy. We’d be alarmed if the United States supported anti-democratic forces that were thwarting the will of the people of that country. But this is what neoconservatives desire: the overthrow of popular governments and the installation of regimes that carry out the imperialist agenda. We have been alarmed about this many times.

Frankly, I don’t see how such an interpretation even crosses the mind of anybody who claims to believe in democracy and the rule of law. It rather exposes an authoritarian mind. Kristol doesn’t like Trump and his agenda, which the populace voted for, because it stymies imperialism, so it’s authoritarian. This is typical of neoconservative framing. Governments that do the bidding of corporate elites are “democratic.” Those that resist global corporate power are “authoritarian.” This is an Orwellian projection. Kristol, like progressives, desires the rise of the judicocracy and lawlessness because these are means to stifle democracy. His is the mind of a cleric, not a republican.

This is how something called the “Democracy Project” can arise with the premise that the United States has a moral duty to spread democracy (here a euphemism for corporatism) worldwide, even by military force if necessary. Neoconservatives, such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, dressed imperialism in American values—capitalism, democracy, and human rights—and portrayed these values as universal, arguing that promoting them abroad would make the world more stable and secure—and serve America’s interests.

But these are not America’s interests. These are not America’s values. Not the coded version, that is. Decoded, these are the interests and ambitions of transnational corporations and world financial organizations.

Readers should know that the guiding light of neoconservatism, political philosopher Leo Strauss believed that classical political philosophy (supplanted in the progressive mind with postmodernist notions of power, but with the same attitude) contained hidden truths accessible only to the elite. The masses needed guiding myths to maintain social order. 

If that sounds like the thinking of Walter Lippmann and Reinhold Niebuhr there’s a reason for that: they all represent the same broader cultural and political shift in elite circles. Lippmann, in Public Opinion (1922) and The Phantom Public (1925), argued that the average citizen was too uninformed and emotionally driven to truly participate in rational democratic decision-making. Democracy, he argued, needed to be managed by a knowledgeable elite—experts, journalists, and technocrats—who could interpret reality for the public and manipulate them towards the right ends. Likewise, Niebuhr, a theologian and political thinker, emphasized the limits of human reason and virtue, advancing a “Christian realism,” wherein such idealistic projects as democracy and peace would always fail. Thus, leaders had to balance moral ideals with the reality of power—often requiring myth to maintain social order. Both Lippmann and Niebuhr were progressives.

Like the followers of Lippmann and Niebuhr, Straussians interpreted their man’s ideas as justifying an assertive role for elites in shaping political life—including the promotion of democracy (as so warped) abroad as part of a larger civilizational mission. This interpretation heavily influenced the architects of the so-called “Democracy Project” in US foreign policy after the Cold War. But the mission wasn’t spreading civilization, but entrenching the power and privilege of the New Aristocracy. 

Like Lippmann, Niebuhr, Strauss, and his father, Kristol is an organic intellectual for the New Aristocracy. He’s an elitist and a globalist. He is a neoconservative. Democrats are neoconservative. They align with progressivism. Those who want to protect the American Republic need to get that straight in their heads.

We can focus on the political economic dynamics that lead to change at the macro level. Indeed, we must. However, we mustn’t neglect the cultural ideological side of the struggle for power or fail to recognize to which class the sides ally.

The attitude of organic intellectual serving the interests of the corporate class—academics, entertainers, mass media—is one that privileges the exotic and the foreign. The fetishes here are Islam, queer, and race. This comes with loathing of the ordinary and the traditional.

Having been established centuries ago, the ordinary and the traditional have been modernist in orientation. Correspondingly, its intellectuals are traditionalist, not merely from settling into a new epoch, but in carrying over the importance of family and community. The desire for the exotic and the foreign is a postmodernist attitude. Its proponents hate family and culture and the liberal and republican values that define the modern age.

This schism is, of course, tied to the political economic dynamic, wreaking havoc on capitalist relations and the international system of modern nation states and raising among the ruins a transnational corporate state. The postmodern attitude is thus an expression of globalism and corporate power over against the nation, state and popular power.

The situation is at once revolutionary and counterrevolutionary—revolutionary in the sense that the corporatist system is struggling to break free of the reins of the capitalist mode of production; counterrevolutionary because it opposes the Enlightenment that stymies what lies beyond it: the reestablishment of a type of feudalist mode of production, where the proletariat is returned to serfdom, its fate determined on estates governed by lords. To be sure, the estates are high tech, and the lords are corporations, but the basic arrangement is the same—it is a condition of unfreedom. The corporatist revolution is therefore counterrevolutionary in the sense that it is atavistic and regressive.

Having recognized all this (which assumes the political economic dynamic of world historical change), we need also to study the process by which the cultural-ideological program of the corporatists is established. The strategy is slick, but once you grasp it, you have another means beyond content criticism to delegitimize it.

It’s not enough to criticize ideas—though that’s necessary—we must also expose how corporate elites and their army of intellectuals inject those ideas into the bloodstream of the body politic. For example, how did woke progressives infuse public education with gender ideology and make a disruptive and destructive praxis appear normal and necessary? Gender ideology is but one tentacle of the octopus, but it serves as a useful example. so we shall begin there. 

Here’s how the process unfolds:

• First, elites colonize the governing, policymaking, and sense-making activities and institutions with progressive operatives—academic, administrative, cultural, educational, judicial, and media-based. In short, they capture the hegemonic machinery. Today, progressivism commands the machinery.
• The elites and intellectuals then spend years crafting a comprehensive ideology and a new way of speaking about reality—what we might describe as language contamination. This mirrors what George Orwell called “Newspeak” in 1984. This ideology, traceable over the past several decades, was manufactured by academics and activists. The repurposing of the concept of gender, heretofore a synonym for sex, to refer to an unfalsifiable subjective identity is the paradigm of the strategy.
• Next, they install this ideology at every level of the hegemonic machinery and normalize it—treating it as if it has always been part of our institutions or at least the result of a long social justice struggle finally won by those who stand on the right side of history. This requires, among other things, historical revisionism. A notable tactic here is the practice of rendering as false what everyone knew was true until a few decades ago, and to portray that truth as the product of an evil hegemonic system that demands deconstruction. This tactic mystifies the strategy by projecting its intent onto those who defend history and science, thus creating fake legitimacy.
• Finally, when the public pushes back, the new order labels them bigots for resisting—even questioning—what has allegedly always been normal, portray modernists as conspiracy theorists and paranoids. And, of course, bigots.

The first three steps prepare the ground for the fourth: portraying those who object to a novel and destructive ideology as narrow-minded and reactionary. It flips the burden—no longer do ideologues have to explain why gender ideology should guide our institutions. Instead, the onus falls on dissenters to justify their objections. It makes a crackpot idea appear rational while making rational people seem like crackpots.

* * *

I’ve spent years debunking the core claims of gender ideology and exposing its harmful consequences. This is a necessary task. I knew I’d be accused of bigotry when I went public with my conclusions, but gender ideology is so destructive that silence wasn’t an option.

When I decided to speak out, I asked myself a question I believe all of us are obliged to ask: could I live with my conscience if I stayed passive in the face of a campaign to disrupt ordinary, common-sense understandings of gender—and all the lies and atrocities that come with it? Puberty blockers. Cross-sex hormones. Disfiguring surgeries. Sterilization. I thought about lobotomies and other horrors once pushed by the medical establishment. I thought about the medical experiments Nazi doctors performed on Jewish children. Brave people speaking out were essential to ending those practices (war was necessary in the case of the Nazis). Who today would defend destroying an adolescent’s frontal lobe to make the boy more compliant? The Nuremberg Code spoke loudly about the crimes of the national socialists. Somebody had to speak out. The machinery of justice had to act. Today, those whistleblowers are seen as heroes. The German doctors in the dock at Nuremberg are universally recognized as villains (but not those who escaped justice).

I thought about gay kids being manipulated into believing they’re the opposite sex—setting them on a path that would destroy their lives. I thought about the girls and women losing their spaces and opportunities to boys and men, whether deceiving or deluded (there’s no objective way to tell the difference). Had I stayed silent, knowing what I now know, I couldn’t look at myself in the mirror.

I know not everyone is ready to stand on the ground of truth and face the mob. The consequences for doing so can be severe. The mob is scary. But it only takes a few people to create mutual knowledge. And courage is contagious. 

Still, to delegitimize gender ideology, we must do more than critique its claims. We must show how we arrived at this moment. That requires critical historical analysis and systems thinking. Gender ideology isn’t unique. The same strategy was used to re-racialize American society after the civil rights victories of the mid-twentieth century. It’s been used to delegitimize Western civilization, elevate corporate scientism over democratic science, and install technocracy in place of republican governance.

These strategies are manifest not only in gender ideology, but also in critical race theory, postcolonial studies, and other postmodern doctrines—advanced not by grassroots radicals, but by transnational elites and corporations. The so-called grassroots radical may be a true believer, a professional activist, or suffering from a Cluster-B personality disorder, but together they form the reactionary mob, trained up by the hegemonic apparatus. In a significant extent, the counterrevolution has succeeded, which makes the resistance appear counterrevolutionary.

To save Western civilization, we must root these doctrines out of our governing and sense-making institutions. To preserve freedom, reason, science, the West, our families, our way of life, the public must understand not just that these are dangerous ideas—but how they gained legitimacy. To be sure, it is a false legitimacy, but legitimacy of any sort is necessary to elevate power to authority. Our task is to expose the process to show that what masquerades as authority is class power.

One tactic has been to portray attitudes that advance the globalist project as “leftwing”—the New Left. How did a praxis advancing neoliberal and neoconservative goals become identified as left-wing politics? How did the corporate state come to embrace “left-wing” causes?

The answer, once you’ve done the critical historical and political analysis, is simple: the New Left is not a left-wing movement. It’s anti-human, anti-liberal, anti-rational, and anti-worker—all things that are antithetical to Old Left. Indeed, it’s a corporate-state strategy designed to fracture the traditional left and reincorporate its members into an alliance with globalist technocracy. To turn prior defenders of conscience and free speech into ideological authoritarians. To transform a fraction of the masses into reactionary mobs cloaked in the garb of justice.

Transnational elites and their progressive operatives—the organic intellectuals of globalization—cleverly constructed and absorbed the ideas of the postmodern New Left. They read Antonio Gramsci, too. They hijacked his cultural strategy, not to bring about communism (which is not to say that end is desirable), but to entrench corporatism.

DEI is the most obvious program that advances this alliance. At first, it may seem strange that corporations would embrace such ideas a diversity, equity, and inclusion. But with the correct approach to grasping the truth, it becomes obvious. Like gender ideology (a component of DEI), DEI programming was installed in our institutions to make corporate power and profit appear moral and just, while disorganizing the organic politics of the proletariat and the strata of entrepreneurs.

The saw this with the debate over affirmative action (DEI 1.0). Criticizing it was labeled “racist.” We were told that privileging black applicants over white ones could not be racism, because racism = prejudice + power, and only whites have power. By constructing a formula that placed critics of affirmative action out of bounds, and establishing that formula as the only truth, no real debate could be had. In an Orwellian transformation, what was racist became antiracist.

This formula hides the truth: corporations and elites hold the real power—not average white citizens. DEI and affirmation action don’t rectify injustice—they perpetuate it. The formula strengthens bureaucracy and its liberty-negating processes.

The same applies to the claim that opposing male intrusion into female spaces represents bigotry. That assumption, too, was installed through the same strategy. Many assumptions are installed in this manner. Those of us fighting to reclaim liberal freedoms and democratic institutions must therefore stop fearing labels. “Islamophobia,” “racism,” “transphobia”—these epithets are used not to describe reality but to marginalize dissent. We must stop caring what they call us. We know why they do it. Explaining why and how they do it is thus essential to defeating them.

This critical analysis isn’t mine alone. It builds on an old tradition. The German left-Hegelian Ludwig Feuerbach, in 1842, developed the “transformation method”—a way to invert the relationship between reality and illusion as framed by religion and ideology. Feuerbach argued that religious beliefs are not divine truths but projections of idealized human qualities—love, justice, power—externalized onto a supernatural being (God). By reabsorbing these divine traits back into humanity, Feuerbach demystified religion, exposing it as a reflection of human nature.

Karl Marx adopted, refined, and radicalized Feuerbach’s method. He agreed that religion expresses alienation—but rooted this alienation in material social relations, especially economic ones. At the core of alienation is the class struggle. Marx’s critique of ideology exposes how ruling class interests mask exploitative conditions in the language of morality and justice. He didn’t stop at analysis; he called for praxis to change the world. However, he left it to us to expose the strategy.

This was the worldview of the Old Left. Liberal. Democratic. Anti-elite. Popular. The Old Left fought to empower working people, preserve communities, and oppose exploitation. The New Left is its opposite. It aims to destroy families and communities for the benefit of the very elites the Old Left sought to overthrow. This explains why many liberals now join conservatives in the populist-nationalist movement. Even without deploying the transformation method, they see the truth: the enemies of freedom, sovereignty, and democracy are the same elites who fund and advance the New Left.

People like George Soros don’t bankroll protests to challenge corporate and financial power. They fund movements to preserve and entrench these oppressions. They install prosecutors and advocacy groups to thwart the popular will. This isn’t a Jewish conspiracy (another tactic to chill the air is to smear those who evoke the specter of Soros with antisemitism)—it’s class warfare waged from above.

Gender ideology is one part of a larger counterrevolutionary project: the return of the working class to serfdom under a New Feudalism. Once you understand the system, all the tentacles become visible. But knowledge is only potential power; the people must act to turn potential into outcomes. There are more of us than there are of them.

* * *

Remember the end of A Bug’s Life?

Hopper: “Let this be a lesson to all you ants! Ideas are very dangerous things! You are mindless, soil-shoveling losers put on this earth to serve us!”

Flik: “You’re wrong, Hopper. Ants are not meant to serve grasshoppers! I’ve seen these ants do great things! And year after year, they somehow managed to pick food for themselves and you. So who’s the weaker species? Ants don’t serve grasshoppers! It’s you who need us! We’re a lot stronger than you say we are… and you know it, don’t you?”

Earlier in the film, Hopper warned his lieutenants: “Those puny little ants outnumber us a hundred to one. If they ever figure that out, there goes our way of life! It’s not about food—it’s about keeping those ants in line.”

Flik’s response to what Hopper told his subalterns behind closed doors? “Ants grow the food. Ants pick the food. And the grasshoppers leave!”

When I first watched A Bug’s Life, I wondered why Disney would distribute a film so critical of elite domination. It’s a story about exploited workers (ants) rebelling against parasitic rulers (grasshoppers) through collective action. That’s class consciousness—delivered with Pixar charm.

Directed by John Lasseter and co-directed by Andrew Stanton (who later directed WALL·E, another radical allegory), the film was inspired by Aesop’s fable, The Ant and the Grasshopper. But its subtext—about labor, class, and resistance—is unmistakable. Whether intended or not, the film critiques the very system that produced it.

Perhaps corporations allow—even socialize—radical messages because they’re so supremely confident in their control over the populace. The anti-capitalist band Rage Against the Machine signed with a major label, after all. This is how the culture industry works: it manufactures a pretense of justice to co-opt and contain opposition.

I have many disagreements with critical theorist Herbert Marcuse, but he put in his 1964 book One-Dimensional Man that captures the spirit of my critique:

“If mass communications blend together harmoniously, and often unnoticeably, art, politics, religion, and philosophy with commercials, they bring these realms of culture to their common denominator—the commodity form. The music of the soul is also the music of salesmanship. Exchange value, not truth value counts. On it centers the rationality of the status quo, and all alien rationality is bent to it.”

Rolling Stone recently framed Tom Morello’s politics like this: “Like many of his comrades in music, the artist despairs at the bizarre, daily antics from the Trump administration. Trade wars, cosying[sic]-up with the enemy, picking fights with allies. Every day, another pie thrown from the MAGA circus.”

“You can only imagine what it’s like here with the impending shadow of American fascism,” Morello told the magazine. “The almost ethnic cleansing of discourse is a very significant warning sign, where anybody who wants to apply for a grant, or if you used words like ‘inclusion,’ ‘gender,’ or ‘African-American,’ you’ll be red-flagged.”

That’s corporate framing. Morello opposes “trade wars” (neoliberal rhetoric) and repeats neoconservative talking points about Russia. All of this aligns with the goals of the corporate state. Rejecting that frame, we see that Trump policies seek to re-shore high-wage value added manufacturing to the United States, as well as rapprochement with Russia for the sake of world peace and to marginalize China. Trump and the populist movement do not represent the “shadow of fascism.” On the contrary, the peoples of Europe and North America stand in the shadow of a New Fascism.

Indeed, Trump and the populist movement is resistance to the New Fascism. This is the real threat, what Barrington Moore, Jr. called a “revolution from above.” As noted earlier, the revolution-from-above in our time represents a counterrevolution against the Enlightenment. If the globalist project succeeds, we won’t just lose our liberties. We’ll lose the Enlightenment itself—and enter a New Dark Age.

* * *

One of the most common objections I encounter when raising concerns about elite coordination in shaping the global order: the supposed lack of direct evidence—the demand for the proverbial “smoking gun.” Detractors ask: Where is the document? Where is the confession? 

But this standard of proof, while emotionally satisfying, an effective is sophistry is allowed, is intellectually naïve. Power, especially at the highest levels, rarely broadcasts its intentions. The nature of elite influence is opaque, strategic, and subtle. Elite machinations take place behind closed doors, across private conferences, and through networks inside institutions, not press releases.

Yet we are not without means to understand what is happening. Just as in a criminal trial, one does not need a confession to reach a conviction. A murderer is not obligated to explain himself under our system; he enjoys a constitutional protection against self-incrimination. Rather judge and jury infer intention and guilt from evidence—corpus delicti (the body of the crime), patterns of behavior, access, motive, and opportunity. The prosecutor builds his case from context, evidence, and the logic of the act itself. What explains the outcome? Can it be explained another way? Is there reasonable doubt?

So too with global economics and politics. We don’t need elite actors to publish their plans for hegemony, resource control, or ideological engineering. We observe policies coordinated across actors, financial systems that perpetuate inequality, wars whose beneficiaries are always the same, and technologies that centralize control. These are not accidents. There is no reasonable doubt to be had here. The consistency of outcomes and the mechanisms by which they are produced point to rational actors with converging interests. Conspiracies are real. And rational people have theories about them.

To demand a confession from the architects of global power is to misunderstand both the nature of power and the means by which we come to know anything complex and concealed. Like any good detective—or any good historian—one must work from the evidence available (and there’s plenty of it), grasp the patterns, and be willing to follow reason and facts where they leads, even if the path runs behind closed doors.

Remember what Groucho Marx said to his wife when caught in bed with another woman: “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

The Supreme Court case, Mahmoud v Taylor, a dispute between parents and the Montgomery County Public School District in Maryland over the inclusion of queer-themed storybooks in the elementary school English language arts curriculum, may be a watershed moment in parental rights. I begin with a brief background of the case and then critique the position of those critical of community and parental opposition to the inclusion of queer politics in public instruction.

In 2022, the Maryland district introduced picture books to expose young children to gender nonconformity and transgender identities—among them Pride Puppy, described Publishers Weekly as an “engaging introduction to Pride parades for the youngest readers successfully [that] testifies to the warmth and power of queer community,” and Born Ready, celebrated by Kirkus Reviews as “[a] triumphant declaration of love and identity” that “shines with joy and affirmation.”

Initially, parents could opt their children out of lessons involving these books. However, in March 2023, the school board eliminated this option, citing concerns about stigmatizing students represented by the books, high absenteeism, and logistical challenges. The first two objections are odd and curious. The possibility that students represented by the books might be stigmatized is a problem created by the inclusion of these materials in instruction. That’s ironic. The second problem of high absenteeism suggests that educators are eager to make sure every child receives instruction in the doctrine (more on that in a moment). The third flies in the face of other opt-outs the district allows.

After the district moved to require all students read and reflect on these books, a coalition of Catholic, Muslim, and Ukrainian Orthodox parents sued, arguing that the mandatory exposure to these materials violated their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion by conflicting with their beliefs about gender and sexuality. The parents argued that the policy forced them to choose between the integrity of their faith and withdrawing their children from public schools. Many of them either did not have the timing and training to homeschool or the money to sent their children to private schools.

The school district countered that the books were not part of sex education, which students were allowed to opt out of, but literacy-focused, aimed at fostering respect in a pluralistic community, and that exposure to differing views did not coerce students to abandon their beliefs. (What does exposure to queer doctrine have to do with literacy I don’t know.) Critics of the parents’ position raised concerns about the practical implications of broad opt-out rights, fearing they could disrupt curricula and extend to other topics, complicating public education.

Lower courts, including the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, had previously ruled against the parents, finding no evidence that the curriculum compelled them to change their beliefs (the facts contradict this finding, as instructional materials require students to accept the doctrine). However, during oral arguments on April 22, 2025, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared sympathetic to the parents’ claims, questioning why the district could not accommodate religious objections through opt-outs, since, as noted, Maryland allows such provisions for sex education.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson engaged in pointed questioning about the parents’ options for avoiding the Montgomery County Public School District’s curriculum. She specifically probed the practical implications of the parents’ demand for an opt-out, asking whether they could simply enroll their children in private schools or homeschool if they objected to the public school’s curriculum. Jackson implied that the parents’ religious objections did not necessitate a constitutional violation if other schooling options were available.

She also challenged the parents’ claim that the lack of an opt-out forced them to violate their beliefs, emphasizing that public schools serve diverse communities and must balance competing interests.

If diverse communities matter, then what about the Catholic, Muslim, and Ukrainian Orthodox communities? We see the same privileging of the queer community with respect to women’s activities and spaces. Trans rights are paramount; the rights of girls and women are sacrificed on the alter of queer doctrine. The myriad of exclusive communities that make up Western society are all subordinated to the cult of gender ideology. Their beliefs and principles must give way to queer doctrine.

Jackson’s questioning aligned with the school district’s position that the curriculum was about fostering literacy and respect, not indoctrinating students. This line of inquiry contrasted with the conservative justices’ focus on the district’s refusal to accommodate religious objections, highlighting a divide in how the court viewed the balance between parental rights and public education’s goals. But is there really a divide here? Why are parental rights and the goals of public education necessarily in contradiction? Shouldn’t public education reflect the goals of parents and the community? Isn’t that what democracy would look like? Indeed, there is an elite assumption of the value of technocratic control over education, which is indeed at loggerheads with the interests of working families in maintaining cultural integrity.

There is an interesting paradox in Jackson’s argument—or at least the position of her ilk. Recall the Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), which involved a baker refusing to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple due to religious objections. I presume Jackson was sympathetic to the couple in that case. Jackson’s cameo in the Broadway musical & Juliet suggests an affinity. We know the crowd in question was sympathetic to the couple. That same crowd would likely agree with Jackson about the parents pulling their kids from Montgomery County Public School District.

Presume I am right about that. The point I wish to make concerns an obvious double standard: the same crowd that believes it’s a grave injustice to find another baker after the first one declines to make a cake with a message he finds objectionable at the same time believes it’s perfectly reasonable for parents to find a different school that won’t teach their five-year-old boys can be girls.

To be sure, public education is a very different animal than a cake shop, but that makes the double standard even more remarkable. There is no compulsory cake purchasing in America. A private baker cannot—or at least shouldn’t be—compelled to violate his conscience. Customers are free to take their business elsewhere. Education, in contrast, is compulsory. The children are a captive audience. This takes us into deep ethical waters. If the school is public, then it must conform to Constitutional principle. The First Amendment protects freedom of conscience and speech. Private schools may offer religious instruction; indeed, parents choose them with that expectation. Public schools shall not; they cannot compel students to accept ideas that contradict their conscience—nor should they teach ideas that deny objective reality.

Let’s pursue the matter of principle. Imagine a Muslim child being told in social studies that Christianity is the only true religion, with dissent punished by the teacher. Consider an atheist child being told that belief in God is mandatory and the denial of God’s existence will be disciplined. These scenarios seem outrageous—but they are analogous to what is occurring in the Maryland case. In Montgomery county, guidance on curriculum implementation instructs teachers to discipline students who assert that there are only two genders or who refuse to comply with pronoun policies aligned with gender ideology.

Imagine a male teacher insisting students refer to him using feminine pronouns. Are parents expected to accept that a teacher may demand their children affirm a known falsehood? There are only two genders, after all. The male teacher is a man whatever he thinks of himself. He is, of course, free to think of himself in any way he wishes; he is not, however, not free to compel children or their parents to think of him in that way. Yet school policy demands that students misgender him—and furthermore insists that refusing to misgender him is itself misgendering (it doesn’t get more Orwellian than that). This isn’t a hypothetical, for the record; it’s happening.

This is professional malpractice; it’s indoctrination, not education. Public education should not be in the business of pressing falsehoods into young minds or promoting as truth that which is controversial, disputed, or unscientific. Teaching the speed of light? That’s appropriate, even if its nuances are beyond a child’s understanding. But claiming there are more than two genders or that a mammal can change its sex takes children into the realm of fantasy. Imagine a public-school math teacher insisting that 2+2=5 and punishing students for disagreeing. Imagine a science teacher promoting geocentrism and disciplining students who assert heliocentrism. These scenarios sound absurd—but they mirror what’s happening in Maryland’s largest school district.

To return to the matter of high absenteeism, why the insistence that every child be instructed in gender ideology? There is only one reason I can see: to ensure, for the sake of a political agenda, that every child is exposed to queer doctrine. This is the very definition of ideological indoctrination. It moreover calls into question the fitness of educators for their roles, and not just on grounds of competence. Is this why they entered the classroom—to groom children into accepting a particular ideology? If one wonders whether men become priests to be around children, then one must also consider the possibility that at least some teachers choose a career path that puts them close to children. (Did you note the decline in pearl clutching on the left over pedophile? Rather conspicuous in its absence if you’re paying attention.)

To be clear, gender ideology is not always analogous to religious instruction. Religion is, by nature, unfalsifiable. Gender is falsifiable. However, the subjective concept of gender identity à la Stoller is unfalsifiable, and this is where the ideology veers into quasi-religious territory. However, whether one considers gender ideology a religion or simply an ideology that contradicts objective fact, no child should be compelled to receive such instruction—especially not when it’s falsely framed as science.

The parents in the Maryland case were not even asking to remove gender ideology from the curriculum; they merely wanted to opt out. Even this was deemed unacceptable by the school district. Opting out should be the bare minimum, but gender ideology should not be taught in public schools at all—for the same reason that creationism or Christianity as-truth should not be: whether religious or pseudoscientific, such teachings have no place in a secular, public education system.

So again, why the insistence? I have racked my brain to think of some educational imperative to teach queer doctrine and all I can come up with it is using it as an example of how to think critically about pseudoscientific claim—and this could only be an exercise for more advanced students. One can smell the protests if any school district in America were to dare to use queer doctrine as the paradigm of pseudoscience.

The danger here is very real. A parent cannot fully protect their child from indoctrination when teachers have them for hours every day on most days of the week. These are children—they can be made to believe nearly anything (see the California McMartin Preschool case if you need an eye-opener). It’s one thing for peers on the playground to talk about gender ideology—or claim to be a dinosaur or a dog. It’s something else entirely for an adult in authority to teach a child that a man can be a woman.

Frankly, to believe something so absurd to the degree that one would teach it in school is disqualifying in itself. But setting aside the question of competence, it is not the role of teachers to instruct children in such beliefs, nor is it the role of public schools to override parental authority in service of a political agenda and the fetishes of the queer community. Believe what you want on your own time. But take down the flags, cancel the curriculum, and remove the books from public schools and libraries. These should be ideological-neutral spaces. The First Amendment demands it.

The New York Times is reporting that, two decades having passed since Nascimento Blair was last in his home country Jamaica, he has finally been deported. A judge ordered Blair to be deported after he was convicted of kidnapping in 2006. He was allowed to remain in the United States after leaving prison in 2020 because Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) did not consider Blair a priority for deportation. Now they do. So away he went.

With the reality setting in that their poster boy, “Maryland Dad” Kilmar Abrego Garcia, is a human trafficker, The New York Times has offered Blair as the next poster boy. The Gray Lady wants its readers to know his biography (as its reporters have constructed it)—among other things, how he reformed his life, as if that has anything to do about whether he should live his reformed life in the United States or in his home country. If he is such a saint, Jamaica could use him.

“I feel if Trump met him, he would think this guy makes America great,” said Dawn Ravella, a social worker, quoted in the Times. “He was born in Jamaica, but made in America. A person who did something bad, had remorse, paid their [sic] dues and paid it forward by living a life of kindness and service.” He is reformed, The Times reports, channeling his supporters for whom his “life story was one of rehabilitation, nuanced and filled with qualities that they believe Mr. Trump’s deportation machine disregards as it flies out immigrants en masse.”

Where was the furor over Mr. Clinton’s “deportation machine,” which removed 12.3 million illegal aliens from America? Or Misters Bush and Obama’s machines that removed 10.3 million and 5.3 million respectively?

The headline of the Times article “21 Years Later, Deported Back to a ‘Home’ He Barely Knew” announces a fallacy. Why is it so awful to send a man back to his home country that he hardly knows, but desirable for a man to illegally cross into a country he hardly knows? Imagine this argument: “Yes, he lived here as a child, but he hasn’t been here for 21 years, so we shouldn’t let him in.” That’s not an argument. The issue at hand is whether there is a legitimate reason for the man to enter. 

The relevant question concerning Blair is whether there is legitimate reason for him to stay. He is an illegal alien with a felony conviction for kidnapping and scheduled for deportation. Blair’s rehabilitation is entirely beside the point. This is no reason for him to stay in a country in which he holds no citizenship. He doesn’t even enjoy a path to citizenship. He was never told when he was released from prison that he could stay in the country because had been rehabilitated. He was in America only because ICE did not act on a judge’s deportation order. Now they have. And he is home—like Garcia.

Readers will recall that the media used a similar frame to manufacture sympathy over family separation for purposes of delegitimizing Trump’s deportation efforts during his first term. The ploy becomes obvious merely by asking why, if it’s so terrible to separate families at the border, separating America families has never been a concern. Family separation in the context of crime commission is standard. The rational question is why they’re being separated, not that they’re being separated. 

What the New York Times is doing is the purist form of propaganda: irrational, emotional appeals to obscure the reality of the situation in order to thwart the removal of illegal aliens. This is a simple matter really. Not everybody in the world can be in our country. There are rules about who can and cannot be here, how they are supposed to enter, and so on. If an individual is not supposed to be here, he needs removing. All the other stuff is noise generated to cloud reason. Mass immigration is a choice. The question citizens need to answer is who makes the choice. Is this what the People want? The polling tells us the answer is no. Trump’s landslide victory in November 2024 tells us the answer is no.

In several essays on Freedom and Reason I have made it plain who is making the choice to flood the United States with foreigners and why. I can summarize those conclusions by putting it this way: If one oppose mass deportation, he is effectively stand with corporate power over against the working class. Mass immigration is a corporate strategy to drive down the wages of the American worker and change the American way of life to advance the wealth and privilege of the global corporate class and entrench elite hegemony over the populace. If you need more evidence of the grand plan look at what they’re doing to Ireland. Still need more evidence? Look at what they’ve done to England, France, and Germany. What more evidence does a person need?

The elite have weaponized the US judiciary to advance a globalist project. They’re trying to force a constitutional crisis.

We’re hearing a great deal about “due process” these days. The pro-immigrant rhetoric is typically wrapped in the Bill of Rights. But what Democrats and the media aren’t telling their audiences—and the People should expect an objective media would tell them this—is that Illegal aliens have sharply limited due process compared to citizens, rights defined by congressional statutes and judicial precedent not enshrined in the Constitution. Why would they be in the Constitution? Only the People enjoy the privileges and immunity of citizenship. It’s their country. What would be the point of citizenship otherwise?

For illegal aliens, the scope of due process is constrained and determined by other powers, particularly in immigration proceedings. The Supreme Court has held that Congress has broad plenary power over immigration allowing it to prescribe the terms of due process for non-citizens. More than this, in Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), the Court held that “[i]n the exercise of Congress’ plenary power to exclude aliens or prescribe the conditions for their entry into this country, Congress in § 212(a)(28) of the Act has delegated conditional exercise of this power to the Executive Branch.” 

Rights like hearings, legal representation, or appeals are granted only as provided by statutes like the Immigration and Nationality Act. The president has broad powers under Article II to interpret and execute the laws Congress passes. In Mathews v. Diaz (1976), the Court clarified that non-citizens’ due process rights are subject to congressional limits. This is what democracy looks like.

While illegal aliens facing deportation may receive procedural protections (e.g., a hearing before an immigration judge), these protections are statutory, not constitutional, and can be modified by Congress and are subject to Executive discretion. Expedited removal, authorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, limits due process, providing only minimal review. The President can put anybody in charge of an immigration court. Given that very few of those illegally in our country have a legitimate asylum claim, with the right judges in place—i.e., those who serve the interests of the People—the President can rapidly remove millions of illegal aliens.

If the same due process enjoyed by US citizens were extended to illegal immigrants, a President would be unable to remove the ten million foreigners who illegally entered our country under the Biden regime—or the other ten million or so who came before them. How did Clinton remove more than 12 million illegal aliens from America? How did Bush and Obama remove more than 10 million and 5 million respectively? They could do this because they enjoyed the powers I described above. Where was the hysteria over due process then?

This is the goal of lawfare: hijack judicial review with the hope that the Supreme Court will hijacking congressional and executive authority by establishing a procedural framework that grinds Trump’s deportation efforts to a halt. If this happens, then the populace will know that the judiciary is working in tandem with the corporate class to begin the final stages of America’s destruction. The Trump Administration may have returned Blair home in time. But time is running out. There are millions of Blairs still in America—and the corporatocracy wants to keep them here.

In the face of The Resistance™, Trump is rising the polls. Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 52 percent of likely US voters approve of the job Trump is doing. 

The organizers of the “Hands Off” street performance might consider at some point whether want to keep going with this strategy. It seems to be producing the opposite effect. Corporatist propaganda confronts a now open media, and rational pundits like Scott Jennings make progressive pundits look like liars and lunatics. When progressives and the Democrats commanded social media they suppressed and de-platformed rational voices. When Elon Musk liberated Twitter from the censorship regime, he let progressives rant because he knew that they’re their own worst enemy.

Who are the organizers of the anemic color revolution? Among them are Open Society Foundations (created by multi-billionaire George Soros, now led by Alex Soros), which has shifted its focus toward direct political influence, organizing advocacy campaigns, legal defense funds, and protest infrastructure, and Sixteen Thirty Fund (administered by Arabella Advisors), which spends millions of dollars collected from anonymous donors. Those are two of several. These organizations provide resources for logistics and media campaigns. Thanks to the recent expansion and deepening of mutual knowledge facilitated by the more open system, the Resistance™ is becoming a money pit. At least that’s what the evidence suggests.

Now the People need the Supreme Court to do the right thing and get out of the way of the Trump agenda. But the people can’t depends on the Supreme Court. Congress must act to defund courts and impeach judges who are thwarting the popular will. Legislation is needed to restrict the tool of the universal injunction. The corporatists are getting desperate and they’re turning ever more aggressively to the machinery of government to deconstruct the American Republic. The judiciary is not the executive branch. Separation of powers is central to the republic scheme bequeathed to us by our forefathers. Government by judges is tyranny. Something must be done about this. Congress and the executive must reclaim the power given to them by the Founders.

The anti-democratic sentiment in the courts and on the left is a troubling thing. If the people don’t get a handle on it then the mob, frustrated by their increasingly inability to turn Americans against Trump, will ramp up its resort to vandalism and violence. One might think that limiting the judiciary in the corporatist project would provoke leftists to become even more terroristic. But ideologically-driven judges signal to the mob that their extreme behavior is appropriate—it encourages the elites who organize the mobs to turn to more drastic action by falsely portraying the President as an enemy of democracy. 

What lies behind this is the transnationalism agenda. Its two major pieces, namely neoliberalism and globalism, intertwined in the hands of Democrats and their Republican allies (there are still many of them), provide the economic and ideological framework driving transnationalism. Neoliberalism promotes the free flow of capital, goods, and services across borders. Globalism seeks interconnectedness and the integration of nations through trade, cultural exchange, and international institutions, e.g. the IMF and the WTO.

Neoliberal policies—trade liberalization and multinational/transnational corporate expansion—facilitate globalism by creating a borderless economic environment, prioritizing corporate interests over national sovereignty and local economies. This twin force exacerbates inequality and erodes cultural distinctions, as globalism and  neoliberalism homogenize markets and prioritize profit-driven systems over labor, environmental, and social concerns. This is the heart of the progressive agenda. It’s why progressives are protesting the removal of criminal aliens from the United States—if this hurdle is overcome, they know what follows is mass deportations. The color revolution and lawfare are part of a strategy to prevent this, which will undermine the Democrat’s electoral strategy and the corporate project to drive down wages for domestic labor. This is the politics of corporate power. And it is anti-worker.

It’s crucial for people to emphasize at every opportunity that the uprising is not organic. It’s a color revolution organized by global elites. Color revolutions have historically been a tool used by the global elite, working through government and nongovernmental organizations backed by corporate power, to change the governments of developing nations. Western organizations, such as Freedom House, the National Endowment for Democracy, US Agency for International Development, and Open Society Foundations provide funding, logistical support, and training to so-called pro-democracy groups in those countries. These forms of support include legal aid (lawfare) and media training (to create the illusion of grassroots resistance). While this assistance is publicly framed as “democracy promotion,” Western intelligence agencies, such as the CIA or MI6, covertly orchestrate these movements to undermine unfriendly regimes and install governments favorable to transnationalism.

More recently, the tactic of color revolution has shifted internally, to undermine and replace governments in the First World. This is a response to genuinely pro-democracy movements in the West, commonly known as populist-nationalism—the organic popular response to transnationalism. The United States witnessed the deployment of color revolution in the summer of 2020 and at other points during the first Trump presidency. With the reelection of Trump, the tactic has reappeared. The good news is that (so far) it’s not working to sway public opinion. But it’s something to worry about nonetheless because it indicates that there’s a concerted effort underway to forever alter the historical trajectory of the West and the way of life of its citizens.

The deportation figures cited in the meme below are roughly in line with the historical data, though they require context to understand exactly what they mean by deportations. The numbers I cite in this article reflect a combination of “removals” and “returns.” Removals are formal deportations, often involving court orders or expedited processes, with legal consequences like bans on re-entry. Returns are less formal, typically involving migrants apprehended at the border who are returned without a removal order. The injunction statistics a more problematic.

Bill Clinton (1993–2001) carried out approximately 12.3 million deportations. Of these, 11.4 million (93 percent) were returned primarily at the border, involving migrants apprehended and deported without formal removal proceedings. Additionally, Clinton carried out about 870,000 formal removals. George W. Bush (2001–2009) carried out approximately 10.3 million deportations, with about 8.3 million (81 percent) being returns and roughly 2 million formal removals. Barack Obama (2009–2017) carried out approximately 5.3 million deportations. Obama focused more on formal removals (around 3.2 million) than returns. Obama was so aggressive with formal removals that he was nicknamed “Deporter-in-Chief.” Obama’s policies shifted toward prioritizing criminal aliens. Trump strategy builds on Obama’s strategy.

The claim that Clinton, Bush, and Obama faced zero injunctions is inaccurate. Universal injunctions (court orders blocking federal policies) have been a feature of immigration policy disputes across the four administrations under discussion (they were rarely used before then). However, the gist of the meme—that Trump has faced more injunctions than his predecessors—is true. Indeed, the difference is stark. 

Clinton and Obama each faced around a dozen injunctions over their two terms. Bush faced around half a dozen. In contrast, Trump faced some 64 injunctions in his first term alone—with his first term seeing fewer deportations (about 1.5 million) than his predecessors in a four-year span. It would have been more, of course, if not for the barrage of injunctions leveled at Trump’s efforts to carry forward the policies of his predecessors. So far, in his second term, Trump has deported around a 50,000 illegal aliens. And the injunctions are flying. Who knows what the final count will be. 

So, while the meme isn’t entirely accurate, it is substantially true, and its implications important to consider. We might ask whether, if Biden were still president and embarked on a similar path, he would face such a massive wave of injunctions. We do know this wasn’t an issue in his only term as president because he essentially ended the policy of mass deportation and instead effectively opened the border to millions of illegal aliens. We don’t really need to guess what a second Biden term would look like.

What explains the double standard? How could Trump’s predecessors deport so many millions with so few injunctions, while Trump is hampered by injunctions at every turn? Is the simply because it’s Trump doing the deporting and corporate elites need to portray his deportation policy as some extraordinary moment in US history to delegitimize his presidency? Or did Biden’s open border policy signal the desire of corporate elites to flood the country with cheap foreign labor going forward?

The double standard may be only apparent. Globalization was kicked into a higher gear under Biden and mass immigration became even more central to the plan to immobilize and demoralize whatever remains of the labor movement. As we can see with the protests across America, the left has been turned against the working class. Mass immigration is also central to the plan to establish a one-party state with the Democratic Party and compliant Republicans serving the interests of the transnational elite. Trump and the populist movement is the resistance the oligarchy needs to put down, so stopping Trump’s immigration policy by manufacturing the perception that it’s authoritarian kills two birds with one stone.

Progressives are trying to manufacture yet another moral panic, this time over Trump’s suggestion that American citizens and residents could be held in foreign correctional facilities. They drop the new panic into the narrative about Trump’s alleged totalitarian ambitions. You’ve all heard it by now. Trump wants to be a dictator. Sending terrorists and violent offenders to facilities external to the United States confirms it. He’s a fascist. And a Nazi. It is an absurd narrative.

Extraterritorial incarceration (or cross-border incarceration) is not an extraordinary practice. Several of the most progressive European countries have arranged to house prisoners in facilities in other countries—and their crime rates, albeit on the rise, are lower than ours. Progressives have for as long as I have been alive offered up Europe as an aspirational model for the United States. Are they not aware of the practice of cross-border incarceration across the European Union? 

Denmark has leased prison cells in Kosovo to house prisoners (Kosovo isn’t even an EU member state). In 2021, an agreement was made to send hundreds of inmates to a facility in Kosovo, with the arrangement formalized in 2023. Prisoners are today being housed there. This policy was driven by overcrowding in Danish prisons. Norway has sent prisoners to a Dutch facility to manage capacity constraints. In 2015, Norway leased space in the Netherlands to house inmates due to insufficient domestic prison capacity. Belgium also leased prison space in the Netherlands, specifically in Tilburg, to accommodate 500 inmates starting in 2010. This was a response to overcrowding in Belgian prisons. 

The UK is exploring options to house prisoners abroad due to record-high prison populations. Discussions have been reported with Estonia to potentially send British prisoners to facilities there. Sweden is also in talks with Estonia to house prisoners in Estonian facilities, as part of efforts to address domestic prison overcrowding. While the Netherlands has primarily been a host country (e.g., leasing facilities to Belgium and Norway), it has also explored sending prisoners abroad.

Readers should be aware that the reason given for cross-border incarceration, namely overcrowding, begs another question: why are these countries experiencing prison overcrowding? Crime has been rising across Europe and many of these countries lack the facilities to handle the influx of convicts. It moreover makes their societies safer to house incorrigibles in other countries. This begs yet another question: why is crime rising in Europe? Over the last several decades, Europe has made residents of millions of foreigners whose cultures are incompatible with European culture and who grew up in corrupt and crime-ridden countries. People are culture-bearers. The rise in crime correlates with the influx of Africans, Arabs, and Eastern Europeans. The correlation is not spurious.

According to Eurostat data from 2022, intentional homicides in the EU increased by more than 4 percent compared to 2021. Sexual violence offenses are on the rise across Europe. Thefts rose by 18 percent, robberies by nearly 10 percent, and burglaries by over 7 percent. Organized crime, particularly drug trafficking, is a growing concern, with INTERPOL noting a significant rise in related violent crime and money laundering. 

Some countries and cities experience more crime than others. Berlin saw an 8 percent rise in violent crime from 2021 to 2023, with homicides up 15 percent, sexual assaults up 12 percent, and robberies up 10 percent, according to the German Federal Criminal Police Office. Nationwide, violent crimes hit a 15-year high. In the UK, Birmingham’s violent crime rose 13 percent from 2021 to 2023, with knife-related offenses up 10 percent. London reported a 21 percent increase in knife-related incidents between July 2022 and June 2023, and homicides spiked in 2023.

Sweden’s crime index in 2023 was 48.5, among the highest in Europe, when it used to be one of the safest countries in the world. Belgium, France, Netherlands, and Spain have all experienced rising drug-related gang violence, contributing to the increasing problem of violent crime. Belgium and France rank even higher than Sweden on crime indices (49.1 and 55.3, respectively, in 2023).

Just as many European countries are utilizing or considering extraterritorial incarceration in countries in their region, the Trump Administration is using and considering extraterritorial incarceration in foreign counties. The panic over the CECOT detention center located in Tecoluca, El Salvador, depends on concealing the fact that cross-border incarceration is a common practice. The corporate media and progressive pundits will not tell their publics this. Perhaps many of them don’t know about it. But some do. The truth is a problem for their narrative.

This is why progressives in America are not branding the governing parties of Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom “Nazis.” It’s why they aren’t warning the citizens of those and other social democratic countries that their governments are on the path to “fascism.” Wasn’t it only a few months ago progressives scolded Vice-President JD Vance for criticizing Europeans for their repressive speech policies and for corrupting democratic processes by marginalizing oppositional parties? Their gaze is selective. Their anti-fascism is fake.

Extraterritorial incarceration is not a sign of fascism. Social democratic countries across Europe have turned to or considering utilizing the practice to make their cities and communities safer in the face of growing crime caused by the globalist strategy to drive down wages by importing and securing residence for cheap foreign labor—also to disrupt Western culture. Misplaced humanitarianism among the populations there functions to cover and advance the strategy. The rise of repressive free speech law and lawfare disenfranchising those with nationalist sympathies is at its core a strategy to tamp down popular opposition to the globalist agenda. Extraterritorial incarceration would not be necessary if Europe deported those who threaten Western civilization.

For those who might want to quibble over the status of those housed in foreign prisons by noting that they are not citizens, know that the basis for citizenship in most of these countries (jus sanguinis) precludes even those born in those countries from automatically becoming citizens there. That means that residents who have lived their entire lives in these countries are subject to extraterritorial incarceration—analogous to sending US citizens to overseas detention facilities, an idea Trump is floating. These same persons are also subject to deportation, which would in the long term be the most effective way for reducing prison overcrowding and crime in Europe.

This is the advantage of citizenship law based on ancestry instead of birthright. On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order to end birthright citizenship for children born in the US to parents who are illegally in the country or here on temporary visas. The order challenges over a century of legal precedent established by the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which has been blocked by multiple federal judges in states like Maryland, New Hampshire, and Washington, who deemed it unconstitutional. I have explained in articles on Freedom and Reason why it may not be unconstitutional. Extraterritorial incarceration may not depend on whether it is.

The Supreme Court announced on Thursday that it will hear arguments on May 15, 2025, to address the Administration’s request to lift nationwide injunctions preventing the order’s enforcement. Legal scholars and critics, citing the Fourteenth Amendment’s “clear language” and “historical intent” to grant citizenship to all born on US soil, view the order as unlikely to succeed, though they admit that case’s outcome could hinge on the Court’s interpretation of jurisdictional nuances and its stance on nationwide injunctions (which also must be addressed, as I have also argued in articles recently published on this platform).

Before closing, I want to address two related arguments I routinely confront on social media. The first concerns the matter of civil rights for those who encounter the criminal justice process. I’m a civil libertarian. I have always been a strong advocate for the Bill of Rights. Leaving aside the question of whether noncitizens should have full access to those rights (I lean towards the position that they shouldn’t in any robust sense), such arguments concern principle. My record on principle in this regard is unassailable.

However, there are pragmatic considerations to be considered in making any public policy. Moreover, public safety is a human right. Due process is important, but so are the human rights of those who want to live in safe communities. The ideal approach to enhancing public safety means supporting the needs of communities. Central to this is the presence of high-wage, value-added manufacturing jobs and protection of American citizens and legal residents from cheap foreign labor by strict enforcement of immigration laws. American once enjoyed this situation. During the period between immigration restrictions in the 1920s and the globalization push following WWII, especially after the opening of the country to mass immigration again, crime was at historic lows in America. Families were largely intact. And communities were thriving.

If progressives were concerned with the situation of those who are arrested, convicted, and sentenced to prison, kept here or sent abroad, why do they oppose policies that would recapture America’s Gold Age? It’s not as if we don’t know what works. Why do progressives support social policies destructive to communities and families? The drastic rise in crime that begins in the mid-1960s and peaks in the early-1990s was only reversed by mass incarceration and interventionist police action. Had progressives not pursued such destructive policies as the Great Society and globalization, there would have been no need to take the drastic measures taken in the 1980s and 1990s to restore some modicum of public safety to our towns and cities. Expanding the criminal justice system was necessary not merely because progressives have no will to do the things that make American safer; they actively oppose policies that addresses the root causes of crime in America—deindustrialization and the replacement of American workers with foreign labor.

The second argument I routinely confront on social media is the claim that the rate of crime commission by immigrants is lower than the rate for Americans (the rightwing libertarian think tank Cato Institute distributes this claim, which has become ubiquitous). On X, in recent back-and-forth about the deportation of criminal aliens, I awaited the inevitable. I didn’t have to wait for long (I never do). “But immigrants commit crime at only half the rate of Americans.”

This claim is flawed. For one thing, it obscures the fact that those entering the United States illegally, such as crossing a border without authorization, outside a designated port of entry, are violating the criminal law. Despite what we are told, illegally entering the United States is not merely a civil violation; it’s a crime under 8 U.S.C. § 1325, which can result in fines, imprisonment for up to six months, or both for a first offense. Penalties may increase for subsequent violations or aggravating circumstances.

Being established that it is a crime to illegally enter the United States, one would have to assume that American citizens illegally enter other countries with similar immigration laws (which is a great many of them—some even stricter) at a rate much greater than foreigners illegally entering this country. Since this is a rather absurd assumption, it’s obvious that illegal aliens have a much higher crime than American citizens when comparing apples to apples—without committing any additional crimes. I’m being a tad sarcastic here; this is not what those who make this claim have in mind. But it’s still worth pointing out.

What they mean to argue is that Americans are more criminal than immigrants. Not quite. Some native-born groups have very high crime rates—black men, for example, commit homicides at 6–8 times the rate of white men. This is a consequence of deindustrialization and the ghettoization of black men in dilapidated inner-city areas with high levels of social disorganization, exacerbated by public assistance programs undermining families in these areas—thanks to the progressive transnationalist project. Thus comparing immigrants to “all Americans” obscures several distortions. The majority of Americans, despite the decline in their standard of living, are law-abiding tax-paying citizens.

The real problem is that appealing to rates obscures the real issue, namely crime volume. Presumably, nobody wants more crime (at least nobody will admit that, albeit it is functional to certain ends). Rates aside, the fact is that illegal aliens add thousands of violent crimes (even ignoring millions of border-crossing violations) on top of all the violence crime America already endures. Reducing the numbers of illegal aliens to zero would stop those crimes cold. Fewer victims, less burden. It’s that simple, really.

Removing the alien contribution to the crime problem would mean thousands of fewer assaults, homicides, or robberies each year, easing the burden on victims, law enforcement, and the justice system. Additionally, the reduction would address measurable costs: fewer resources spent on processing illegal entry cases, less strain on infrastructure, and reduced economic impacts, not only the tens of billions of dollars in net fiscal costs attributed to illegal immigration annually (the burden on taxpayers), but the half a trillion dollars in lost wages to American workers annually (money that goes into the pockets of employers). By eliminating this population’s presence, the US avoids these added crimes and costs entirely, keeping the crime volume lower than it would be otherwise.

The real point of the claim is to suggest that immigrants are better than native-born Americans. To that I say, “fuck you.” But I need to say just a bit more than that. Making immigrants appear as a more desirable lot than Americans is functional to the ends sought by progressive transnationalists—not just to the needs of the corporations who seek super-exploitable labor pools, or the needs of Democrats seeking to draw more resources to their states and groom more voters for their party, but to advance the project of deconstructing the American Republic and, more broadly, the West.

At first approximation, the left loathes strength and tradition and takes up the cause of the weak and the marginal. This is the cause of “social justice.” It’s a struggle between “oppressor” and “victim.” In this formulation, normal working class and small business men and women (depicted as exclusively white) are the oppressor. Everybody else is the victim. But a closer examination reveals something very different. Leftists rationalize Islamofascism and defend Hispanic gang culture, both deeply patriarchal and antihuman traditions. This is why they get so exercised over attempt to deal with the worst people—the anti-West protestors on our college campuses, MS-13 members Trump is deporting, men demanding access to women’s spaces, murders and rapists (as long as they’re not white). Progressives upend reason, science, and common sense in the institutions they have captured for a reason. This is motive force behind the endless manufactures of moral panic.

Why did Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen travel to El Salvador to visit Kilmar Abrego Garcia in prison but not personally reach out to the mother of Rachel Morin, whose daughter was raped and murdered in 2023 by Victor Martinez-Hernandez, a fugitive from El Salvador, while exercising on a hiking trail northeast of Baltimore? Van Hollen’s priorities are clear. And he speaks for millions on the left. I discussed his visit to El Salvador in Thursday’s blog. Update: Van Hollen finally got his meeting with Garcia. It was photographed. They had drinks together. Garcia looks healthy. More Democrats are making their way to El Salvador to join in the grandstanding—despite the evidence making it clear that Garcia, an El Salvadorian citizen, is right where he should be.

What lies in back of progressive social justice rhetoric is “Europhobia,” a hatred for, loathing of, and prejudice against Europeans and European culture. This includes the United States and Canada, the progeny of European society. I am reluctant to use such a neologism in light of the propaganda constructs “Islamophobia” and “transphobia,” but perhaps such constructs resonate with those who manufacture them. I trust readers understand what I mean with this term. It’s the anti-West sentiment, the source of sympathy for Hamas and animus towards Israel and Jews more generally on the left, etc.

This is not hyperbole. The left is explicit about it. I repeat myself: today’s left loathes Western civilization and the Enlightenment. They have abandoned their historic solidarity with the working class (which has smelled a bit paternalistic, frankly). They articulate this abandonment through their condemnation of “white privilege” and other like rhetoric. This is the postmodernist project. Note the construction: postmodern. They seek a new world order that leaves behind modern society and its values: democratic republicanism, humanism, individualism, liberalism, and secularism. They want this replaced by the atavisms of tribalism and “indigenous ways of knowing.” This destructive ideology is rampant in our colleges and universities—even k-12. It has corrupted medicine and science. It has colonized our sense-making institutions. It targets the family. And the community.

Tens of millions in the West are waking up to the fact that the postmodern project represents an existential threat to everything they hold dear. They are recognizing the signs now. The dramatic cultural and political pivot we’re witnessing is driven by an awakening in the West. Hopefully, it’s not too late. And despite the consequences of impatience with civil rights and due process that protects the worst humans on earth, the impatience is understandable—and until the left quits its anti-human project, the consequences inevitable. The majority is caught between principle and pragmatics, and they have only one life to live, and there are other lives to which they are responsible. They have to secure the safety of their families, and there are times where doing so demands bold action. In light of this, extraterritorial incarceration is a rather minor matter.

Like a dog on a bone, the corporate media and progressive pundits can’t let go of the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a citizen of El Salvador currently housed in the that country’s Terrorism Confinement Center (Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo), or CECOT. It’s the latest in a succession of manufactured scandals that, like that dog’s bone, is gnawed to nothing over time.

The media and progressive narrative is crumbling. Garcia, who illegally entered the United States more than a decade ago, was allowed to work in Maryland, but was not granted asylum in the 2019 immigration case the Trump Administration allegedly skirted. Nor was Garcia given a green card or a path to citizenship. The “Maryland man” is now back in the country of his origin, having been transported there by the Trump Administration. The president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, has declined to return him to the United States.

Garcia sought asylum in America because he feared Barrio 18, an El Salvadorian gang. Why would Garcia need protection from Barrio 18? Is it because Barrio 18 is the chief rival or the El Salvadorian gang MS-13 and they had it in for Garcia? Garcia claimed that Barrio 18 was extorting his family. I can find no evidence for this claim. But there is evidence that he is a MS-13 gang member.

The 2019 case was an immigration proceedings following Garcia’s detention by ICE. ICE determined he was an MS-13 gang member based on a confidential informant’s claim and a Gang Field Interview Sheet. Garcia was with Christhyan Hernandez-Romero and Jose Guillermo Dominguez, known MS-13 gang members, both members of the Sailor’s clique.

According to the field report, “During the interview officers observed he was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat and a hoodie with rolls of money covering the eyes, ears and mouth of the presidents on the separate denominations. Officers know such clothing to be indicative of the Hispanic gang culture. The meaning of the clothing is to represent ‘ver, oir y callar’ or ‘see no evil, hear no evil and say no evil.’ Wearing the Chicago Bulls hat represents that they are a member in good standing with the MS-13. Officers contacted past proven and reliable source of information, who advised [that Garcia] is an active member of MS-13 with the Westerns clique. The confidential source further advised that he is the rank of ‘Chequeo’ with the moniker of ‘Chele.’”

In April 2019, an immigration judge denied Garcia bond, citing the informant’s allegation as sufficient evidence of gang ties. In October 2019, another immigration judge denied his asylum request but granted him “withholding of removal” to El Salvador (keep in mind that immigration judges are administrative officers who often facilitate immigration agendas). Garcia was required to check in with ICE annually. His presence in our country was therefore provisional and there were questions about his associations.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia had a history of violence and was not the upstanding “Maryland Man” the media has portrayed him as.

According to court filings, Garcia’s wife sought a domestic violence restraining order against him, claiming he punched, scratched, and ripped off her shirt,… pic.twitter.com/FpSV0k3i90

— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) April 16, 2025

But there are other troubling elements of this case. Garcia’s wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, on two occasions in 2021, sought a restraining order against her husband alleging domestic violence, according to a court filing posted on X by the Department of Homeland Security (see above). The affidavit alleges that Garcia punched and scratched Sura, bloodying and bruising her—all this in the presence of their baby. Sura expressed fear of being near him, citing her safety concerns. However, she did not appear in court for the hearings, and the requests for the restraining order were not pursued further. While it’s possible that Sura chose not to proceed, factors such as fear, intimidation, or external pressures could have prevented her attendance. No specific details confirm these possibilities, but that is expected in such cases.

Moreover, in 2022, Garcia was stopped by the Tennessee Highway Patrol (THP) illegally transporting seven immigrants from Houston to Maryland on an invalid drivers license. The officer suspected Abrego Garcia was engaged in human trafficking. The THP contacted the FBI for guidance, and within a couple of hours, the FBI requested that Garcia and his passengers be released. The THP complied with this request, and no arrests or charges were made in connection to the incident. Why would Biden’s FBI instruct the THP to release a man known to ICE as a MS-13 gang member and allow him to continue transporting illegal immigrants to Maryland on an invalid drivers license? I think readers know the answer to this question.

We are hearing very little about any of this in the legacy media and progressives defending Garcia. They aren’t asking questions about the relevant facts. You’re hearing about a “Maryland dad” with a wife and an autistic child. If you hear about the allegation against him, the spin is that the allegations are doubtful and that he was mistakenly rolled up (in an “administrative error”) in an ICE operation to deport MS-13 gang members. Why won’t the media give you the straight facts? Why won’t journalists ask the relevant questions? Why are Democratic politicians grandstanding over the case? Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland flew to El Salvador to “get answers” about the “wrongful deportation” of a “Maryland migrant.” He was rebuffed.

Did Van Hollen violate the Logan Act which prohibits US citizens from engaging in unauthorized diplomacy with foreign governments to influence disputes or undermine US policy? Border Czar Tom Homan argues that Van Hollen’s actions constituted unauthorized diplomacy, especially since Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele rejected Garcia’s release, aligning with the Trump administration’s stance.

Van Hollen defenders counter that he acted as a US senator, not a private citizen, that Senators often engage in foreign travel and discussions as part of their oversight and constituent service roles, and that his meetings with US embassy officials and Salvadoran authorities were consistent with congressional duties. Accepting all that, the question still remains: why is Van Hollen representing a deported El Salvadorian citizen who was denied asylum and a green card, is almost certainly a MS-13 gang member, assaulted his wife, and stopped for trafficking immigrants across state lines on an invalid driver’s license?

There are at least three related reasons for the corporate media spin and broad Democrat support for criminal aliens. First, the media and the Democratic Party want to keep cheap immigrant labor in America because it benefits the oligarchy they represent. The spin is a continuation of the propaganda war prosecuted against the American populace during Trump’s first term, the aim of which is to turn public opinion against the President’s policy. Second, and more deeply, these forces are attempting to delegitimize the Trump Administration because the populist movement he represents is an existential threat to the globalist project. They need to marginalize the movement in the eyes of the populace. Third, the oligarchy wants to divide the American proletariat along ideological lines in order to facilitate elite management of the population. This is the beating heart of multiculturalism project manifest in identity politics, in this case manufacturing ethnic and racial antipathies.

The spin isn’t working. Today’s Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll finds Trump at 50 percent approval, with 48 percent disapproving. Harry Enten at CNN is reporting that if the election were held today, Trump would still prevail over Harris. Democrats, on the other hand, are more unpopular than they have ever been in historic polling. The succession of manufactured scandals—Nazi-style salutes, SignalGate, pardons for January 6 rioters, to name a few—are having little effect other than to feed the confirmation bias of those who already loathe the President and MAGA.

Abraham Lincoln famously said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” The first part is definitely true. The second and third parts are exaggeration. But the spirit of the quip taken in its entirety is essentially correct. It has become very difficult for the elite to control the population with lies and propaganda. This is because the Internet liberated by Musk’s lead in purchasing Twitter (at a loss), has made the sharing of information too open for falsehoods and misrepresentations to take hold in the way they used to. We are in the midst of a significant political realignment.

Americans want those who should not be in this country deported. According to the Pew Research Center, fewer than one in five Americans oppose deportation. Trump has started with criminal aliens and those associated with criminal gangs and terrorist networks, which is supported by a large majority of Americans. Democrats know that what follows this is mass deportations of everybody who crossed borders into the United States illegally. They’re trying to nip the project in the bud by manufacturing a moral panic over Garcia. He’s their poster boy. But it’s not working.

You know what else isn’t working? The moral panic over tariffs. The panic over Wall Street’s performance of late—the propaganda making it appear as an everyman peril—is designed to mask the fact that the top 10 percent of income earners hold roughly 90 percent of corporate stock value. The fact is that working-class individuals invest smaller amounts in stocks, primarily through retirement plans, while high-net-worth individuals and institutions dominate trading volume and influence market dynamics. Wall Street’s investment landscape reflects the interests of the rich. How quickly we forget that only 15 years ago there were mass protests on the left against Wall Street—and only 25 years ago mass labor and leftwing protests against globalization.

The new tack we see emerging is manufacturing panic over a possible trade embargo between the US and China. To be sure, both sides are engaged in a heated trade war, with actions like China’s reported halt on Boeing jet deliveries and US tariff carve-outs for tech companies exerting strategic economic pressure. But even if there were an embargo, it would mean that US capital would not flow to China, but rather stay here or near, which would facilitate more domestic investment in manufacturing. Even without an embargo, a reduction of capital outflows would manifest to the benefit of American workers.

There is a relevant passage by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in The Communist Manifesto (1848) that needs only minor adjustments to capture the spirit of actions pursued by the transnational corporate class against the American businessman and worker, waged through the instrument of the Chinese economic power:

“The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.”

The passage describes how capitalism, in their day driven by the bourgeoisie, leverages cheap goods, communications, and technological advancements to impose itself on all nations, reshaping the world in its image. Today, global capitalism, driven by a transnational elite, is reshaping the United States in the way that earlier iterations of capitalism reshaped the world. In Marx’s time, the metaphor “Chinese walls” symbolized protectionism and resistance to Western influence, drawing from historical perceptions of China’s self-imposed cultural and trade barriers. The usefulness of this metaphor is not time-bounded.

Today, under Trump, it’s America protecting its industries and workers, resisting the resisting the power of globalism to reshape our republic, reconstituting the cultural and trade barriers that made the United States the industrial powerhouse of the world—a title usurped China. The “heavy artillery” is cheap commodities China uses as weapons to break into markets, overcoming resistance, and integrating nations into the global capitalist system. For Marx and Engels, “barbarian nations” referred to the non-industrialized societies that lie outside the capitalist framework. To be sure, the US does not lie outside the capitalist framework, but a new framework is being erected, the framework of transnational corporatism, and Trump means to keep America aloof from it. And in the eyes of the globalist, Trump and MAGA are the barbarians.

Cheap Chinese commodities do not in the long run improve the standards of living of American families—only relatively and marginally because of the decline in wages relative to productivity. High-wage/value added manufacturing—and jobs for Americans generally—will raise the standard of living of American families. More people working for higher wages will raise tax revenues and allow the government to pay down the debt (and lower interest rates) enabling it to continue mounting the social programs that help American families and communities. That will come by easing trade deficits, deporting illegal aliens, securing our borders, and restoring the American System. It will come by erecting walls against globalization. Trump’s America First plan is the right plan.

The Garcia case and the globalist agenda are interlinked. Garcia is not a poster boy of the tyranny of the Trump Administration. He is a poster boy of the globalist project that has offshored manufacturing and flooded the United States with cheap foreign labor—a project that has displaced American workers, sunk America into tens of trillions of dollars in debt and put nation on a path to sovereign debt crisis, the restructuring of which will be the dismantling of the republic and full incorporation into the transnational global order. We cannot let that happen.