Category: Uncategorized

This is according to FiveThirtyEight. Look at the movement in the generic ballot as we approach the finish line. Democrats are trending upwards. But Republicans are trending upwards much faster and closing the gap. Harris is generally trending downward in the battlegrounds. She’s only up 2.4 percent nationally. She not only can’t break out of the margin of error, but Trump is closing. RealClearPolling is today reporting that NBC has it a tie nationally (here’s that NBC story).

Despite the mainstream media, social media, political elites, and the culture industry and its roster of celebrities doing everything they can to elevate Harris and trash Trump, they can’t put her or the Democratic Party in a statistical lead—and from past experience, we know the true strength of Trump and Republicans are elusive in polling. Despite everything the Establishment is doing—including the administrative state and its wide-ranging campaign of lawfare against its enemies—Trump and the Republicans are surging. JD Vance has been killing it on the MSM the past few days.

If on election night we see a repeat of 2020, tens of millions will not trust the results—and they will be right to dispute the results. The demand that people have faith in a corrupt system is a call to share in an illusion of election integrity. People who ask you to trust the government should not be trusted themselves. Democrats undermine confidence in the system. They sue to prevent the cleaning of voter rolls. They legislate and sue to prevent voter ID. They push for machine balloting, ballot harvesting, and drop boxes. They thwart efforts to establish voter verification and chain of custody. Then they gaslight you when you object. They call for censorship and deplatforming.

If Trump wins in a close election, expect Democrats to drag out the certification process and dispute the outcome like they did in 2000, 2004, and 2016. They will do everything they condemned Trump of and much more. And be prepared for pandemonium in the streets. Remember the riots in 2016 and 2017 when Trump won and was inaugurated? Expect mob violence if Trump wins. They’re freaking out. All day today they have dwelled on Trump’s farts and trying to make him out to be Hitler. The progressive side of the fence is Bedlam.

Today progressives raised the horror of Japanese internment because Trump intends to established detention facilities for criminal aliens. But the Japanese were US citizens. And who put them in camps? The paragon of progressivism Democrats Franklin Roosevelt did—the same man who did not honor the precedent set by George Washington and every other president to serve only two terms.

Take sixteen minutes out of your life and have your mind blown. If Trump wins in the Electoral College, the deep state may try to run Scenario 3.

“Transphobia” is as nonsensical a term as “Islamophobia.” What’s next? “Fasciophobia” for when people decry being hauled away for criticizing irrational belief systems? I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating.

Disbelief isn’t belief. It’s the absence of belief. I disbelieve the claims of religion and quasi-religious systems. I don’t believe in things that are impossible or that are not proven or provable by reason or facts. I’m an atheist. I don’t believe there’s a god. No apologies. If you want to believe in a god, that’s fine (you don’t need my permission), just don’t force me to. I’m a civil libertarianism, which is a political philosophy that advocates for the individual’s right to believe in what he will or not to believe in what he won’t, to express what he wishes or not say anything at all.

How is a political philosophy that seeks the negative liberty situation of not being compelled to believe or say things others believe and say a form of bigotry? It can’t be. Yet I encounter people all the time believe that if you reject or criticize their beliefs, then you’re a bigot. This position indicates the habit of deploying a self-sealing fallacy where everything a person disagrees with becomes bigotry. If this fallacy becomes common practice, and unfortunately it has, it allows for compelling people to believe and say certain things or have them act in bad faith. There are words for this attitude. Do you know them? Think about it and I will share some of them at the conclusion of the essay.

The word bigotry is thrown about in a reckless manner. Words have meanings. Bigotry is defined as the stubborn and unreasonable attachment to a particular belief, opinion, or prejudice. Sometimes the definition includes discrimination, hatred, or intolerance against those who are perceived as different or who hold different viewpoints. Let’s accept the second part for the sake of argument, since those making accusations of bigotry often advance the latter while eschewing the former (that’s a matter of usage). However, the first part, the part about stubborn and unreasonable attachment to a particular belief, opinion, or prejudice is the operative definition.

I was recently asked whether bigotry against trans people is even possible. I am asked about this with respect to several other faith-beliefs, as well. Or at least the question is assumed in discourse. I have been accused of “Islamophobia,” for example, a term that intends to convey bigotry against Islam—as if this were possible for an atheist to do, since the atheist has no religious beliefs to which to stubbornly or unreasonably cling. It is of course possible for the Muslim to be a bigot, since he often presents with a stubborn and unreasonable attachment to a particular belief, opinion, or prejudice. Moreover, Muslims are often hateful towards and intolerant of those who hold other viewpoints.

Disbelief in religious and religious-like ideologies cannot represent stubborn and unreasonable attachment to a particular belief or opinion since disbelief is not a belief or an opinion, but the lack thereof. Disbelief is the refusal to accept something as true or real without a compelling reason to do so. Disbelief is an expression of doubt or skepticism, often in response to something that seems implausible or contrary to what one knows to be factual or reasonable. It is therefore reasonable to criticize all beliefs that are not confirmed or verified. Why should faith-belief be spared from unflinching criticism? It shouldn’t. Irreligious criticism is the opposite of bigotry. It is the mark of an open mind.

Do I prejudge believers? Of course I do. Why? Because believers come with beliefs I disbelieve or reject. I can expect a Christian to believe certain things. Humans are (usually) thought-bearers, and very often the thoughts they bear are false and irrational. Some of their beliefs I confess to hating, if by hate one means an intense reaction characterized by strong aversion or enmity towards belief or behavior. It is my natural right to hate things; it is innate constituent of my evolved emotional inventory. That’s freedom of conscience. Nonetheless, as a civil libertarian, I tolerate beliefs I reject and hate. People are free to believe what they will and express those beliefs. What I am not obliged to tolerate are behaviors or actions based on those beliefs that interfere with my freedom or harm others. Moreover, a free society requires tolerance of others beliefs so that there is a guarantee that my beliefs will be tolerated. Otherwise, it’s not a free society.

The short answer, then, is no, it is not possible to be bigoted towards people who believe in impossible things like that a man can be a woman or a man can be without gender (nonbinary), since the rational person disbelieves in impossible things, which these things are. Again, it is obligatory or vital in a free society to be tolerant towards those who believe in things like “gender identity,” “souls,” “therians,” “thetans,” etc, because, among other things, one would like to enjoy tolerance towards his own beliefs, such as belief in his right to be freedom from compelled belief. However, it is entirely reasonable for a free people to criticize and defend any belief. I’d say more than this: it’s obligatory to do so if people wish to keep their society free.

What about homosexuality? Is bigotry towards homosexuality even possible? For sure, just as bigotry towards women, i.e., misogyny, is not only possible but widespread. There are many men (and some women) who believe the woman’s place is in the home. There are men (and some women) who believe that women have no right to female-only activities and spaces. They have a stubborn and unreasonable attachment to this opinion. When misogyny is put into practice, we know it as sexism. The same is true with heterosexism, which is the institutionalize practice of denying homosexuals full equality. Heterosexism generates and is perpetuated by bigotry against gays and lesbians, such as the bigoted position that heterosexuality is the only acceptable form of romantic love.

Homosexuality is the romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender. It is one of the sexual orientations, alongside heterosexuality (attraction to the opposite sex) and bisexuality (attraction to both sexes). In a broader sense, homosexuality encompasses both the identity of individuals who experience same-sex attraction and the cultural and social practices associated with same-sex relationships. While the term “homosexual” is often used to describe people who are attracted to others of their own sex, some prefer terms like “gay,” “lesbian,” or “bi,”which can carry more positive and affirming connotations. I use these terms, too, but at the same time, there has always been a need to destigmatize the word “homosexual.” To put this another way, we should condemn anti-homosexual bigotry. Should we punish people for it? No, because bigots have a right to their bigotry.

Homosexuality is very different from the idea “gender identity,” found in queer theory, in that the latter is not a natural attraction or behavior but an ideological construct. Gender identity is analogous to the soul in Christianity or the thetan in Scientology. Whereas the words used to denote homosexuality refer to real things, the words used to denote gender identity as constructed by queer theory call things into existence that have no actual reality. This is why the smear “transphobia” does not describe an actual phobia but constitutes a thought-stopping device used to chill criticism of the ideology. Accusations of transphobia do the same work as accusations of “Islamophobia” when devotees of this ideology and their allies seek to shut down irreligious criticism. A disbeliever cannot be a bigot for denying the claims of queer theory anymore than he can be a bigot for denying the claims of Islam.

The view that all ideologies are legitimately subject to criticism, which is central to my style of sociological critique, is rooted in the principles of intellectual freedom, critical thinking, and the pursuit of truth. No belief system or set of ideas should be immune from debate, doubting, questioning, or scrutiny. All ideologies, by their nature, represent particular interpretations of the world that are shaped by cultural, historical, and social contexts. As such, they are inherently fallible and open to challenge. To be sure, critics of this view often argue that ideologies play a crucial role in providing meaning, moral guidance, and social cohesion, and that constant criticism undermines these functions. But without the ability to critique ideologies, we risk of dogmatism, where ideas are accepted without question, which in turn leads to the suppression of dissent and the perpetuation of harmful beliefs. After all, racism provides meaning, moral guidance, and social cohesion. Should we not undermine these function with vigorous criticism of racist belief?

Irreligious criticism—and queer theory meets the anthropological and sociological definition of religion—closely aligns with the values of democratic societies, where freedom of thought and expression are protected, and where debate and dialogue are considered essential for the healthy functioning of public life. This is the ethos of the Enlightenment, which emphasizes reason, skepticism, and the continuous testing of ideas as a means to progress—and for sustaining freedom and making justice. By subjecting all ideologies to criticism, we better identify biases, uncover hidden assumptions, and refine or reject ideas that do not withstand scrutiny. This process is seen as vital for the advancement of knowledge and for the development of more just and equitable social systems. Should we not criticize Scientology because those who subscribe to these ideas will be offended or feel unsafe? If we do, are we bigots? Of course not. Not at all. It is a ridiculous charge.

The ideas of queer theory and its foundation in pseudoscientific tendencies in psychiatry and sexology are crackpot and not merely stand as legitimate objects of critique, but require vigorous critique because they are harmful to individuals and society. Homosexuality is not an ideology. Recognition of homosexuality is rooted not only in our commitment to individual freedom, but in admitting naturally occurring phenomenon. Trans genderism, in contrast, is a desire to manufacture simulated sexual identities, several orders down the precession of simulacra, things that have no basis in real world, indeed things that contradict observable and verifiable reality. A man can love another man and know him sexually. A man cannot be a woman in the same way that there is no thetan lurking inside each of us.

Discriminating against homosexuals is wrong because it violates fundamental principles of dignity, equality, and human rights. All individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, deserve to be treated with respect and afforded the same rights and opportunities as others. Discrimination based on sexual orientation perpetuates harm by reinforcing negative stereotypes, fostering social exclusion, and denying people the freedom to live authentically and openly. At its core, such discrimination is an unjust exercise of power that marginalizes individuals based on a characteristic that is integral to their identity. It undermines the social fabric by promoting division and intolerance, which can lead to further prejudice and violence. Recognizing the humanity and worth of every person, irrespective of whom they love, is essential for building a fair and inclusive society where everyone has the chance to thrive. Discrimination against homosexuals has no rational basis; it often stems from unfounded fears, cultural biases, or outdated moral beliefs that have been challenged and debunked over time.

Discriminating against people based on their religious or ideological beliefs is wrong, as well, because it infringes on their fundamental rights to freedom of conscience, expression, and thought. These freedoms are cornerstones of a just and democratic society, allowing individuals to form and express their beliefs without fear of exclusion or persecution. When people are discriminated against for their beliefs, it not only denies them the right to live in accordance with their values, but it also undermines the principle of pluralism that is essential to a free and democratic society. Discrimination can lead to the marginalization of individuals and groups, fostering division and hostility rather than mutual understanding and respect. By denying people the opportunity to practice their religion or express their ideology freely, society risks creating an environment of conformity and oppression, where diversity of thought is stifled and innovation is hindered.

Limiting homosexuality in some way greater than limiting heterosexuality is discriminatory. But is the same true with religion? Religious liberty is undeniably a cornerstone of the American system, enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution as a fundamental right. This recognition is also found in international law. It reflects the commitment to allowing individuals the freedom to practice their faith without undue interference from the state. However, this commitment to religious liberty must be balanced with the responsibility to protect the rights and well-being of others, particularly vulnerable populations such as children.

Not all religions are equal in their impact on society. Some religious practices may involve rituals that are harmful, either physically or psychologically, to children and other members of society. In such cases, the state’s responsibility to protect its citizens may justifiably override the free exercise of certain religious practices. For example, practices that involve physical harm, such as alteration of genitalia, or indoctrination that severely impairs critical thinking challenge the boundaries of what religious liberty should protect. In the case of physical harm, I have long argued for stopping the practice of genital mutilation, for boys as well as girls. The problem of religious indoctrination that cripples the mind, this is more difficult, but it has to be criticized. The state must intervene to ensure that the rights of individuals, particularly those who cannot advocate for themselves, are upheld, albeit in a way that does not allow ideologues to use the coercive machinery of the state to advance a political-ideological agenda.

Moreover, the principle of religious liberty is rooted in a broader framework of secular values that promote equality, individual rights, and the rule of law. Religions or belief systems that are fundamentally incompatible with these secular values—such as those that advocate for the subjugation of women, the suppression of dissent, or the rejection of legal equality—pose a challenge to the very foundation of religious liberty. The state, in its role as a neutral arbiter, must ensure that religious freedom is not weaponized to undermine the rights and liberties of others. This is why the law cannot reflect religious doctrines, such as the prohibition of homosexuality in Jewish and Islamic texts. The First Amendment permits anti-gay belief. It does not allow these anti-gay beliefs to be institutionalized. In fact, it forbids this.

So are people allowed to subscribe to queer theory and see themselves as the gender they are not? Of course. Obviously. People subscribe to Christianity and believe they have a soul and order their lives around this belief (and try to order other people’s lives around it). It is not for you or me to force them to believe things about the world and themselves. We are obliged to tolerate these views. However, tolerance has limits, especially when those beliefs interfere with our personal freedoms or harm others. Beliefs and their expression become problematic when they lead to actions or policies that infringe upon our rights or the rights of others, such as my freedom to live according to my values, my safety, or my ability to access equal opportunities. If someone’s religious or ideological beliefs result in discrimination against us, such as being denied services, employment, or equal treatment under the law, this interference crosses a boundary from personal belief into harm. Similarly, if these beliefs promote violence, coercion, or the imposition of certain practices on us against our will, then they directly impinge on our freedom.

Thomas Jefferson’ s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, dated January 1, 1802, is famous for articulating the concept of the “wall of separation between church and state.” In the letter, Jefferson wrote:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Here, Jefferson is expressing the idea that the government has no rightful authority to interfere in religious beliefs or opinions—these are matters of personal conscience. He distinguishes between beliefs (opinions) and actions, asserting that while government can regulate actions that affect the public welfare, it has no jurisdiction over personal religious beliefs. This separation, as Jefferson explains, is essential to protect religious liberty and prevent government from infringing upon the free exercise of religion. Jefferson’s statement emphasizes that the power of the government should be limited to regulating conduct that impacts others, not controlling or dictating personal religious beliefs.

It’s is vitally important to distinguish between the right to hold and express beliefs and the actions that stem from those beliefs. While everyone has the right to believe what they choose, this right does not extend to infringing upon the rights and freedoms of others. In a democratic society, the law serves as the arbiter in balancing these rights, ensuring that freedom of belief does not come at the expense of others’ freedoms. In essence, while tolerance is necessary for coexistence in a free society, it does not require you or me to accept or endure actions that trespass upon our rights and freedoms.

It does neither me nor you any harm that two consensual adults engage in sexual intercourse in the privacy of their own space. Whether the intercourse is between a man or a woman or between two men, we are obliged to mind our own business. We are, of course, free to have an opinion on it, and to express that opinion, but since the behavior does not compromise our freedom, we have no right to interfere with it. However, great harm is done when boys and men are allowed to participate in activities or trespass upon spaces reserved for girls and women. This is an action the violates the equitable arrangements established by sex-segregation in society. Great harm is done to them when males and females submit to life-altering drugs and surgeries that have no valid basis in medical science. In the case of adults, it is not their desire to do this that makes it wrong but the responsibility of physicians to do no harm—and the responsibility of our elected leaders to stop them.

Do we allow Muslims to remove the clitoris and labia of their daughter vaginas because they interpret their scriptures to mean that Allah demand this? No. Would it make it any better if doctors performed the surgeries? No. Any society that allows this is barbaric; it is permitting atrocities to be perpetrated on the basis of religious doctrine. We still allow Muslims (and Jews) to remove for religious reasons the foreskin (or prepuce) of a male infant’s penis. The foreskin is a fold of skin that covers and protects the glans (head) of the penis, the result of natural history. During circumcision, this tissue is surgically cut away, exposing the glans. It’s one thing to think that the male penis should be mutilated. It’s another to permit it.

When somebody accused another person of “transphobia,” what they are actually accusing the person of disbelief in the claim that men can be women or genderless and instead use scientific definitions of gender. A man is an adult male human. His pronouns are he/him/his. His gender is determined by his sex-determining chromosome (Y), gamete size and type (sperm), and reproductive anatomy which may be ambiguous due to a disorder of sexual development (such as a dysfunctional SRY gene on the Y chromosome). The smear is also attempting to silence those who object to males invading female spaces, as well as those who seeks an end to the atrocities being performed on children for the sake of ideology and revenue generation for powerful corporations.

If the state takes up the smear, and punishes those who criticize these barbaric practices, then totalitarian desire becomes manifest in the form of coercive government action. So some of the words I asked you to consider earlier are here pronounced—authoritarianism, fascism, and tyranny.

“Aurora’s police chef [sic], Todd Chamberlain, told NBC News that the city is ‘not overrun’ and that it remains ‘a very safe city’ with a ‘wonderful community that is incredibly diverse.’” Source: “Amid dangerous exaggerations about migrants, Trump says he’ll ‘rescue’ Aurora, Colorado,” MSNBC.

Mike Coffman, the mayor of Aurora, Colorado, is pro-immigration. He doesn’t want Aurora to be perceived in a negative light. Of course he doesn’t. What politician would? He wants Aurora to be attractive for corporate investment. City leaders of Aurora are driven by the same motives that drive city leaders in Springfield, Ohio. These takes are not to be trusted.

Moreover, Coffman has a problem in his city that he doesn’t want widely known, namely the fact that, despite his city being 15 percent black, according to the latest statistics, over the last five years, blacks have committed 43 percent (the plurality) of all violent offenses in Aurora, whereas whites are 60 percent of the victims of violent offenses.

Blacks committed almost 50 percent of all homicides and 56 percent of robberies during this period.

The problem of crime in Aurora is driven both by immigrant gangs and the displacement of blacks in Aurora due to immigrant labor. The numbers will get worse if America pursues the policies politicians like Mike Coffman advocate. This is why Donald Trump was in Aurora, Colorado. Politicians like Coffman won’t do the right thing. We need a national leader who will.

I am often asked why crime rates came down in the United States after the mid-1990s. There is the obvious reason that mass incarceration via the incapacitation effect that reduces crime by removing criminals from our streets. Sixty percent of state prisoners (most prisoners) are violent offenders (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault), and around half of nonviolent offenders are there for serious property offenses (burglary, theft-larceny, motor vehicle theft). More police on our streets has helped, as well, confirmed by the fact that depolicing is associated with a rise of crime over the last decade (which elites are partially obscuring by manipulating crime data).

But there are other reasons. Getting lead out of the environment helped. Lead is a neurotoxin associated with aggression and impulse control. Another environmental factor is the constellation of synthetic estrogens that has emasculated the population; males in America are being feminized (along with other animals). On the technological front, the introduction and mass use of computers and video games has taken teenagers and young men off the streets and put them in front of screens (this has also had the effect of dropping fertility rates, exacerbated by the feminization problem). Since serious crime is largely perpetrated by young males (a fact well known for centuries), it follows that emasculating men and taking them out of the social environment will reduce crime.

There are no other reasons I can think of. The military is no longer absorbing young men. Indeed, recruitment is down. Social programs don’t suppress criminogenesis. On the contrary, these have the opposite effect through family disintegration. If you have any other ideas, let me know.

Crime remains high in black-majority inner-city neighborhoods comparatively. This is partly because of the aforementioned problem with family disintegration caused by social programming (government dependency) and the relatively low level of technological distraction (this is not to say that young blacks don’t have access to technology). But it is also because of the pathological subculture of violence associated with social programming and economic policy, especially the idling of black males through globalization (offshoring and immigration). This pathological subculture is reinforced by corporate culture industry targeting of the black demographic, which reinforces demoralizing libertine sensibilities.

It should be obvious to readers that what lies behind the continuing problem of crime in America (which is remarkable in comparison to other advanced industrial economies) is the corporate state project of transnationalism, which includes both offshoring of production and the importation of foreign labor, and the progressive social policy regime that Democrats have imposed on America’s cities.

“October 7 was kind of like the American Revolution. If you take away the context.” —Trevor Noah

“True, true.” —Ta-Nahesi Coates

A few days I ago, on the anniversary of that despicable act, I commemorated October 7, 2023 with the essay Facing Down Evil. A few days later I witness this conversation between Trevor Noah and Ta-Nahesi Coates. Trevor Noah says, “October 7 was kind of like the American Revolution. If you take away the context.” Did the American patriots cross the ocean, enter English towns, and, while some people participated in a festival and others in ordinary daily activities, massacre civilians, rape women, and take hostages? When did this happen? In what context would this ever be acceptable?

There is no context in which such an act is acceptable. There was zero moral justification for Hamas action that day. Hamas is a genocidal death cult, those who participated in these actions the result of conditioned sociopathy from birth. Sociopathy at this depth cannot be reasoned with. The only option is annihilation. That the promise of paradise in Islam is a lie is icing on the cake. To be sure, the martyrs will never know their obsession was for naught. But I will. Hell is an imagined someplace. Annihilation is nowhere. Like Islam’s paradise.

When your moral clarity leads you to this, my god: pic.twitter.com/XGbBBSE1QS

— Thomas Chatterton Williams (@thomaschattwill) October 11, 2024

Ta-Nahesi Coates: “The example I think about all the time is like Nat Turner, right? Like Nat Turner launches his rebellion in 1830. This man slaughters babies in their cribs. You know what I mean? And I’ve done this thought experience, this experiment for myself over and over. Does the degradation and dehumanization of slavery make it so that you can look past something like that? I try to imagine, and I think I can accurately imagine as much as possible, that there were enslaved people, no matter how dehumanized that said, ‘This is too far. I can’t do that.’”

He could have stopped there. But he didn’t. “Now, here’s the flip side of it,” he continued, “and I haven’t said this out loud, but I think about it a lot. Where I, twenty years old, born into Gaza, which is a giant open air jail [it’s not], and what I mean by that is if my father is a fisherman and he goes too far out into the sea, he might get shot by somebody off of, you know, inside of Israeli boats. If my mother picks the olive trees and she gets too close to the wall, she might be shot. If my little sister has cancer and she needs treatment because there are no facilities to do that in Gaza and I don’t get the right permit, she might die, and I grow up under that oppression and that poverty, and the wall comes down, am I also strong enough, or even constructed in such a way where I say, this is too far, I don’t know that I am. I don’t know that I am. I don’t know that I am.”

Everything Coates describes is the consequence of Palestinian resistance to peaceful coexistence with Israel. But put that aside for now. This is what is at issue: the problem of morality. Any truly moral person knows that this October 7 is too far. For such a person, perpetrating October 7 is unimaginable. A moral person does not excuse October 7 with an exercise in empathy that reimagines himself capable of such things, because such an exercise only dresses itself in empathy to engage in an exercise in justifying the indefensible. What brings a person to be able to think like this, to even suggest it? Deep seated hatred and loathing for victims of October 7—not for what they did (they did nothing), but for who they are.

The October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks killed approximately 1,200 people in Israel. As of 2023, Israel’s population is about 9.5 million. To scale this to the US population (approximately 331 million), the toll would be equivalent to around 42,000 deaths if the same proportion of the population were killed in an attack on the United States. Does anybody believe the United States wouldn’t flatten the country that killed 42,000 of its citizens?

Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis are proxies of Iran. What we see today is effectively a war between Israel and Iran. Israel must destroy Iran’s proxies to thwart Iran’s attempt at regional superiority. But more than this, the forces represent clerical fascism, a modern-day instantiation of nazism. By destroying its proxies, and by striking targets in Iran, Israel may be able to destabilize the regime and create the opportunity for the Persian people to overthrow the Islamic state and restore their once-great civilization. This would bring peace to the Middle East.

Ever since Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski stood by while the Islamic Revolution overtook Iran—meanwhile destabilizing Afghanistan by organizing a coup d’etat in Kabul—the Persian people have lived in darkness. The continuation of this darkness was facilitated by both the Obama and the Biden regimes. Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal (cover for a balance of power scheme) lifted sanctions and allowed Iran to access billions in frozen assets, which it used to fund its military and regional proxies. Biden has done the same.

The West can’t be both for and against Israel. The Islamist wants only one thing: the eradication of Jews everywhere. He will never seek peace because all he seeks is death. He teaches his children from birth to be martyrs. He hate the Jews so much that he forsakes his own offspring. This is not hatred over white settler colonialism and any of those other rationalizations. This is a religious hatred. Islamists see Jews as an evil to be wiped off the fact of the planet. This is an instantiation of collective psychopathy in the same way that the Nazis were driven by irrational hatred and loathing of the Jews.

Israel is facing down evil. There is no sides-choosing is circumstances such as these. There is no balance of power between good and evil. Israel is facing an existential threat. So goes Israel so goes the West. Islam is on the move. It must be resisted everywhere.

I have published a couple of essays on the situation in Springfield, Ohio (The Racial Politics of Safeguarding Companion Animals; Is This the Second Coming of Hunter Biden’s Laptop is a Hoax?), and several on the issue of immigration more broadly (too many to list here). I have also published numerous essays over the years on the problem of conflating culture and race (again, too many to list here). The Springfield story has legs. And the conflation of culture and race has only grown worse in its wake. We’re in the final weeks of a presidential campaign, and one party, the Republican Party, has championed working class interests in addressing the mass immigration crisis, while the other party, the Democrats, has sought to delegitimize working class concerns by smearing them as “racist.”

This was not always the case. Democrats used to speak to working class interests. In this area, at least. In his 1995 State of thew Union address, Bill Clinton presented to Congress his administration’s position on the mass immigration problem in terms nearly identical to those of Trump. Clinton was also concerned about the high rates of crime ravaging the nation and he recognized that mass immigration plays a big role in driving up crime and disorder. (In the 1990s, responding to extraordinarily high rates of gang violence, the Clinton Administration and local law enforcement authorities pursued large-scale deportations of illegal aliens with criminal records.) Barack Obama presented similar views during his presidency.

Why the Democratic Party has shifted so drastically since is a question the media appears to have no interest in answering. This is because the role of the media is to represent the interests of the corporate elite, which has pursued globalization for decades. The Democratic Party enables globalization, so it was inevitable that it would embrace mass immigration. How they enable mass immigration is the problem I address in this essay.

The first part of this essay will examine the fallacious nature of this confusion (which is strategic). The second part will explore how this conflation obscures the establishment of a racialized split labor market. In Springfield, Ohio, for instance, Haitian migrants are exploited through a leasing system where temp agencies contract with local businesses in a way that resembles indentured servitude—but with a racial dimension—thus creating split-labor market situation that hurts native-born workers. I provide other examples of split-labor market exploitation. I will argue that the progressive conflation of culture and race serves to obscure the longstanding capitalist practice of exploiting racialized labor from the Global South. Indeed, it is not the residents of Springfield who are racists, but those who have imposed upon them the burden of Haitian migrants.

Culture and Race

As noted, criticizing someone’s culture often leads to accusations of racism, and many accept the smear as justified; however, this conflation is flawed—culture is not race. Culture is the set of shared artifacts, beliefs, customs, norms, and values that members of a society use to interact with, interpret, and negotiate the world around them. It encompasses tangible aspects, such as art, food, language, and music as well as intangible elements, like norms, ideology, religion, and traditions. Culture is a worldview, often coextensive with ethnicity, that motivates action and shapes attitudes and thought, passed down from generation to generation through enculturation and socialization, shaping the identity and practices of communities. It is, however, a non-genetic inheritance.

Race is, on the other hand, is a genetic inheritance. The concept refers to constellations of phenotypic traits, such as eye color, facial features, hair texture, and skin color, resulting from ancestry with intergroup variation that differentiates human populations. The resulting clusters show patterns related to geographical and historical contexts. Crucially, all races belong to the same species, Homo sapiens. The idea of race may carry significant cultural and social weight, affecting individuals’ experiences and opportunities in life, including discrimination and systemic inequality, but cultural and social weight do not make race cultural nor reduce it to a social construct.

There is no evidence that cultural practices and systems reflect genetic differences between the races (although they can affect genetic differentiation). Two descendants of black African slaves may share a phenotype, i.e., the observable physical characteristics of an organism, which result from the interaction between genotype and environmental influences, but not share a culture. The fact that there are African and Asian cultures in which it is permissible to eat cats and dogs, practices that modern European cultures abhor and condemn, doesn’t mean that eating cats and dogs is inherent in a given racial type. Europeans are not missing the cat-eating gene. Europeans don’t eat cats because of a cultural prohibition against the eating of companion animals.

Progressives have deliberately fostered a confusion that frames criticism of culture as racism. The intent is to delegitimize the complaints of those who bear the consequences of mass immigration and capitalist labor practices. The conflation also functions to marginalize those who advocate for the assimilation of those who are allowed to stay. Individuals who assert the dominant cultural values of their nation—those recognizing the vital importance of shared heritage, language, legal systems, and social norms—are cast as bigots opposed to those who appear different rather than as citizens concerned with preserving their national culture and charting their own collective destiny. As I have noted in past essays, multiculturalism conflates criticism of cultural pluralism with opposition to multiracialism, discouraging any critique of culture by associating it with white supremacy.

One strategy social programmers use to instill this conflation in Western collective conscience is the promotion of cultural relativism in public education and popular culture. Cultural relativism subtly cultivates support for moral relativism, i.e., the belief that a person’s attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, and values should be understood and evaluated based on their own culture rather than judged by the standards of another—or by a universal standard. Judge a culture by your standard and you’re a chauvinist. Objectively, whether you are a chauvinist depends on whether your cultural viewpoint is aligned with universal standards. But relativism insinuates—and postmodernists insist—that there is no universal position from which to assess the adequacy or worth of any given culture.

One familiar with the woke rhetoric of our times will note that there is a paradox at work in this discourse. Those hailing from critical race theory (CRT) and postcolonial perspectives depict European or Western culture as imperialist and white supremacist due to its historical role in colonization, global power imbalances, and racial domination. These perspectives argue that Western culture, far from being one culture among many, has imposed its norms, values, and systems of power and right on much of the world, shaping global structures of inequality while corrupting indigenous cultures. Western culture is exempted from the terms of cultural and moral relativism. Europeans are not entitled to cultural and ethnic integrity. Indeed, one signals their virtue by condemning Western culture. This, too, is strategic—it seeks to justify the opening of borders to bearers of other cultures.

The condemners of Western culture content that European populations are not treated relativistically because whites are the architects and beneficiaries of systemic racism. According to this view, Western norms have been historically constructed to maintain white supremacy, an ideology that privileges whiteness while marginalizing non-white people. Western culture is critiqued for producing and perpetuating legal and social norms that uphold racial hierarchies, making it a proper target of scrutiny rather than a culture to be treated equally within a relativistic framework. In effect, this is a twist on Western exceptionalism. The West is not exceptionally good and right. It is exceptionally bad and wrong. A contradiction is thusly rationalized.

This makes mass immigration appear as a boomerang. From a postcolonial standpoint, Europeans, having globalized their practices and values through centuries of colonization, subjugating non-Western cultures by socializing the virtues of modern life (individualism, liberalism, rationalism, secularism), have reparations to pay—they have it coming to them. The imperialist legacy means that Western culture is not a source of enlightenment but of oppression, responsible for appropriating resources, dehumanizing colonial subjects, and imposing its worldview on indigenous and non-European societies. Treating Western culture as just one culture among many ignores the lasting impact of colonialism and the continued dominance of Western cultural, economic, and political power in a supposedly post-colonial world. Europeans are therefore justly subject to special disapprobation, one that requires the repayment of debt, both in the sharing of wealth and space. Foreigners to the West claim the value and wealth of the West for themselves (Reparations and Open Borders).

Of course, there is a universal positions from which to judge the adequacy and worth of culture: human nature determinable by science. What science determines about human nature, or what Karl Marx calls “species-being” (Gattungswesen), indicates that morality is a natural occurrence, its attributes common to all races. Species-being refers to the unique nature and potential of humans as a special mammal, particularly our capacity for consciousness, our creativity and inventiveness, and penchant for complex social interaction, including symbolic interaction. In Marx’s view, what distinguishes humans from other animals is our ability to shape and transform our environment through labor in a way that reflects conscious intention and shared interests manifest in cooperative action. This creative, purposeful activity is central to our essence as human beings.

Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs parallels Marx’s concept of species-being in that both emphasize the fulfillment of human potential through self-actualization that depends on the development of the individual’s abilities amid the conditions provided by their socio-economic environment. Maslow frames self-actualization as the highest level of personal development. Similarly, Marx argues that under ideal social conditions, free and cooperative labor would allow individuals to fully realize their potential. Human beings, in this sense, are inherently creative and social creatures, mammals capable of shaping social and natural history. Labor, in its ideal form, is not merely a means of production for survival, but an expression of our human essence, where individuals find fulfillment in creating something meaningful for themselves and others. In this light, cultural relativism, and the moral relativism the doctrine conceals, is but a vulgar form of romanticism that justifies practices that violate universal human rights.

What Cultural Pluralism Allows

Cultural relativism is what lies behind the underreporting of stories and the downplaying of foreign practices in the West that should scandalize societies that have enshrined, for example, women’s rights. Nearly all women living in Somalia have been circumcised, a practice referred to the international order as female genital mutilation or cutting (FGM/C). The United States forbids the practice. However, while the percentage of Somali girls in the United States who have been mutilated is significantly lower than in Somalia (precise figures can be difficult to determine due to the private and “sensitive nature” of the practice), estimates from studies and reports suggest that FGM/C affects between 25 and 40 percent of Somali girls and women in diaspora communities in the United States.

Those who defend cultural pluralism will often initially deny that FGM/C is happening in the United States. When cases are confirmed, they will say that many Somali families in the US have moved away from the practice due to increased awareness of health risks and legal prohibitions. It happens, but only on the margins. Yet the tradition persists, and this is due to cultural pressures and religious beliefs that cannot be fully suppressed without assimilating Somalis into Western culture. At some point the progressive will admit that it is happening but thinks this is okay because it’s the custom of another culture, and to criticize or interfere with the beliefs and practices of others is racist. In other words, once admitted, FGM/C is not really wrong. The conflation of culture with race thus harms girls and women by negating the criticism of Somali religious beliefs and ritual practices that oppresses them.

Women are disproportionately affected by cultural pluralism. Consider the veiling of Muslim women in Western societies. Muslim dress varies widely. The hijab is a headscarf that covers the hair, neck, and sometimes shoulders, leaving the face visible. The abaya is a long, loose robe covering the body from shoulders to feet, often worn over other clothes. The jilbab is a loose, long coat or outer garment that covers the whole body except the face, feet, and hands. The chador is a full-body cloak that covers the body but leaves the face exposed. The niqab is a face-covering that leaves only the eyes visible, paired with other head coverings. The burqa is a full-body covering with a mesh screen that hides the face, worn in some conservative regions. Confronted with the more extreme end of the dress code, the social programmers tell the public that the niqab and burqa are garments worn primarily for reasons related to Islamic principles of modesty and privacy. The niqab is worn to adhere to the Islamic belief that women should shield their beauty from non-family members, maintaining privacy while still allowing for interaction. The burqa offers an even more comprehensive form of coverage, worn to ensure complete anonymity.

But what underpins these cultural and religious interpretations of modesty? The male gaze—the same gaze Western liberal feminists decry—only this gaze is deeply opprressive. The niqab and burqa are signals of patriarchal control rather than mere expressions of cultural tradition or religious modesty. It is not as if Western feminists don’t see the problem in supposed future or imagined scenarios. After all, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tail has supplied the images used by feminists to portray conservative Christian beliefs about gender roles in the most authoritarian light. Yet when it comes to girls and women in Islam, they cannot see the signal of subjection.

These garments reflect and reinforce gendered power dynamics that restrict women’s autonomy and enforce strict norms about female appearance and behavior. The emphasis on covering women’s bodies is a way to control their movement and visibility in public spaces, indicating that women’s honor and worth are tied to their sexual being, conceived of in highly reductive form. It’s a form of extreme objectification and sexualization. Rather than empowering women through autonomy and choice, the imposition of such garments perpetuate the idea that women must adhere to male-defined standards of conduct and modesty, limiting their freedom and reinforcing patriarchal structures that regulate and constrain their roles in society—oppression sublimated as divine commandment.

For readers who may object that my interpretation of what these garments represents is one of many possible ones, let’s return to the example of circumcision, which is driven by the same species of gender ideology with fewer, if any, alternative interpretations. Viewed through the lens of bodily autonomy and gender equality, circumcision, particularly when performed on infants or young children, involves irreversible alteration of the body without the individual’s consent, raising concerns about the ethics of non-consensual medical procedures. Like female circumcision, male circumcision is justified by cultural or religious norms, as well as a medical practice, (which generates several hundred million dollars annually).

Both practices, regardless of gender, represent a form of control over the body that reflect broader issues of gender roles and norms and power, with the key difference having been until recently that male circumcision is typically performed under the guise of health or religious benefits.

Today, that difference has disappeared. Recoded as “gender affirming care” (GAC), FGM/C performed on girls and women has been legalized in many parts of Western society, a reflection of influence of the neo-religion of transgenderism on law and policy. It is also a reflection of corporate power and the insatiable appetite for profit. One suspect that this explains in part the affinity we see between Islamists and transactivists in recent protest actions against Western civilization.

Or consider that, in the United States, certain food practices from other cultures are disallowed or heavily regulated due to concerns related to animal welfare and public health. The consumption of cat and dog meat is illegal across the US, reflecting a broader cultural and ethical stance against eating pets that is not universally shared but legislatively enforced. Additionally, the slaughtering of animals without prior stunning, such as with halal and kosher, is subject to strict regulations to ensure compliance with humane treatment standards. While these religious practices are permitted, they must adhere to specific guidelines to align with broader animal welfare laws.

But should these practices be permitted at all? These examples highlight the tension arising between respecting cultural diversity and upholding universal human rights and concern for animals. Critics argue that some rights are fundamental and should be protected regardless of cultural context. Not allowing the genital mutilation of girls is a prime example. Banning the burqa seems reasonable in this light, but not the hijab. The question is whether the cultural practice in question violates civil and human rights or public safety. Even if we acknowledge that cultural understanding is important, it should not be misused to excuse or perpetuate practices that infringe upon the basic rights and freedoms of individuals.

We can have out these arguments. Some of these examples are edge cases. A woman wearing Islamic clothing may be a choice of self-expression protected by the First Amendment. Mutilating the genitalia of a young Muslim girls is not protected by the Constitution. However, criticizing practices such as genital mutilation, the eating of cats and dogs, and the imposition of certain forms of modesty clothing is not inherently racist, despite the complex cultural contexts in which these practices occur. When people note and object to the ritual practices in Haiti of sacrificing cats to manifest the protective magic promised by Vodou, or of the taking of ducks and geese from public ponds, they are not racist for doing so. They are objecting to Haitian culture (just as woke progressives object to American culture).

Cultural relativism is problematic because it obscures the fact that not all cultural norms and practices are equally beneficial or equitable. Some practices, such as imposed gender inequality, can be harmful or oppressive. By prioritizing cultural respect or diversity without critical evaluation, cultural relativism permits destructive practices to go unchallenged. Accepting all cultural practices as equally valid impedes efforts to address and correct those harmful practices. Instead, a more critical approach is needed, one that evaluates cultural norms against universal human rights standards. By focusing on protecting fundamental rights and ensuring the well-being of all individuals, societies can better uphold the dignity and respect every person deserves.

What is Racism

Since culture is not race, cultural criticism is not racism. But what is racism? Racism is the belief that some races are inherently better than others, grounded in the idea that certain races possess traits that make them naturally superior. When it is claimed that genetic or physical characteristics such as body structure, facial features, and skin color are linked to differences in behavior, intelligence, and morality, and that these differences are said to express intrinsic capacities and proclivities, this is evidence of racist belief. Racism has been used historically to justify discrimination, exclusion, and inequality. As the reader can see, most accusations of racism don’t work with respect to immigration because the speech or actions being condemned as such are not based on race but on culture or economics.

If saying that one culture is better than another is not racism, then what is it? It’s cultural criticism. The critique is either valid or it’s not depending on the facts presented in light of the universal standard. Whereas we cannot say that one race is better than the others, we can say that one culture is better than another because this is an objective matter. Is the culture in question is adequate to human dignity and thriving, or does it fail these demands? Does the culture uplift the individual, or does it degrade her? Those elements of cultures that uplift should be protected and promoted. Those that degrade should be dissuaded; if bad enough, forbidden. Telling an African migrant residing in Dayton, Ohio, that he cannot feed his family cats is not an instance of racism by an act of asserting cultural value. The community is not discriminating against the migrant; it is demanding that the migrant align his behavior with the superior culture.

The Split Labor Market

Progressives, who represent the spirit of the corporate state, conflate race and culture in order to advance the capitalists strategy of superexploitation through, among other things, the split labor market. Split labor market theory, proposed by sociologist Edna Bonacich, explains how class divisions and economic competition contribute to racial and ethnic tensions in labor markets. Bonacich focuses on how the labor market is divided along racial or ethnic lines, creating a situation where different racial or ethnic groups are paid differently for the same work. These divisions often benefit employers who exploit the cheaper labor of marginalized racial groups while keeping wages low for all workers by fostering racial competition rather than class solidarity.

In a split labor market, workers are divided into at least two distinct groups: a higher-wage group, typically composed of native or dominant racial groups, and a lower-wage group, often made up of immigrants or racial minorities. Employers benefit from hiring workers from the lower-paid group because it reduces labor costs, as these workers are often willing to accept lower wages and poorer working conditions due to systemic discrimination or economic necessity. This creates resentment among the higher-paid workers, who view the lower-paid group as a threat to their economic stability. Crucially, their resentment is rooted in fact: the presence of immigrants does brings down the wages of all workers—indeed, that is the purpose of mass immigration. It is never the case that governments cannot keep millions of immigrations from crossing the borders they’re charged with defending. If there is mass immigration, it is because the government is allowing it.

The presence of cheap racialized labor undercuts the higher-wage group by diminishing their demand and bargaining power. As employers exploit the cheaper labor, the overall demand for higher-paid workers decreases, pushing them to accept lower wages or risk being replaced. Over time, this drives wages down across the labor market, weakening workers ability to negotiate better conditions. Additionally, employers use the availability of cheap labor to justify not improving working conditions for the entire workforce. This dynamic fosters racial conflict rather than class solidarity, as higher-wage workers resist the racialized labor force as competitors rather than allies. This division undermines collective efforts to secure better wages and conditions, exacerbating economic inequalities and tensions between racial groups.

In systems where workers are controlled by intermediaries who extract surplus value from their labor, economic autonomy is severely restricted, and their vulnerability is exploited. Haitian migrants sent to Springfield, Ohio to work in various industries through temp agencies illustrates this dynamic. In form, if not in substance, this is a species of indenture servitude.

A bit of background on this matter. The once-thriving manufacturing hub of Springfield experienced a sharp economic decline following the closure of its factories, with many jobs shifting overseas. By around 2015, the city’s population had plummeted to under 60,000, a significant drop from its peak of 80,000 during the late 1960s and early 1970s. The shrinking population meant that companies moving to the area would struggle to find labor.

Just as factories offshore to take advantages of cheap labor overseas, so factories bring foreigners to America to take advantage of their cheap labor here. The native born of Springfield, Ohio suffer globalization on both of its fronts. With a city government eager to prostitute itself to corporations, and a federal government eager to change the demographic composition of the nation for electoral and ideological purposes, Springfield was opened to thousands of Haitian immigrants. Estimates are that Haitians now comprise 25-30 percent of this small city.

The immigrants, primarily from Florida, Haiti, and South America, began arriving in Springfield as word spread through personal networks—family members, friends, and acquaintances—about the city’s urgent need for workers in sectors such as manufacturing, service industries, and warehousing. Employers encouraged their Haitian employees to bring others from their communities to Springfield.

Various Christian organizations eagerly participated. Community and Refugee and Immigration service (CRIS) is an independent non-profit organization that serves the refugee and immigrant populations in Central Ohio. CRIS, an affiliate of Church World Service, works with the Department of State to directly receive and place refugees in towns and cities in Ohio. Catholic Charities is another church organization involved in placing refugees in Ohio, as well as across America.

Many of these workers were given for Temporary Protected Status (TPS), a federal designation that allows nationals from countries to remain in the US even if they entered the country illegally. This legal status made Haitian migrants particularly appealing to employers, as they could hire them for critical positions while staying within the bounds of immigration law.

This system of modern-day system of indenture servitude depends on an important intermediary in this labor dynamic: temporary staffing agencies. These agencies play a pivotal role in connecting immigrant workers to area businesses. Local firms are prohibited from directly hiring many of these migrants and must go through temp agencies to secure their labor. By contracting through these agencies, businesses avoid direct involvement in immigration compliance issues, as the agencies act as intermediaries, handling the legal complexities of employment authorization. The reliance on these staffing firms allows companies to meet labor needs while distancing themselves from the potential liabilities associated with hiring immigrant workers directly.

Temporary staffing agencies, then, form a critical link in this local economy, ensuring a steady flow of workers into industries that require manual labor rationalized as unattractive to the native population. The fact that temp agencies mediate the employment relationship reflects broader trends in labor markets where contingent and temporary work is increasingly normalized, especially in sectors reliant on immigrant labor. This arrangement allows employers to maintain flexibility in hiring while limiting their legal exposure, underscoring the complexities of labor in a post-industrial/re-industrializing city like Springfield.

Listen very carefully to what Brian Heck, city manager for the city of Springfield, Ohio, is telling the public about the situation in Springfield. He brags about how “our Springfield community is making notable progress that contributes to its growing appeal among new residents, including immigrants.” By progress he means development. “This development is underpinned by our city’s diverse and robust industrial base that encompasses the technology, automotive, food production, and distribution sectors. The growth in our workforce population has supported the expansion of local businesses, contributing to the stabilization of our local economy. Our commitment to promoting a business-friendly environment has attracted new enterprises to our region, and we will continue to focus on collaborating with industry leaders who seek to establish operations here.” In other words, the residents of Springfield are being subjected to chaos (the term “stabilization” here is meant in the neoliberal sense) for the sake of business interests.

Heck elaborates: “Springfield is at the forefront of advancements in aerospace technology, particularly in support of national defense. These technologies are set to enhance daily life in the coming decades.” What technologies are these? Weapons and other systems produced for the military-industrial complex—the war machine. “Springfield’s strategic location between the Columbus and Dayton markets,” he notes, “make [Springfield] a prime candidate for future development.”

Heck talks about “community partners” who the city is collaborating with to face the “challenges,” “strain on [the city’s] resources,” the influx of thousands of immigrants represent. I noted some of those community partners—the area businesses, church organizations, and temp agencies. The city is also “working with developers to increase our residential housing stock…. Over the next few years, we anticipate the addition of over 2,000 new housing units.” Presumably barracks for the migrant work force. Heck does not mention the corporations buying up housing to turn into rental property for migrants, a development that pushes out Springfield’s longtime residents.

In the case of indentured servitude, migrants were contracted for a fixed period, during which they had little or no control over the terms of their labor. They were often subject to harsh conditions, and although they were technically freed after their indenture expired, the system was designed to keep them in a subordinate, economically precarious position. This echoes the way temp agencies operate under contracts that block industries from directly hiring migrant workers, trapping them in temporary, often dangerous jobs. These workers might cycle through low-wage, insecure employment, with the agency skimming off a portion of the value produced by their labor—much like how the overseer in indentured servitude would appropriate much of the laborer’s productivity.

Moreover, both systems involve an external actor (the temp agency or the contract-holder in indentured servitude) controlling access to the labor market. This intermediary keeps the workers from realizing the full value of their labor or from negotiating better terms for themselves. The temp agency’s profit represents the appropriation of surplus value that would otherwise go to the worker, solidifying the analogy to indentured servitude, where the laborer was similarly denied full ownership of their output. In the modern instantiation of the system, the government plays a vastly expanded role, keeping the immigrant in subject by withholding his green card. When the migrant is no longer needed, he will be released to become one among the millions of illegal immigrants the Biden-Harris regime allowed in during their reign.

The exploitation of migrants under these conditions is what political economists called superexploitation, a condition where workers are subjected to extreme levels of exploitation beyond the norm; workers are not only exploited to an excessive degree but also face additional layers of oppression that exacerbate their exploitation. They are paid less than the market value of their labor under conditions where they have little bargaining power or are subjected to precarious employment. They face grueling working conditions, excessive hours, and unsafe environments. And they are forced to supplement their low wages by theft and other forms of criminality.

So what is the racism in this situation? What the Democrats are obscuring and defending: the racist exploitation of Haitian migrants.

The Daily Beast reported today that Tim Walz outmaneuvered Fox News host as he was grilled on abortion. If you haven’t seen the interview, this is not at all what happened. Walz didn’t outmaneuver Shannon Bream at any point. He never answered the questions she put to him. What Walz obscures in his answers to this question is the fact is that his state allows abortion at any point. This situation is due to the state Supreme Court’s ruling in Doe v. Gomez (1995), which established strong protections for abortion rights under the Minnesota constitution. These protections ensure that abortion remains accessible throughout pregnancy in Minnesota, even if federal protections change.

A Minnesota law—on the books since 1976—required “responsible medical personnel” to use “[a]ll reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice” to “preserve the life and health of the born alive infant.” In 2015, Minnesota enacted the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, requiring the state department of health to produce a report every year stating the number of babies born alive after an attempted abortion and what happened to them. Over the next eight years, the health department reported twenty-four babies born alive after an attempted abortion. All of the babies died. In eight of those cases it was reported that only comfort care measures were provided. Walz signed legislation in May 2023 that struck the word “preserve” and replaced previous wording with “to care for the infant who is born alive.” 

As many of you know, I support a woman’s right to control her reproductive capacity. However, the rhetoric coming from Democrats about laws regulating abortion in various states makes those states appear to be extreme outliers in the West. I checked out the abortion rules in what are in the most progressive states in Europe—the Scandinavian states—and found that there are significant restrictions there. One would expect that many Americans, if presented with the facts not knowing from what state they were obtained, would identify them as rightwing countries.

In Sweden, abortion is permitted on request up to the 18th week of pregnancy. After the 18th week, abortions can only be carried out if the woman’s life or health is in danger, or if there are serious fetal abnormalities, and requires approval from the National Board of Health and Welfare. Sweden has the most liberal policy of the four states I looked at. In Norway, abortion is available on request until the end of the 12th week of pregnancy. After twelve weeks, a woman must apply to a medical board to have an abortion, which may be granted if continuing the pregnancy would have severe consequences for her health or life, or if there are serious fetal anomalies.

Denmark is similar to Norway; abortion is legal there up to the 12th week of pregnancy on request. After that, abortion is only permitted if the woman’s health is at risk, there are fetal abnormalities, or other special circumstances. Approval from a panel of doctors is required for later-term abortions. In Finland, abortion is legal on request up to twelve weeks, though it often requires approval from two doctors. After twelve weeks, abortion is permitted only in cases of severe health risks or fetal abnormalities and requires a permit from the National Authority for Medico-Legal Affairs.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) upheld a Mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy and, more significantly, overturned the constitutional right to abortion established under Roe v. Wade and reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Had it just upheld the Mississippi law, conservative states would have moved in the direction of Scandinavia. Overturning the constitutional right to abortion allowed states to effective ban abortion from conception.

Under Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court had established a constitutional right to abortion by grounding the decision in the right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court’s ruling also introduced a framework to balance a woman’s right to privacy with the state’s interest in protecting both women’s health and prenatal life. This framework divided pregnancy into three trimesters, each allowing for different levels of state regulation.

During the first trimester, the decision to terminate a pregnancy was left entirely to the woman and her physician, with no government interference allowed. In the second trimester, the state could regulate abortion procedures but only to protect the health of the woman, not to restrict access to abortion itself. This meant that an abortion could be performed as late as the 26th week. In the third trimester, once the fetus reached the point of “viability,” i.e., the ability to survive outside the womb (around 24-28 weeks), the state could prohibit abortions, except when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

This trimester framework was later modified by subsequent rulings. Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) upheld the core holding of Roe but replaced the trimester system with the “undue burden” standard, allowing states to regulate abortions so long as they did not place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before viability. The viability threshold continued to be a central concept, but states gained more latitude to impose regulations earlier in pregnancy. This opened the door to Dobbs.

Understand that my position on reproductive freedom does not move from the standpoint of the fetus, but of the mother, and that puts me in a minority. I recognize that I have radical position on the matter. Since Trump has promised that there will be no national ban and supports the exceptions of rape, incest, and life of the mother, is it possible for a federal law to be negotiated that allows abortion during the first twelve weeks, then afterwards if certain conditions are met?

To be sure, some US states ban abortion from conception. However, other states allow it to occur at any point during the pregnancy. The debate in America moves from those extremes. Could a compromise be found by adopting the position of the most progressive states in Europe? That would permit abortions while being more restrictive than the Roe standard but would not ban abortion from conception. Would resistance to such a law be more pronounced among conservatives—or would progressives decry it as too extreme?

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Enlil unleashes torrents of rain. The floodwaters rise swiftly, consuming villages, fields, and forests, drowning living creatures in their path. The devastation is immense, a once-thriving world reduced to a waterlogged wasteland, bodies floating lifelessly on the surface. The flood leaves desolate silence in its wake. Even the gods express regret and sorrow at the overwhelming loss of life.

In the world beyond myth, Hurricane Helene has wreaked mass destruction across the southeastern United States, particularly in North Carolina. The storm brought catastrophic flooding, with Asheville and surrounding areas being hit the hardest. Floodwaters have destroyed homes, wrecked infrastructure, and triggered mudslides, leaving many trapped or missing. There are reports of bodies floating down rivers and stuck in trees. Heads and limbs are being discovered under debris.

The media says there’s more than two hundred dead. But the sense I’m getting from citizen journalists is that the death toll is in the thousands. Damage to bridges and power grids has hindered rescue and recovery efforts. Observers are describing biblical-level devastation.

Desolate silence is what meets many of the victims of the hurricane when they reach out for help from the government. Biden assured a reporter that everybody is getting everything they need. They’re happy across the board, he said. He said this after being reminded that a hurricane had occurred. He admitted to being unsure of which storm the reporter was talking about.

Perhaps Biden was thinking about the millions of illegal aliens he and Kamala Harris invited into our county—and the millions of dollars his administration has provided them at the expense of native-born Americans and the naturalized citizens who follow the law.

Harris talks a great deal about equity. Not everybody starts in the same place, she says, therefore we—that’s you and me—need to give some people more so that we can all end up in the same place. This is why I have referred to the Vice-President as Kamala Harrison Bergeron, after Kurt Vonnegut’s dystopian future world based on this idea.

There’s a big difference between equality and equity. pic.twitter.com/n3XfQyjLNe

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) November 1, 2020

However, this isn’t equity. It’s something else. If you were reminded of Karl Marx’s “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” it’s not even that. Marx wasn’t an identitarian. Nor was he a corporate shill. What Harris is talking about is the redistribution of resources and value based on an ideology that sees the world not in terms of people but in terms of groups. She will decide which groups get more than others. And who those groups are is no secret.

Equity only works as an equality principle in a society based on individualism when the differences between groups are intrinsic, such as in the case of women’s rights (as we have seen, progressives don’t care about women’s rights, privileging the desire of dangerous and delusional men over the needs of girls and women). That’s why the application of equity identified in FEMA’s “Goal 1” is discriminatory and unjust: because it treats individuals as concrete personifications of abstract groups and then makes decisions on that basis that differentially affect their lives.

The problem of white privilege means that the millions of native-born whites suffering from Hurricane Helene in Asheville, North Carolina deserve less government aid than the Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio because Haitian migrants start off in a different place.

Democrats and the media that shills for them are warning the public that if Trump is elected he will weaponize the federal government to go after his political enemies. Yet this is what the Democrats have been doing for the last several years. Democrats impeached Trump on the claims of a whistleblower who admitted having not directly heard the call phone call to Ukraine’s Zelensky. Democrats impeached Trump a second time, charging him with incitement of a riot for telling a crowd in the context of a permitted First Amendment event to peacefully and patriotically let their voices be heard. Democrats have charged Trump with multiple counts in multiple venues for nonexistent crimes. Now Jack Smith is back with another document.

The DOJ threw Peter Navarro in prison for four months on a contempt charge by a kangaroo court. The DOJ, working at the behest of the same kangaroo court, threw Steve Bannon in prison for four months on a contempt charge (Bannon is still in there). The DOJ handed down lengthy sentences to Americans who merely entered a government building on January 6. The DOJ has traveled around the country harassing and intimidating citizens suspected of supporting Trump and the populist movement. Yet the Establishment tells the public that it’s Trump who will in unprecedented fashion weaponize the government. Believing these things, citizens have taken up guns and attempted to assassinate the President.

BREAKING: Tucker Carlson releases NEW footage of the Trump assassination attempt from Butler

This is some of the rawest footage we've ever seen of those moments. The camera was in the line of firepic.twitter.com/lW5LVesiNT

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) October 3, 2024

Many in the public have been tricked into falsely believing that Trump is a convicted felon and an adjudicated rapist. They falsely believe a conspiracy that he tried to overthrow the government and steal an election. They falsely believe that there was an insurrection on January 6—an insurrection by unarmed civilians either provoked by a police riot or allowed into the building by Capitol police officers. They falsely believes that police officers were killed on January 6. These false beliefs brings many of those who read Smith’s document to find in there what I cannot: a conspiracy to overthrow democracy. Indeed, it appears to me that conspiracy to overthrow democracy is itself a conspiracy to overthrow democracy.

How could such illusions be passed off as reality? How could millions be blinded to the reality that it’s Democrats who have weaponized the government against them and their leaders? This is power of the mass media moving across the terrain of a profoundly indoctrinated population. Propaganda is real and powerfully effective when aimed at a population conditioned from infancy to believe a particular ideology.

But not everybody is so easily deceived. In fact, on the problem of election integrity, according to Rasmussen Reports, most Americans suspect something was wrong in 2020 (62 percent of all thse surveyed believe it was “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that cheating affected the outcome)—and worry that something like this will happen against in 2024 (with 66 percent reporting that they believe it is “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that cheating will affect the outcome). There’s a reason why the corporate media and Jack Smith obsess over Trump’s claim of a rigged and stolen election; they need to manufacture the appearance that he or his supporters are alone in this belief. But they are not alone.

This is what lies behind the Jack Smith case. The Establishment is making an example of Trump because he disputed an election that the majority of Americans also find suspect. They need to obscure the reason why this election so close, namely because so many Americans believe deep down that the case against Trump is manufactured. If a majority of Americans believed the 2020 election was legitimate, then Trump wouldn’t be the nominee. And the fact that he could win this election speaks volumes about where the public is on the matter. The illusion of a democracy that the corporate state has manufactured is in danger of crumbling. Real democracy is poking through.