Gavin Newsom, a man who slept with his campaign manager’s wife and has done nothing about the tens of thousands of people living on the sidewalks of California cities, told Jake Tapper today that it was un-Christian to reduce the size and scope of the welfare state. One may believe food and medical assistance to the poor is one of the roles the government should perform, but that belief does not follow from Christian teachings. There is nothing in Christian doctrine that recognizes a role for government to play in meeting the needs of the poor and vulnerable.
What JD Vance and Donald Trump are doing — playing politics with food assistance for the poor — isn’t just wrong, it is the antithesis of what Jesus preached. pic.twitter.com/PdJ4uuaPXT
Newsom’s argument that expansive social programs reflect Christian values of care and compassion for the less fortunate is a common one among proponents of big government, advanced to justify the size and scope of the state apparatus. While it is true that acts of generosity and mercy are central to Christian ethics, the question is not whether these acts are good, but whether scripture or Christian tradition supports their administration through the coercive power of the state.
When one turns to the Gospels, one indeed finds there injunctions to give to the poor, to feed the hungry, and to clothe the naked. But these are directed at individuals, not political authorities. Charity, in the Christian understanding, is a voluntary act of love—an expression of free will guided by compassion and faith. Coerced giving, by contrast, may provide material benefit but lacks the moral dimension that makes charity a virtue.
Indeed, the recent insistence on empathy—feeling what another person feels by putting yourself in their place—and, in previous decades, sympathy—feeling compassion without necessarily sharing another’s point of view—while concerned with emotional responses, are not really part of the moral commitment central to Christian teachings. Rather, the commitment is love or agape, the highest form of charity. This involves self-giving action for the good of the other. It is rooted in free will, not emotion. If a man wishes to be kind, he may be so; the government cannot compel his kindness.
Moreover, Christianity emphasizes not only moral agency but also personal responsibility. The Good Samaritan is commended not because he voted for a policy compelling others to do so but because he chose to stop and help a stranger in need. The spiritual merit lies in the act freely given. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 9:7, “Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”
California Governor Gavin Newsom
The Gospels are very clear about this: the Christian ethic of charity is fundamentally incompatible with the idea that government should enforce redistribution. The state operates by compulsion—through taxation and regulation—whereas Christian charity is rooted in conscience, liberty, and love. Newsom is arguing that Christian charity can be achieved through state coercion. Nothing could be further from the truth of scripture.
This is not to say that Christians should oppose all forms of government assistance, to be sure; rather, it is to say that they should recognize the distinction between charity and state-enforced redistribution. The former benefits both giver and receiver; the latter, while (perhaps) alleviating material hardship, erodes personal responsibility and the communal and spiritual bonds between individuals. As the Robin Trower lyric in his 1973 “Two Rolling Stoned” goes: “Takers get the honey/Givers sing the blues.”
Historically, it has often been Christians themselves—through churches, missions, and voluntary associations—who have cared for the poor most effectively, motivated not by law (nor by empathy) but by love. In fact, Christians give much more to charity compared to secular individuals. The Gospel model of charity is deeply personal and moral, not bureaucratic or political, and the personal and moral desire to give is much stronger among Christians than in other groups.
Finally, whatever one’s view on Christian charity or the place of big, intrusive government, the United States is by design a secular state. It is not guided by Christian doctrine but by the will of a people who express many faiths—or no faith at all—with the rights of the individual, among these conscience and property, protected from the tyranny of the majority.
Newsom’s invocation of Christianity can have no purchase here—not only because his interpretation is wrong (really, cheap political rhetoric designed to manufacture the appearance of hypocrisy on the other side), but because religion is walled off from the formation and implementation of law and policy. Indeed, it is the principle of religious liberty that lies behind the strength and vitality of Christianity in America.
James Madison, in a 1832 letter written to Henry Lee, reflected on the meaning and intent of the First Amendment, particularly the Establishment Clause. “The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them,” he wrote, “will be best guarded against by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others.”
Madison believed that government involvement in religion inevitably corrupts and weakens faith. He saw in the situation of Europe historical evidence that state-established churches led to loss of spiritual vitality, religious stagnation, and persecution. He was convinced that religion flourishes most when left free from government control or support. He argued that state aid to religion undermines its authenticity and vigor. Separation was therefore not only good for the preservation of secular society, but good for religion, because it preserved its independence, integrity, and character of voluntarism.
I will do this from the Marxist standpoint so that even the true believer may hear.
Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership and control of the means of production, primarily by capitalists and the petty bourgeoisie. The majority of people, lacking direct access to productive property, must sell their labor for the wages they need to meet their needs and wants. Welfare provisions, social safety nets, or other public functions do not alter the fundamental structure of capitalism—wage labor and private capital remain central. Indeed, such provisions and nets are designed to keep at bay the socialist revolutionary. Neither are fire departments nor the war departments socialist institutions.
Socialism is a system in which the means of production are, at least in principle, collectively owned and controlled—either directly by workers in their enterprises or indirectly through a state and an army of bureaucrats that purports to act in the interests of the working class (a situation of which one should always be suspicious). The goal of socialism is to subordinate capital to labor and to distribute the social product/surplus more equitably. Do I need to mention that the character of state control and whether it truly represents worker interests is historically and theoretically contested? Looking at unfolding events, I suppose I do.
Image by Sora
Communism is a classless, stateless form of social organization in which property is held in common and production guided by the principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” a slogan by Marx that is remarkably similar in spirit to the story of Ananias and Sapphira, which appears in the Book of Acts 5: 1–11 (a story with which I will conclude this essay). Under this imagined situation, coercive institutions of the state become unnecessary because social relations are based on cooperation rather than exploitation, much like it was in the original human society (gatherers and hunters), but on a higher technological plane.
Though theoretically harmonious, the realization of such a system would in practice require a level of social coordination and technocratic control—and a nonorganic moral consensus—that makes it inherently utopian (as in “no place”). It is, therefore, a fanciful paradigm of what Thomas Sowell calls the “unconstrained vision of human nature,” that is, the belief that humanity has no intrinsic nature and is therefore infinitely malleable in the hands of those who would design the perfect society.
If readers aren’t sure they’re understanding what I am conveying here, then I recommend BF Skinner’s Beyond Freedom and Dignity and the utopia he describes there. Or maybe one requires beating over the head with it, in which case I will assign George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. The point is that communism, even in its most optimistic conception, presupposes a coordinating function, i.e., managerial control (what Marx called an “administration of things”), which in practice necessarily requires coercion and hierarchy. But, then, so does state socialism, a fact to which all really-existing socialist systems attest.
I conclude with the fates of Ananias and Sapphira in the New Testament. Making this connection got me in trouble at Middle Tennessee Christian School, which I attended for ninth grade. In Bible Study, we covered the Book of Acts in-depth. Familiar with the book as a child, the semester-long deep dive into scripture, along with my knowledge of Karl Marx, caused me to see a connection I had not seen before.
A bit of background: The first Christian community was founded in Jerusalem by Jesus’s original apostles—Peter, James, John, and the others—shortly after Jesus’s death, decades before the story of Jesus and the first church were written down. The Book of Acts was written by Paul’s companion, Luke, around 80–90 CE. Acts is a theological history that preserves genuine early traditions while shaping them into a narrative of the church’s growth.
The story goes like this:
In the earliest days of the Christian community in Jerusalem, the believers lived in unity, sharing their possessions so that no one lacked anything; those who owned land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds to the apostles, who distributed resources according to each person’s need. This was the first Christian church.
A wealthy man named Ananias and his wife Sapphira sold a piece of property but secretly kept part of the money for themselves while pretending to donate the full amount. When Ananias presented the gift, Peter confronted him for lying not just to the community but to God, and Ananias suddenly collapsed and died. Later, when Sapphira arrived, unaware of what had happened, she repeated the falsehood and likewise fell down dead. (My own view is that things went down differently, a bit more human agency involved, but that’s neither here nor there, I suppose.)
When I told the teacher and my classmates the connection I perceived between communism and the first Christian church, the teacher explained that such an arrangement would be fine as long as Jesus were the dictator. I was then sent out of the room to sit and reflect upon my thoughtcrime on a bench in the hall.
I was wrong, of course. The story of Ananias and Sapphira may seem to contradict the Christian emphasis on individual freedom, conscience, and salvation by personal faith. However, the focus is not on denying personal freedom or property rights, but on deception. In the narrative, Peter makes clear that the couple was under no obligation to sell their land or donate the full proceeds; their property remained their own. The problem was not withholding money but lying about it, betraying the trust of a community that was, at that early stage, practicing voluntary communal sharing under unique circumstances (remember, followers expected Christ’s imminent return).
Thus, as I would later come to understand, rather than prescribing communal ownership for all Christians, the passage serves as a moral warning about hypocrisy during a formative and spiritually intense moment in the life of the church. Early Christianity affirms individual conscience, personal faith, and voluntary generosity, but it also stresses honesty and responsibility within the community. The story highlights the seriousness of violating that trust, not a rejection of individual freedom.
It would have been useful for the teacher to have corrected my error so that students could learn about individualism and voluntarism in Christianity. Instead, he appeared to lack an understanding of Christianity sufficient to take advantage of a teachable moment, and my error—and his ignorance—resulted in students hearing that day that the first Christian church was an instantiation of communism. Whatever else the first church was, it wasn’t that; communism in Marx’s conception is the stage of human development that socialism prepares, and socialism is not a voluntary condition.
Today, I turn my attention to the ascent of Muslims to political office in the West. The occasion is the victory of Muslim and socialist Zohran Mamdani in New York City’s mayoral race. Mamdani’s win echoes the 2016 election of Sadiq Khan—former chair of the Fabian Society—as mayor of London. Khan’s election occurred the same year a majority of Britons voted to detach from the pan-European superstate that had long shaped their political destiny (and really still does). Mamdani’s rise comes in a year when the populist forces that fueled Brexit and Donald Trump’s first term have once again propelled Trump into the presidency, this time with a clearer mandate. The gulf between cosmopolitan and working-class sensibilities could not be starker—on both sides of the Atlantic.
While self-described democratic socialists are busy on social media trying to rationalize socialism (“Socialism is the fire department saving your house”), many among them are leaning into the new ecumenism that, on the occasion of Trump’s 2017 executive order restricting travel from several Muslim-majority countries, found them staging large-scale protests at airports and in public squares across the United States. Demonstrators held signs denouncing the ban and expressing solidarity with Muslims, invoking religious unity, quoting the Statue of Liberty (Emma Lazarus’s poem “The New Colossus,” penned in 1883 to help raise funds for the statue’s pedestal, affixed to the inside of the pedestal in 1903), or declaring “I Am Muslim Too.” (Perhaps in time, the Islamophiles will get their wish.)
The practice of ecumenism (or ecumenicalism) was originally founded on the idea of cooperation, dialogue, and unity among Christian denominations. The aim was to heal divisions among Christians so that the faithful could better witness to their shared faith and work together in the world. Over time, ecumenism came to represent a shared commitment to interfaith cooperation and social justice, leading many Christians to adopt the doctrine of inclusivity. Ecumenical types welcomed non-Christian faiths, including Islam and Judaism, into the dialogue, which, according to the inclusivity doctrine, with respect to Islam, meant tolerating the intolerable.
Image by Grok
The modern ecumenical movement thus professes a commitment to the liberal values of pluralism and tolerance, albeit warped by a progressive twist, one that Canadian psychologist Gad Saad identifies as parasitic, namely cultural relativism, that is, the suspension of moral and political judgment in the thought and actions of those from other places. What follows from relativism is the expectation that reasonable people adopt a neutral gaze and see all religions as compatible and equal, and therefore at least tolerated—better yet, admired. One must adopt this view if one wishes not to be seen as a bigot or a chauvinist. You know, an Islamophobe.
Assuming compatibility and equality of religious belief obscures the reality that religions can be, and in fact are, antithetical to the universal interests of humankind—the rights to autonomy, conscience, publishing, and so forth. I do not here mean mere incompatibility, but antithetical in a way that makes peaceful coexistence or synthesis impossible, with one faith demanding the submission of all others based on a doctrine of offensive intolerance. In this situation, either the antithesis is allowed to negate the thesis by subverting pluralism or tolerance to attain positions of commanding power, or the thesis precludes its annihilation by restricting the power and presence of the antithesis. This is defensive intolerance: the thesis requires the latter to preserve the arrangements that make religious liberty possible. This stance depends on an awareness that the threat is existential; to do anything else is a perversion of tolerance, what Saad describes as suicidal empathy.
Let’s work through this apparent paradox dialectically. Suppose a religion that supports the separation of church and state and promotes the idea of individualism—that is, the secular ethic of religious liberty—and support for this arrangement and idea exists at the doctrinal level. This is the religious thesis. In the West, the thesis is Christianity, which, in its historical development, is simultaneously the thesis of the Enlightenment. Indeed, the Enlightenment is the result of a long struggle within Christianity to become a rational faith, which required the fracturing of Catholic hegemony, brought about by the emergence of Protestantism. So impactful was Protestantism and the idea of individualism, already present in the womb of Christian doctrine, that it moderated the collectivist orientation of Catholicism. Here, ecumenism served a purpose by bringing Christians together around the rational premise embedded in scripture. The Founders of the American Republic were ecumenical in this way. They established the United States as the nationalist exemplar of secularism, putting the rights of man beyond any particular religious doctrine by locating it in human nature.
Suppose now the antithesis of this establishment. Rather than supporting religion-state separation and the ethnic of individualism, the antithesis advances a collectivist doctrine, one that seeks total control over a population by converting, marginalizing, or eradicating those of other faiths by acquiring—including through democratic means—the political power necessary to assert its dominance over a society. Today’s religious antithesis is Islam, a term that literally means “submission” and “surrender,” and its advance everywhere terminates in the eventual elimination of secularism and individual liberty. The oppression and killing of apostates, heretics, and infidels, as well as the subordination of women, follow. The faith is not a civil and rational one, but violent and irrational, incapable of liberalism because it is intrinsically illiberal. As such, it is a species of clerical fascism. As such, alongside the secular totalitarianism of China and the rise of transnational corporate statism, Islam is the greatest threat to human freedom in the world.
In such a situation, the religious tolerance exhibited by Christian ecumenism, born of the Enlightenment sensibilities that the struggle for rational Christianity gave rise to, endangers the very arrangement that makes ecumenism possible. Put another way, progressive ecumenism brings people to tolerate a religion that rejects the foundation of religious liberty and the secular regime of tolerance. The empathy here invites the destruction of the empathetic. It is not only in this case that the religious antithesis opposes the religious thesis; more broadly, the greater thesis that includes both rational Christianity and the secular foundation it founded—upon which it depends to keep free its faith—is under the threat of extinction by the presence of the antithesis.
I want to emphasize the point that what allowed the Christian thesis to thrive was its own gradual development of religious pluralism over centuries, a process only possible because there was a doctrinal basis for individualism. There is no such ethic in Islam. Islam seeks to replace Christian doctrine with its diametric opposite. Therefore, no coexistence or synthesis is possible because both the thesis and its antithesis rest on entirely antithetical standpoints. Imposing one requires enslaving the other; saving one requires excluding the other. And since Christianity rests on a rational foundation conducive to human freedom, the choice is clear. This is no small problem to be worked out in dialogue. This is a civilizational matter.
I can hear the antisemite: “What about Judaism?” A man accused of antisemitism, Karl Marx, in his 1843 essay “On the Jewish Question”—one of his earliest major writings, following his “Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right” (both published in 1843)—, makes a provocative argument about what he calls “practical Judaism,” by which he means the social logic of egoistic individual rights, exchange, money, and political emancipation as it functions in modern bourgeois society. He contrasts this with “rational” or “theoretical” Christianity, i.e., Protestantism, which he argues the Reformation transformed by stripping away its otherworldly (and I would add collectivist) orientation and aligning it with economic rationalization, self-interest, and worldly pursuits.
In Marx’s view, the Reformation completed the secularization of Christian Europe by bringing Christian moral life into line with the practical, this-worldly ethos he associates with bourgeois society. Thus, Marx suggests that the Protestant Reformation dissolved religious obstacles to capitalism by reorienting Christian life toward the rational, disciplined, individual-centered, materially engaged conduct that already characterized Jewish practical life. The result is that modern Christian society becomes market-driven, secular, and structured by the logic of capital—not that Judaism triumphs theologically (Judaism is not a proselytizing religion anyway), but that capitalism imposes its own universal epistemic.
Comparing Judaism with Islam betrays a profound ignorance of the respective faiths. Christians and Jews are indeed People of the Book. Over against them, the Islamization of a society cancels that epistemic and substitutes for it its own doctrine of submission and surrender. Existing law—in the West, founded on rational and secular principles, however corrupted these are in places and at times by ideology—is replaced by Sharia, rooted in the belief that all law derives from Allah’s will, and that interpretations of that design are properly delegated to a religious clerisy who instructs those charged with securing the order of things, an order conveyed to Allah’s messenger Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel, who he claims to have encountered alone in a cave. It would be one thing if Muhammad’s revelations affirmed the ethics of Christianity and Judaism. It doesn’t. It negates them.
Muhammad does not envision the world that Christianity supposes. Rational Christian doctrine is rooted in the idea that each person stands in a direct, personal relationship with God and is personally accountable for accepting or rejecting salvation. On this view, the separation of church and state is not merely a political arrangement but the natural outgrowth of a faith that emphasizes voluntary belief—since genuine conversion, according to Christian teaching, must be freely chosen rather than coerced. Indeed, periods of forced conversion or state-imposed orthodoxy are historical aberrations rather than logical consequences of Christian principles. Christian individualism and a secular political order complement one another by ensuring that the decision to follow Christ remains an act of personal conviction rather than compulsion.
Muhammad’s god envisions the opposite: a world in which every person either converts to the Muslim faith or is subordinated to it, a situation that leads to a progressive purging of Christians, Jews, Hindus, and so forth, either by formal, i.e., legal and state action, or informal methods, including harassment, intimidation, and extralegal violence. There is no earthly consequence for leaving the Christian faith; one need only accept Jesus into one’s life to avoid hellfire. Islam punishes apostasy by execution. The overall message of Christianity is one of forgiveness, grace, and repentance that extends to all people, regardless of the specific sins with which they struggle. In Islam, gay men are put to death.
Despite the desire to be tolerant of other religions, one cannot be so tolerant that one robs oneself of one’s dignity and freedom and, possibly, one’s life (yet we see progressive women trying on the veil). Indeed, self-defense is a foundational human right for a reason—survival—and that right extends to communities and nations: there is a moral obligation to protect the innocent and vulnerable from danger and harm. Islam’s offensive intolerance must therefore be met with defensive intolerance, since failing to do so imperils the very foundation of Western civilization. Its presence makes us all unsafe.
Those who appeal to childish religious tolerance (although it is not often actually naïve but strategic) ought to be asked to consider whether their tolerance of fascism should extend any further than allowing individuals to hold such beliefs. To be sure, we cannot (or at least should not) police opinion, but we can address and take action. Assuming that the attribution of fascism is an accurate and not an ideologically or politically convenient one (such as the false attribution of fascism to populists and nationalists by globalists), should fascists be allowed to ascend to political office in America? Should fascists from other parts of the world be allowed to migrate to America and deepen fascism here? Would we not wonder why secular leaders and a rank and file are welcoming to America the bearers of fascism?
If the answers to these questions are “no,” “no,” and “yes” respectively, then it is only a matter of knowing what the thing itself is and applying the same standard.
Those who were present at the news conference where the man (not Gordon Findlay, the global brand director for Novo Nordisk) fainted reported that, since three doctors were tending to the man, it was not imperative that Kennedy, who is not a doctor, immediately do so.
A rational person understands that not everybody responding to a health crisis has to behave in the same way. But in this age, on one side at least, rationality is only embedded in the system, not in minds. In either case, the behavior is irrational.
On planet earth, what Kennedy did, besides making room (my initial interpretation, since he was not the only one to leave the gaze of the camera—moreover obvious in the handlers shooing reporters from the room, which observers do see), was retrieve a chair. If you watch the sequence of events, the man first started falling, and Kennedy thought he just needed to sit. Kennedy also got a wet towel for the man, too, a common thing to do when an individual faints.
So, no, Kennedy wasn’t fleeing the scene. He was responding rationally to the situation. He’s known as a steady man.
Trump watches doctors tend to stricken man
Why people wrongly interpreted Kennedy’s actions, just as they wrongly framed Trump’s response (which was one of concern, if you don’t rely on a single conveniently curated still image), is a cognitive fallacy known as “motivated reasoning,” where one’s perception of a situation is shaped by an ideological or partisan worldview, often without charity, in this case a worldview eager in every instance to attribute to Kennedy and Trump untoward motives. Those afflicted cannot see it any other way. And the corporate state media leaves them to it.
Concerning Trump’s actions that day: “I wanted to speak to the wife to let her know what was happening, but also comfort her,” Dr. Oz reported. “The president saw me in the corner and said, ‘Who are you talking to?’ I said, sort of sheepishly: I was talking to the wife. And he said, ‘Give me that phone.’”
Yesterday, I drafted an essay concerning the passing of Dick Cheney, a warmonger who held numerous positions in government over the last half a century, most recently as Vice President under George W. Bush (2001-2009), the son of former CIA director and appointed minder of President Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush. I hope to publish that essay tomorrow, but the election of Zohran Mamdani as Mayor of New York City pushes it back.
Mamdani is the man on the right
I will, however, provide readers with a bit of a preview because it is relevant here: My forthcoming essay will illustrate why one must avoid dwelling on personalities and instead understand world-historical developments and the dynamics driving their ambitions. I critique Thomas Carlyle’s influential “great man” theory of history. Recalling Georg Hegel’s concept of the “world-historical figure,” Carlyle contended that the actions of extraordinary individuals primarily shape the course of history; society advances because of rare figures whose courage, moral force, and vision enable them to influence the destiny of nations and civilizations. For Carlyle, historical change reflects human greatness, with the masses and social structures playing subordinate roles. Making history is, in his words, “the biography of great men.”
Although I emphasize the role of social structures in shaping historical events and the personalities that appear in our history books, there is something to Carlyle’s thesis. Muhammad, born in Mecca around 570 CE, regarded in Islam as the final prophet, received from the Archangel Gabriel God’s message to humanity. His revelations were later compiled into the Qur’an. Muhammad authorized and personally led numerous military expeditions after establishing Islam in Medina, and over the next decade, the Muslim polity expanded through warfare and the submission of other tribes. By the time of his death in 632, most of the Arabian Peninsula had come under his political and military authority. The regime was cruel and unforgiving. The case of Muhammad is certainly illustrative of the force of personality.
The ambitions and cruelties of Islam did not end there. The attempted Islamic conquest of Europe began soon after the rise of Islam, in the seventh century, as Arab forces expanded rapidly across the Mediterranean. Muslim armies entered Europe through two main routes: across the Strait of Gibraltar into Spain and through Anatolia and the Balkans toward Constantinople. Frankish forces halted further northward advance at the Battle of Tours in 732, but Muslims controlled the Iberian Peninsula for centuries, while Islam spread east and south across the planet.
Muslim rule in Spain ended in 1492, when the Catholic monarchs Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile captured Granada, the last Muslim stronghold on the Iberian Peninsula. This event concluded nearly eight centuries of Islamic presence that had begun with the Umayyad conquest in the eighth century. The fall of Granada marked the completion of the Reconquista, the long Christian effort to reclaim territory from Muslim rule, and it coincided with Spain’s emergence as a unified Christian kingdom and global power. Without the bravery of the European Christians, the American Republic would not exist.
Muslim expansion into eastern Europe was largely halted by the strength of the Byzantine Empire, which successfully defended Constantinople during two major Arab sieges, preventing a direct route into the Balkans. Difficult terrain, long supply lines, and the rise of powerful regional forces created rather intractable military and political barriers. These factors together limited further advance and kept Islamic rule from extending deeply into eastern and central Europe during the early centuries of Islamic expansion.
However, Muslims could not be content with controlling much of the world east and south of European Christian civilization (for a map of Islam’s present reach, see my recent article Whose Time Has Come?). In the ensuing centuries, Islamic imperialists recalibrated their strategy of attack, in recent years, by invading Europe by invitation and preying on the misplaced humanitarianism of a people plagued by generational guilt and self-loathing.
Who ushered in the barbarians? Europe was betrayed by its own leaders. Transnationalists, bent on disempowering the indigenous peoples of Europe by changing the demographic composition of that continent and amalgamating nations in a single superstate governed by corporate power, threw open the Western gate to Islam. Today, Muslims enjoy ethnoreligious enclaves across Europe, and have successfully elected to government representatives of a totalitarian political movement. London’s mayor, Sir Sadiq Khan, is a Muslim. Like New York City, London is a world city, a hub of transnational corporate power.
Tragically, the United States is not immune to this development, namely the Islamization of the West, as mass immigration from Muslim majority countries over the last several decades has established ethnoreligious enclaves here—not just on the East Coast, but in America’s heartland. And, like the United Kingdom, this has resulted in the election of Muslims to public office, and, as we witnessed last night, to the financial capital of the corporate world order.
As an atheist, I dread the slide of the Christian West into clerical fascism. As critical as I have been over the decades of Christianity, the followers of that religion have been good to me. The historical record indicates that Muslims won’t be so kind. More than its record, there is a problem intrinsic to this ideology. Jesus preached peace and gave his life for his followers. The Founders of the American Republic, most of them Christians, established the paradigm of secular government. A Christian extremist, if he holds true to the teachings, can only be more like the teacher. The wristband he wears—“What would Jesus do?”—carries a rather benign slogan. However, the Muslim extremist is a man who strives to be more like Mohammed. He bears a different slogan—the slogan of a warlord—and he wears it on his forehead. He comes demanding surrender and submission.
That’s the difference doctrine makes. Not all religions are the same, and naive religious tolerance is a manifestation of suicidal empathy—and a strategy for conquest.
For much of my life, I have approached economic systems from a Marxist perspective, recognizing that capitalist relations are inherently exploitative. I still recognize the exploitative character of the capitalist mode of production—and I don’t think classical liberals would disagree (indeed, in many ways, Marx was a classical liberal, accepting John Locke’s labor theory of value). At the same time, I understand that modes of production before capitalism—feudalism, ancient class-based societies, and even some agrarian systems—were also exploitative. Apart from hunter-gatherer societies, which primarily involve subsistence-level labor, every class-divided society imposes forms of exploitation. Nevertheless, in any society beyond mere subsistence (and even in subsistence societies, where distribution is egalitarian, but work is required), people must produce value through their labor and exchange it for the things they need to sustain themselves.
Capitalism, despite its exploitative nature, has historically enabled an unprecedented development of productive forces, greatly improving the overall quality of life. Yet the pursuit of free trade, made possible by capital portability and labor mobility, has introduced significant challenges. Policies favoring globalization, offshoring, and mass immigration have, in many cases, de-industrialized local economies and increased structural unemployment—what Marx called the “industrial reserve army.” Workers face declining wages, displacement, and marginalization by foreign labor, both abroad and domestically, as well as by automation and bureaucratic rationality. The emergence of artificial intelligence and advanced robotics will only worsen these problems, and the end of work is a very real and dire eventuality (we may have to move to some form of communism, whether we like it or not).
Image by Sora
The welfare state arises in this context as a mechanism, at least ostensibly, to support those marginalized by these economic shifts. While I firmly believe in taking care of the unemployed, underemployed, and otherwise disadvantaged, the expansion of welfare can entrench dependence. Moreover, as implied, this dependence may not always be inadvertent. To fund these programs, resources are drawn from productive members of society, creating a cycle in which the exploited labor force must also sustain the very system that compensates for exploitative policies. This dependency can have profound social consequences, including family disintegration, idleness, and the emergence of a managed “culture of poverty” under technocratic administration.
Although I critique capitalism’s exploitative tendencies, I also recognize that it will persist and bring considerable benefits to human civilization. Even the very poor live better lives than the poor did in the past. But are they freer? As an individualist who values personal freedom and autonomy, I oppose a welfare state that fosters dependency and expands government intrusiveness. Instead, I support policies that promote economic independence: protectionist measures, tariffs, strong national borders, and the cultivation of domestic industry—often called economic nationalism. By fostering a domestic labor market insulated from global wage competition, economic nationalism can raise wages, increase employment, and shrink the need for intrusive government. This was the vision at America’s founding, the American System, and it propelled a nation from agrarian peripheral status in the global capitalist economy to the most technologically advanced civilization in human history and world hegemon.
A contemporary illustration of this problem is the SNAP (food stamp) program (see Oh SNAP! Democrats’ Antics Raise Consciousness About the Consequences of Free Trade and Progressive Social Policy). In 1969, SNAP covered approximately 1.4 percent of the population; today, it encompasses roughly 42 percent. While the expansion reflects some genuine social need, it also signals the risk of allowing welfare programs to replace economic and social policies that create prosperity at home and promote independence. SNAP was expanded not only to ameliorate the effects of globalization but also to pull a larger proportion of the population under government control. My argument is not against aiding those genuinely in need, but against allowing the state to substitute for policies that empower individuals through meaningful, well-compensated work. Economic and social systems should instead cultivate dignity, independence, and the opportunity for productive engagement. This is why I describe my politics as populist and nationalist and have aligned with the Trump wing of the Republican Party.
Progressives, who defend neoliberal and social welfare policies that undermine American labor and the nuclear family and subject the population to corporate and technocratic control, often attack populists as lacking empathy for those who are suffering. By doing so, they frame their argument in moral terms, portraying those who call for small, unintrusive government as heartless. However, morally, my argument is rooted in compassion and concern for human flourishing. Critics misrepresent the stance I have adopted as a lack of care for the vulnerable, but the core of my position emphasizes a desire to see people live dignified and self-sufficient lives. True compassion, in this view, is not merely the provision of aid but the creation of conditions under which people can thrive, achieve meaningful work, and participate fully in society.
It is also important to acknowledge that among those dependent on the welfare system are many able-bodied individuals who could work. While globalization has undeniably altered Americans’ life-chances and created real economic challenges, it does not eliminate the possibility of meaningful work. Human striving—the desire to work, create, and provide for oneself and one’s family—is a fundamental aspect of human dignity. Opportunities still exist. Historically, even during the Great Depression, when unemployment was widespread and opportunities scarce, people still sought work to sustain themselves and their families. Welfare dependency has diminished this drive, substituting state support for personal initiative and eroding the ethic of self-reliance, in turn degrading human freedom and, too often, leading to demoralization, which in turn generates crime and violence. While the state can and should support those genuinely unable to work, it should not supplant the human pursuit of achievement, independence, and purpose in the face of economic adversity.
Restricting access to welfare programs, while politically controversial, can, over time, encourage individuals to reenter the labor market and take advantage of the jobs that do exist. Job-seeking also signals to capitalists, policymakers, and the public that workers desire an economic course that restores domestic employment and raises wages. Since unemployment statistics measure those actively seeking work, restricting welfare will raise the official unemployment rate by sending people out looking for work. This increase conveys to policymakers and the public that current economic and social policies contribute to labor market challenges and limit opportunities for meaningful employment. By making visible the gap between available jobs and the need for more positions and higher wages, these statistics provide feedback that can drive policy change.
Encouraging labor market participation thus both empowers individuals and communicates a democratic demand for reforms that restore economic independence, higher wages, and a more self-reliant society. Individual initiative thereby becomes a form of politics: by striving to work and provide for oneself, citizens communicate a demand for economic conditions that promote opportunity and self-sufficiency. Although opponents may frame welfare restrictions as unsympathetic or harsh, we must insist that such measures can, in fact, be the most compassionate course of action because they signal a demand for action. By fostering independence, human dignity, and engagement in meaningful labor—and by compelling elites to address societal unrest rather than channel it into projects that further globalization—these policies ultimately benefit both individuals and society, creating conditions in which people can flourish rather than languish in dependence.
The push for expanding welfare programs, especially when cloaking itself in the language of empathy and humanitarianism, portraying opposition to big, intrusive government as heartless, is therefore a barrier that populists must overcome. Progressives’ misplaced humanitarianism, or, in societal terms, suicidal empathy, masks the long-term consequences of current policies and discourages critical evaluation. Even progressives face peril, as the present course risks undermining Western civilization and replacing capitalism with a form of neo-feudalism. By framing welfare expansion as an act of moral superiority, proponents of free trade (opponents to tariffs) have been conditioned to normalize and perpetuate the economic and social disruptions caused by globalization, offshoring, and the erosion of domestic labor markets to the detriment of most, except perhaps the power elite. The vast welfare state serves as a tool to sustain these systemic forces, cushioning the population from their consequences while disincentivizing self-reliance and independence; far from being purely compassionate, this approach prioritizes ideological and economic goals over the long-term well-being and dignity of the very individuals it claims to help.
While my critique of the expansion of the welfare state might strike some as neoclassical, it is worth noting Friedrich Hayek’s nuanced position on welfare. Hayek recognized that large, intrusive government undermines individual freedom and is prone to the inefficiencies of central planning. Yet he argued that a compassionate society must provide for the aged, the disabled, and others genuinely unable to work. In this light, limited social welfare can coexist with a system that encourages self-reliance and initiative, provided it is narrowly targeted and does not create widespread dependency. Amartya Sen, in Development as Freedom, similarly advocates a minimalist welfare approach that ensures a safety net for the genuinely vulnerable without supplanting individual striving or labor market participation.
Finally, I have considered whether my argument can be situated within a Marxist framework without abandoning Marx’s critique of capitalism. Marx emphasized that exploitation arises when workers do not fully control the value of their labor and are subject to alienating conditions. From this perspective, policies that create dependency on welfare, rather than promoting productive labor, sustain labor’s alienation. At the same time, ensuring basic provision for those genuinely unable to work aligns with Marx’s concern for human dignity and material well-being. It is possible to maintain a Marxist critique of capitalist exploitation while advocating for policies that cultivate independence and self-sufficiency, seeing these not as a rejection of Marxism but as a pragmatic application of its principles to modern economic realities. Scholars such as Michael Lebowitz, in Beyond Capital: Marx’s Political Economy of the Working Class, emphasize the need for structures that promote worker agency—ideas that resonate with the balance I advocate. At the same time, Lebowitz envisions this in the context of industrial democracy and collective worker control over production, the possibility of which is highly unlikely given the concentrated power of elites in a transnational corporate system.
My bottom line is that, given the persistence of capitalism, it is preferable to embrace a small-government, liberal-capitalist framework with targeted social provisions, rather than allow an ever-expanding welfare state to entrench dependency and push society toward a form of serfdom, as Hayek warned. In this sense, one can maintain a Marxist critique of exploitation while pragmatically recognizing the benefits of capitalist development (Marx himself was impressed by capitalism’s dynamic). I am reminded of Christopher Hitchens, who publicly renounced socialism while still identifying as a Marxist, arguing that the capitalist revolution is not yet complete and that its ongoing unfolding promises greater affluence and human well-being through advances such as the progressive elimination of disease and the expansion of material prosperity. While it is unclear whether Hitchens would have endorsed globalization and free trade, his position resonates with my own: that it is possible to retain a critical, class-conscious perspective while advocating policies that maximize human flourishing within the existing capitalist framework, promoting independence, dignity, and meaningful work rather than dependency. The task before us is to shape it to the advantage of the working class, and, in the context of the international system, the advantage of the American worker.
The October 28, 2025, debate between comedians Dave Smith and Steven Crowder on Louder with Crowder over AIPAC and the Jewish lobby reveals a profound misunderstanding of the real power dynamics behind US foreign policy in the Middle East. Crowder has a defensible position. However, calling for Trump’s impeachment, Dave Smith absurdly argues that Trump’s actions toward Iran were driven by Israeli influence—an idea that presumes a kind of Jewish control over American decision-making, one given scholarly heft John Mearsheimer (Professor of Political Science ast the University of Chicago) and Stephen Walt (Progessor of International Relations at the Kennedy School at Harvard University) in their book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, published in the summer of 2007. This interpretation, however, overlooks the deeper geopolitical and historical context in which US policy has developed. And, in all fairness, Smith’s argument is a drastic oversimplification of Mearsheimer and Walt’s analysis.
The roots of what we refer to as “neoconservatism” lie not in Jewish identity but in the evolution of Cold War liberalism—or progressivism more precisely. I explained this in 2004, in an analysis published first in Gesellschaft zerstören—Der Neoliberale Anschlag auf Demokratie und Gerechtigkeit, which was translated the following year into English and published by Pluto Press (which was at the time carried by the University of Michigan Press) under the title Devastating Society: The Neoconservative Assault on Democracy and Justice. (The book was later translated into Arabic and Indonesian and widely read around the world.) Readers can find on this platform an essay laying out my argument: War Hawks and the Ugly American: The Origins of Bush’s Middle East Policy. I show there that many of the figures who came to be called neoconservatives (or “the crazies,” as intelligence analysts called them behind closed doors) had been progressives and anti-communist Democrats in the tradition of Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson during the 1970s. Their concerns centered on maintaining American global dominance, particularly in regions vital to energy security. That some of these intellectuals happened to be Jewish is incidental; the driving force was the defense of US hegemony, not ethnic or religious allegiance, although, as I explain elsewhere, Christian Zionism gave the policy some cover (see Christian Neo-Fundamentalism and US Foreign Policy).
The real focus of US strategy is the Middle East’s vast energy reserves and the advance of transnational corporate interests and power. I explained the energy angle in another chapter published in Devastating Society, as well as in an article in Capitalism Nature Socialism in 2005. (To read that article, go here: The Neoconservative Assault on the Earth: The Environmental Imperialism of the Bush Administration. I also explain much of this in War Hawks and the Ugly American: The Origins of Bush’s Middle East Policy.) Saudi Arabia emerged as a crucial ally because of its oil production and its role in stabilizing global energy markets. Iran and Iraq, both with enormous petroleum resources, were also key to the broader geopolitical puzzle. Beyond them lay the mineral-rich Caspian Sea Basin, a region of growing importance in the late twentieth century. Within this framework, Israel’s strategic value derives not from cultural ties or religious affinity but from its geographic and military position as part of a regional network that included Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
Jordan in particular became an essential hub for American intelligence and military coordination. The largest CIA installation in the Middle East is located there (keep in mind that CIA installations are secret, so this is not an official claim), serving as part of CENTCOM’s operational base (US Central Command). During visits to Jordan in the mid-2000s, including meetings with diplomatic officials, and my ongoing analyses of the situation, it became even clearer to me that the US presence in the region was oriented toward projecting power eastward—into Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq. This long-standing strategy reflects an interest in controlling the flow of resources and countering rival influences, especially Russian and Chinese interests in Central Asia. This also explains NATO and the United States’ provocation of Russia in its current conflict with Ukraine. (See History and Sides-Taking in the Russo-Ukrainian War; The US is Not Provoking Russia—And Other Tall Tales; The Urgent Necessity of Purging the Government of Deep State Actors and Warmongers; Progressivism and the Plea for War; Robots and Zombies Assemble! We Must Have War!)
(As an aside, why I am so heavily shadow-banned on social media is because of my critiques of US foreign policy, not only in the book and article noted previously, but in other essays and lectures delivered at the United Nations University in Amman, Jordan, in 2006 and 2007. I document my travels to Amman in Journey to Jordan, November 2006, and Journey to Jordan, April 2007. In hindsight, Freedom and Reason began somewhat as a travel blog. My essay Christian Neo-Fundamentalism and US Foreign Policy was the basis for one of my lectures there.)
The invasion of Afghanistan in the early 2000s, while publicly justified as a response to the 9/11 attacks (while I do see some justification for our actions there, I opposed the full-scale invasion of that country), also served this strategic purpose. It provided the United States with a military foothold near the Caspian region, where energy and mineral wealth were at stake. This was consistent with earlier maneuvers, such as the Carter-Brzezinski strategy of the late 1970s, which lured the Soviet Union into a costly war in Afghanistan. Through these efforts, the United States sought to contain both Russian influence and regional instability, maintaining its dominant position in the energy corridor. (For background, see my essay Sowing the Seeds of Terrorism? Capitalist Intrigue and Adventurism in Afghanistan, which uses content analysis to expose the corporate state media’s attempt to obscure the history of the Afghanistan war and the longstanding covert operations there, including the recruitment of Osama Bin Laden. See also Jimmy Carter, Trilateralist, Entering Hospice; Everybody Loves Jimmy Carter.)
When it comes to Iran, Trump’s policy was shaped by two interlocking goals: preventing Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons and maintaining the balance of power that undergirded US strategic dominance in the region. To be sure, Israel had its own interests in containing Iran, which posed a direct and immediate threat to its national security. Yet, contrary to the assumption of Smith and others, Israel was not dictating American actions. If anything, US intervention limited Israel’s push toward full-scale regime change, as well as the Greater Israel Project, which was also constrained by the ceasefire Trump negotiated between Israel and Hamas (a ceasefire I opposed, for the record). Washington’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities effectively prevented escalation while securing US objectives in the region.
Figures like Mark Levin, Ted Cruz, and Lindsey Graham (often associated with the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party) supported—and still support—more aggressive regime-change policies. However, these positions reflected a continuation of the US hegemonic strategy rather than evidence of Israeli control. And they are not part of Trump’s foreign policy reset, which makes Smith and his ilk’s claims and call for Trump’s impeachment all the more absurd. Israel’s national goals have aligned with American interests at times, but Israel remains a secondary player in the larger geopolitical framework dominated by Washington’s pursuit of energy security and global dominance. Israel is not so much an ally of the United States as it is a protectorate. Trump is making sure that country is not also a liability.
Dave Smith’s argument thus rests on a false premise—and is moved by a cabalistic theory of Jewish power that has infected many who have previously supported Donald Trump and the MAGA movement (Candice Owens, Tucker Carlson, and others). The argument absurdly overstates Israel’s influence and attributes US imperial ambitions to Jewish ambition and power rather than to the logic of American hegemony. The Middle East strategy—stretching from Saudi Arabia through Israel and Jordan to Afghanistan—has never been about serving Israeli interests. It has always been about securing the global position of the United States in an energy-rich region critical to maintaining its superpower status and advancing the globalist project of world corporate domination. To claim Israel is behind all this more than smacks of antisemitism.
New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, a Muslim, has been asked on multiple occasions by journalists to condemn the slogan “Globalize the Intifada.” He has demurred every time.
Democratic candidate for New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani gestures at a campaign rally in the Manhattan borough of New York City, on October 13, 2025. Source)
“Intifada” is an Arabic word meaning “uprising.” There are two major moments in the history of the Intifada: First Intifada (1987–1993), characterized by civil disobedience, mass protests, and violence; Second Intifada (2000–2005), which was far more violent, involving suicide bombings and other armed attacks against civilians and military.
Proponents of jihadism will tell you that the word means lots of things, but if pushed, will finally admit that this includes, in their words, defensive warfare governed by strict ethical and legal rules. Even this admission is an act of obscurantism. The strict ethical and legal rules of defensive warfare in jihadism derive from the teachings of Islam, found in the Qur’an and the Hadith/Sunnah—the legal rules of Sharia. Anyone who has ever read those materials and studied the history of Islamic conquest knows that “defensive,” “ethical,” and “legal” mean their opposites: offensive warfare decoupled from any rational moral restraints.
The slogan “globalize the intifada” is thus a call to expand the spirit and tactics of so-called “Palestinian resistance movements” beyond war on Israel and into the wider world. Put another way, it is a call for global jihad. Jihadism is a contemporary militant movement that aims to create political systems rooted in its interpretation of Islam through the use of violence.
Jihadists will also tell you that the translation of the word “Islam” is “peace.” In fact, the most accurate translations of the word are “submission” or “surrender.” Jihadism is a modern extremist ideology that pursues the formation of Islamic-based states by means of armed conflict. To claim otherwise is a Big Lie.
Map of the World Muslim Population by countries and administrative regions (image source)
Today, there are around fifty Muslim-majority countries. Fewer than half of these countries are mostly (formally) secular. The rest are governed in whole or in part by Sharia. Before 1970, there were fewer than 250,000 Muslims in America. Today, the number is approaching 3.5 million, concentrated in major Blue Cities in the Midwest and Northeast United States. In Europe, the number is projected to reach 9 percent by 2030. It is already greater than 8 percent in France and Sweden. What is driving this growth? Immigration (especially post‑1960s), higher fertility among Muslim immigrant populations, and a younger age structure.
This is an either/or proposition. There is no neutral position for one to take on the question. Jihadism is a militant doctrine advocating the establishment of Islamic-style governance through violent action. Either a rational and moral man condemns the Inifada or he supports it. In this respect, Islamism is like fascism. Either you condemn fascism or you support it. You cannot be neutral on the matter. Mamdani cannot condemn the slogan because he supports the Islamization project. The Islamization project is a clerical fascist project.
With the election of Mamdani, New York City will become America’s London, where the current Mayor is Sadiq Khan, a Muslim. According to the most recent census data for Greater London, approximately 15 percent of the population identifies as Muslim. Sharia councils and tribunals already exist in the UK, primarily for family and personal matters like marriage, divorce, and inheritance. Thus, populations in the UK are already partially governed by Sharia.
Sharia is not only a feature of the UK legal system. In Belgium, France, Germany, and the Netherlands, Muslim communities may use informal arbitration or counseling based on Sharia principles for personal or family disputes. In Germany, for example, “religious arbitration” is permitted for civil disputes if both parties agree. Thus, populations in these countries are already partially governed by Sharia.
In the Americas, including in the United States, Muslim communities use arbitration based on Sharia in private, civil matters (e.g., marriage or business contracts). In Canada, Muslim communities have Islamic tribunals for arbitration in family and civil disputes. Defenders of the practice say that Sharia cannot contradict civil law. But why is Sharia allowed in any form?
New Yorkers are going to elect a jihadist for mayor. Not all New Yorkers. Progressives are going to elect a jihadist to be their mayor. The share of the Muslim population of New York City is estimated to be around 9 percent. Consider that Muslims (largely of Middle Eastern or North African ancestry) in Dearborn, Michigan, constitute roughly 55 percent of the city’s population. Michigan has the largest number of Sharia-based arbitration agreements.
Why are progressives proponents of Sharia? Why do they march in the streets and occupy college campuses in support of Hamas and global jihad? Why are Democrats in America and social democrats in Europe proponents of Muslim migration to the West? Americans need to ask themselves these questions. This is not accidental. The Islamization of the West is a project, not only of jihadism but of progressivism and social democracy. This is the Red-Green Alliance. One has to have put out his eyes not to see it.
Illinois’ Ninth Congressional District candidate Kat Abughazaleh, and social media influencer, is facing federal charges. Abughazaleh and her co-conspirators are charged with physically hindering and impeding a law enforcement officer. Their actions represent a textbook example of interfering with law enforcement operations. This is unlawful.
Yet progressives insist that Abughazaleh’s actions amount to “lawful protest.” I’d like to be able to say that I honestly don’t know what world these people inhabit, where the obvious becomes debatable or deniable, but, as readers of the platform now, I can’t say that, because I do know what world woke progressives inhabit—it’s right there in the name; it’s a neo-religious attitude that disorders reason. Do I believe Abughazaleh is deceiving her followers or is a true believer? I cannot know for sure. But that there are deceivers and true believers in this movement is undeniable.
Left: Kat Abughazaleh blocks federal agents outside an ICE facility near Chicago, Ill., in September 2025. Right: Abughazaleh allegedly thrown to the ground by an ICE officer for blocking the driveway outside the Broadview ICE detention center.
It’s not as if we don’t have the receipts. Photos and videos plainly show the mob obstructing officers who were carrying out their lawful duties. That’s against the law. This is a country governed by the rule of law. If you break the law, there are consequences. It’s cause and effect.
Below is a video in which Abughazalah is claiming that the charges leveled against her constitute “an attack on all of our First Amendment rights.” This is followed by a response @LeftismForU, which documents the unlawful actions of Abughazalah and her co-conspirators.
*Physically attempts to stop federal agents*
"I can't believe I've been charged for it! It's an attack on my freedom of speech! 😭"pic.twitter.com/AXvqWUDmWR
Let’s recall the First Amendment to the US Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” I have highlighted the relevant portion.
In modern constitutional jurisprudence, two categories matter. First, there is genuinely peaceable protest—people who assemble without violence or coercive physical interference, whether or not a minor law is technically violated. Second, there is civil disobedience, which is by definition unlawful but still nonviolent and willing to accept legal consequences. Even under contemporary First Amendment doctrine, once you cross into intimidation, obstructing law enforcement, vandalism, or violence, you leave civil disobedience behind. That conduct is neither protected, nor peaceable, nor principled. However, when the First Amendment was written, eighteenth-century usage of peaceable implied conduct that was lawful, orderly, not riotous, not disruptive, and not obstructive. In other words, “peaceable” originally denoted conduct that does not disturb the peace, not merely “conduct that does not involve physical violence.”
Either way (and what you’re hearing here is a distinction made with no real difference—peaceable is not synonymous with nonviolence), assault, physically obstructing a police officer, property destruction, rioting, and vandalism do not count as elements of a peaceable assembly. A crowd that quietly blocks a police officer from performing official duties may be nonviolent, but it is not peaceable, because it interferes with lawful authority. So let’s not pretend that interference with law enforcement officers is some form of “lawful protest.” It isn’t. Calling it that is a deceptive misrepresentation—it convinces people to accept a false narrative to encourage them to engage in unlawful behavior.
Crucially, and this gets to the neoreligious piece, Abughazaleh and her defenders cannot declare unlawful behavior to be lawful simply because they think their cause is righteous (it isn’t—but that’s beside the point). Reality doesn’t rearrange itself to accommodate personal belief. A man may think himself invincible, but if he steps in front of an eighteen-wheeler barreling down the interstate at 65 mph, reality—not his illusion—wins. And he won’t live to admit his error. Progressives often behave like children in this way. They believe they can wish away realities they dislike. This is what animates their chanting and rituals: magical thinking. The real world eludes them because they want it to.
Karl Marx put it well in The German Ideology: “Once upon a time, a valiant fellow had the idea that men were drowned in water only because they were possessed with the idea of gravity. If they were to knock this notion out of their heads… they would be sublimely proof against any danger from water… This valiant fellow was the type of the new revolutionary philosophers in Germany.” That is today’s progressive—the new “revolutionary philosopher” who rebels not against power, but against reality itself. How they manage to call themselves leftists without shame is beyond me. They are reactionaries, at war with reason and truth.
Look, civil disobedience has its place. Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement practiced it openly—and they accepted the consequences. King told his followers that they were breaking the law and that they would face penalties. That was the price of pursuing what they believed to be moral action. He understood the costs and accepted them—and he asked his followers to understand and accept those costs alongside him.
So my message to those engaging in this sort of behavior is this: have the courage of your convictions. If you choose to break the law, and if law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges uphold the rule of law, then you will face consequences. Wear them as badges of honor if you must. But don’t lie to the public about what constitutes lawful protest. I know you will, of course, since you want rebellion and insurrection. And, for that reason alone, you should not be allowed to stand for election in a free republic.
That 42 million Americans utilize SNAP, the federal government’s food assistance program, came as a surprise to many Americans, an awareness triggered by the Democrats’ shutdown of the government in their attempt to continue government subsidies to the medical industry to provide health care to illegal aliens.
Screenshot of USDA’ s SNAP program webpage
Predictably, Democrats are blaming Trump for not using SNAP’s emergency reserves to feed Americans dependent on the program who will lose access on November 1. However, an emergency is a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action. The government shutdown is a choice Democrats made. It is not unexpected. It is intentional; Democrats want to drain emergency SNAP reserves so they can continue holding the American people hostage for policy goals the public did not endorse. With the rise of populist nationalism, Democrats lost their majorities in Congress, so they are using the government shutdown to obtain what they could not at the ballot box.
The only way the Democrats can sustain any illusion about who’s responsible for the government shutdown is because of corporate state media complicity. This is where it becomes critical that every individual use their rational skills of cogitation to see what is plain before their eyes. An important initial step in clearing the path for clear reason, therefore, is recognizing that the corporate state media is a propaganda apparatus that provides a platform for progressive social engineering. This is at the behest of global corporate power and the project of managed decline. The propaganda is becoming increasingly shrill because the network of alternative media bears the truth of the situation. We can thank populist nationalism for weakening the ideological hegemony of the power elite—and Democrats for poor timing.
The reason why 42 million Americans depend on SNAP is a direct result of the free trade policies pushed by Democrats and RINOs. It is, moreover, the result of containing black and brown citizens in impoverished inner-city urban areas, which is an adjunct to the globalization project. Ever wonder why Red States get a relatively greater share of government resources directed to the poor than Blue States? In part, it’s because half of all blacks live in the US South, and they are overrepresented in impoverished inner-city urban areas. But that’s not the only reason the program has expanded over the years. Nor is progressive social policy unrelated to the reasons SNAP has grown exponentially.
Free trade—offshoring of manufacturing and mass immigration—has hollowed out our nation’s industrial core and driven down the wages of American workers by exploiting cheap foreign labor abroad and domestically. These developments have harmed tens of millions of our citizens. As for the ghettoization of black Americans, I will be publishing an essay next week that will go into detail about the dynamics and history of progressive containment of particularly black Americans in impoverished inner-city urban areas. It will have to suffice here to say that ghettoization has decimated the black family and given rise to a culture of poverty and violence.
The expansion of SNAP has come with a myriad of problems. For example, according to the USDA’s Economic Research Service, 42 percent of women who participated in the SNAP program were obese, compared with 30 percent of eligible nonparticipating women and 22 percent of women with incomes above the eligibility limit. This means that it is not just about meeting the needs of people displaced by globalizaiton, but about expanding government to the detriment of people who have been made dependent upon it. The program must be reduced both by restructing the global economy to put American workers first, and by reforming the SNAP program itself.
With the help of ChatGPT in obtaining statistics, I took some time this morning to analyze trends in SNAP utilization, as well as changes in the demographic profile. These findings are quite revealing. Today, more than 1 in 8 Americans, or 12-13 percent of the population, receive SNAP benefits. In 1969, it was only around 1 in 100 Americans, or 1.4 percent of the population. Let that sink in. In 1969, before globalization began taking its toll on American workers, fewer than three million people used SNAP. Today it is 42 million Americans.
Moreover, the demographic profile of SNAP utilization has drastically changed. In the early years of the modern food stamp program (late 1960s–1970s), participation was heavily concentrated among low-income households with children, particularly in urban areas, and the caseload was disproportionately black due to both higher poverty rates and targeted regional rollout patterns. Through the 1980s and 1990s, as eligibility rules evolved and poverty became more geographically widespread, due to the ramping up of globalization and rising inequality, SNAP participation became more geographically and racially diverse, with growing numbers of rural and white households enrolling.
Another important and related demographic feature of the change is that the age profile of recipients slowly expanded: children have consistently made up a large share of participants, but the proportion of adults has grown steadily. This is the consequence of job loss and falling wages caused by free trade. By the 2010s and into the 2020s, a greatly expanded social program was serving a more varied cross-section of the population—geographically, racially, and by household type. The program reached its highest share of the population in 2013, during the aftermath of the Great Recession, when about 15 percent of Americans—nearly 48 million people—received benefits. Participation declined gradually, especially under Donald Trump, but then rose again during the Biden years and has remained around the 12–13 percent range.
Overall, between 1969 and 2025, SNAP transformed from a narrowly concentrated anti-hunger program into a broad, stabilizing support used by low-income working families and households across every demographic category in the country. What started out as a social program targeting the very poor has become a safety net for a significant proportion of the American population.
Returned to office in 2024, Trump is presently taking a beating in the polls (the most accurate poll, Rassmusen, has Trump at 45 percent approval for the week) because of his heroic efforts to reconfigure the global economy (and stave off World War Three), which will address the problem of dependency on SNAP and other government programs. In the long run, if he is successful, America will have a real shot at reversing the damage Democrats and RINOs have visited upon this nation over the last several decades. This will take more than economic restructuring, however. Trump must also address the rising fallout from artificial intelligence and other technological advances. Americans need jobs so they can support themselves free of big, intrusive government.
freedom and reason 