Six million dead. Ten million enslaved. Twenty-five million displaced. The raging genocide hiding in plain sight — and why you’ve never heard of it.
They say the winners write the history books.
What if the Nazis had won?
The Holocaust would be a vague conspiracy theory — denied, spun, suppressed, purged from the media. Anyone who raised it would be marginalized, branded a fringe lunatic. Israel wouldn’t exist. The Middle East would be under total Islamic domination. And eventually, America would be fighting Nazis on the homefront.
We don’t have to guess what that world looks like. There’s a real example today — chillingly parallel, hiding in plain sight.
Nigeria. An ongoing genocide possibly more bloody than the Holocaust.
Before I go further — the point of that comparison is not to rank the dead. Six million souls is six million souls. The difference is that in Europe, the right side won and wrote the history books — so the world was forced to reckon with what happened. In Nigeria, the wrong side won. And the world is being told there’s nothing to reckon with.
Unlike the Holocaust, Nigerian Christians could in theory spare their lives by converting to Islam and joining the jihad. Hitler gave the Jews no such exit. But no human being should be forcibly converted under torture and death threats. What is happening in Nigeria has its own name, its own horror, and its own demand for the world’s attention. It is jihad. We must respond.
To understand what’s happening today, you first need to know about a place called Biafra. There’s a reason you’ve probably never heard of it. But you should.
Today’s Nigerian genocide did not emerge from chaos. It has a genesis — and from it a consistent ideology, tactics, bloodline, and throne that have never changed. Only adapted.
In 1804, a scholar named Usman dan Fodio led the Fulani — a nomadic Muslim tribe perhaps originally from the Sahara — in a declaration of holy war across West Africa. He built Africa’s largest pre-colonial empire on conquest, mass displacement, and enslavement. He called it the Sokoto Caliphate. Its spiritual authority over Nigeria’s Muslim north has never been broken — not by colonialism, not by independence, not by a constitution. The 20th Sultan sits on that throne today. Same institution. Same ideology. Same bloodline. Same ambitions, tactics, and tribe. Two hundred and twenty-two years and counting.
In 1914, Britain stitched together two incompatible worlds — the Christian south and the Caliphate north — into one colonial territory and named it Nigeria. Administrative convenience. When they granted independence in 1960, they handed the keys to the north and left.
What followed in the southeast — Biafra — was electric. Its people, the Igbo, are among the most remarkable on earth. Renowned for their entrepreneurism, hustle, and integrity. They carry an ancient tradition of descent from the lost tribes of Israel — working synagogues still serve their communities today. They are overwhelmingly Christian.
And they happened to be sitting on one of the world’s largest untapped oil reserves.
In the summer and fall of 1966, organized Islamic mobs killed thirty thousand Igbo across northern Nigeria in coordinated pogroms. On September 29th, the killing erupted simultaneously in at least a dozen cities — a coordination that required planning, not passion. Nearly half the dead were children.
The Igbo drew the only logical conclusion: this forced marriage to a bloodthirsty Caliphate simply wasn’t going to work. On May 30, 1967, after futilely trying to negotiate a structure for peaceful co-existence, Lieutenant Colonel Ojukwu declared the Republic of Biafra.
The Caliphate came with full jihad fury. When military assault couldn’t break them, it imposed a total blockade. They shot down Red Cross planes bringing food for starving children. A federal spokesman stated policy on the record: “Starvation is a legitimate weapon of war and we have every intention of using it.”
By 1969, more than a thousand children were dying every day. Time, Der Spiegel, the New York Times all ran the photographs. But the West was consumed — Vietnam, Woodstock — and a genocide of Black Africans simply didn’t break through. Britain kept arming the side doing the starving. Why? Igbo oil. Washington called it an internal affair. The UN stood down.
As many as three million dead. Mostly children. Mostly Christian. The world built museums for Hiroshima. It forgot Biafra existed.
On May 29, 1969, a 20-year-old Jewish American student named Bruce Mayrock — a graduate of Flatbush Yeshivah — set himself on fire on the lawn of the United Nations. His sign read: “You must stop the genocide — please save 9 million Biafrans.” He died the next day. No one listened.
Biafra surrendered in January 1970. Every Igbo bank account seized. Each survivor handed twenty pounds. Start over.
Now you know about Biafra. That chapter ended in 1970. The conquest didn’t.
For a brief moment beginning in 2010 — the year of my first of sixteen trips to Nigeria — an accidental Christian president named Goodluck Jonathan started pushing back. For the first time in living memory, the Caliphate’s machine was losing ground. The Obama administration, David Axelrod’s political firm, and the full machinery of Western diplomatic pressure colluded to remove him and install Muhammadu Buhari — former military dictator, open Sharia advocate, the man Boko Haram chose as their preferred government mediator.
Since 2009: 125,000 documented Christian deaths. 60,000 peaceful Muslims killed. Nearly 19,000 churches destroyed. Ten to twelve million displaced. I stood in Bokkos months after the 2023 Christmas Massacre and saw mountains of fresh dirt where illegal strip-mining operations had moved in behind the killing. The people erased. The machinery arrived.
The International Crisis Group calls it farmer-herder conflict. This narrative was crafted by a career Sharia propagandist funded by George Soros, promoted by Washington lobbyists, and adopted by every major Western outlet until it became the official story. Meanwhile, Salisu Shehu — the world’s leading boko haram scholar (literally, Western education is forbidden) — runs the federal agency controlling what fifty million Nigerian children are taught. The winners are literally writing the history books. Right now.
Jewish human rights scholar Charles Jacobs puts it simply: “What is happening to the Nigerian Christians is exactly what happened to the Jews living near Gaza — jihadists storming the innocent, murder, torture, people burned alive, kidnapped as slaves and sex slaves, all to the screams of ‘Allahu Akbar.’ Jihad is jihad, worldwide.”
A genocide is raging in Nigeria right now. Today. While you read this. And the world is being told it’s a weather problem.
Now you know better.
Tell someone.
The history books got it wrong. Let’s make it right.
Drawing on historical patterns of civilizational stress, elite overproduction, cultural fragmentation, demographic pressures, and fading social trust, Lynch argues that the United States faces a high risk of internal conflict or civil war.
His theory resonates because the data is hard to dismiss: record-low trust in institutions, deepening regional and cultural divides, sporadic political violence, and a populace increasingly viewing opponents as existential enemies rather than fellow citizens.
Lynch is not alone. Peter Turchin, a scientist-turned-historian, using “cliodynamics” (quantitative historical modeling) predicted heightened instability and political violence in the U.S. starting around 2020.
Barbara F. Walter, a political scientist and author of How Civil Wars Start: And How to Stop Them. argues the U.S. meets several key risk factors for civil war, e.g., anocracy, factionalism, and loss of trust. She emphasizes preventative bottom-up efforts.
Ray Dalio, billionaire founder of Bridgewater Associates, has publicly estimated a 35% – 50% chance of civil war-like conditions, framing it as an “existential battle” between hard right and hard left, potentially involving state fracturing and defiance of federal authority.
Yet the most compelling evidence is easily observed: we are already living through a form of civil conflict. It is not the symmetric clash of armies at Gettysburg. It is modern, technological, and like modern warfare asymmetric: subtle, persistent, and waged primarily through institutions, information, lawfare, economics, and culture. Recognizing this reality is the first step toward de-escalating it before it turns hot.
So let’s look at the nature of this assymetric warfare.
Asymmetric conflict leverages control of legacy media, academia, federal and state bureaucracies, and financial systems to marginalize, censor, and economically pressure opponents. The response has included parallel institutions, alternative media ecosystems, legal countermeasures, and electoral pushback. This isn’t traditional warfare with identifiable front lines. It includes lawfare against political opponents, selective prosecution, regulatory warfare against disfavored industries, educational indoctrination, and demographic engineering through policy.
This low-intensity struggle has been underway for years, perhaps decades. It explains why many Americans sense a “cold civil war” without scenes of open battlefield combat. The weapons are subpoenas, algorithmic suppression, corporate boycotts, and narrative control rather than muskets. Casualties appear in eroded trust, declining social cohesion, falling birthrates among the productive classes, a disillusioned and depressed youth, and rising despair.
One unmistakable front in this asymmetric struggle is the battle over border security and immigration enforcement. While polls have long shown strong majorities of Americans supporting secure borders and the deportation of those here illegally — priorities rooted in fairness, resource limits, and public safety — activist factions have responded with escalating lawlessness and disruption. Recent protests against ICE operations included masked demonstrators chanting “Grab your guns and kill yourself” at federal agents attempting to enforce the law.
Multiple reports described “escalating violence” outside the Delaney Hall immigration detention center in Newark, NJ, where protesters (some masked) linked arms to block entrances/gates, threw objects at officers, and sprayed officers with unknown liquids.
🚨 BREAKING: MAJOR BRAWLS ONGOING OUT HERE AT ICE NEWARK WITH NJ STATE POLICE
No rational person would credibly call this peaceful dissent. The lawless and deliberate effort to intimidate those upholding the republic’s sovereignty, turning routine law enforcement into a high-risk ordeal is not civil disobedience. Making ordinary citizens targets, forced to bear the downstream costs in strained communities, higher crime in some areas, and overwhelmed services is not symbolic speech.
These intentional and orchestrated threats against legitimate law enforcement agents, performing legitimate law enforcement duties, included Democrat elected officials as participants. These tactics exploit institutional restraint and media sympathy to wage cultural and political warfare without symmetric accountability.
Rudyard Lynch’s historical analogies rightly highlight the dangers. Societies under similar stresses have fractured before. Truth seeking demands that citizens consider and face the risk honestly.
So collapse is possible, but not inevitable.
America has emerged on the other side of deeper divisions by rediscovering its core strengths: innovation, federalism, and the stubborn individualism that resists centralized tyranny.
In our technological age, these asymmetric tactics face powerful built-in defenses that previous generations lacked. Smartphones, decentralized media platforms, and citizen journalism enable near-instant documentation and dissemination of events, exposing lawfare, selective enforcement, and orchestrated disruptions before they can consolidate.
Artificial intelligence and advanced analytics rapidly detect patterns of propaganda, coordinated narrative campaigns, and institutional abuses, leveling the information battlefield.
Encrypted communications, parallel economic systems, and open-source intelligence tools allow ordinary citizens and institutions to build resilience and respond with speed and precision. What once took weeks or months to expose now unfolds in hours, making sustained deception far more difficult and empowering rapid countermeasures rooted in transparency rather than centralized control.
President Trump’s approach of “maximum pressure realism,” targeting corruption, criminal networks, and institutional rot through sustained, lawful leverage, offers a practical model for resolving tensions without widespread violence. Intensifying accountability after key electoral milestones, paired with strategic de-escalation toward ordinary citizens, can disarm corrupt and hostile bureaucracy while preserving the peace.
In any society, the most sustainable path lies in resolving disputes through constitutional mechanisms, reform, and shared reality rather than mirroring destructive tactics. Peace does not require surrender or unilateral disarmament in the culture war. It demands only that ordinary citizens reject reciprocal barbarism and insist on equal application of the law, restoration of merit and free speech, secure borders, and a renewal of shared national ideals grounded in truth rather than ideology.
The republic will survive this asymmetric era because of the enduring commitment of millions to the founding idea: a constitutional republic where individual rights remain inalienable. Patriots can prove doomers wrong.
History shows that asymmetric conflicts often end in exhaustion or negotiated renewal rather than total victory. With clear eyes and the will to choose peace through strength, America can contain this cold conflict and emerge stronger through relentless pressure on corruption and a cultural recommitment to the Constitution.
Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong. Thank you.https://givebutter.com/embed/c/WhA2EO?goalBar=false&gba_gb.element.id=gkx27p
NEWARK, N.J. – As he navigated the crowds in an impromptu appearance at a protest outside the Delaney Hall ICE detention facility, Marxist political influencer Hasan Piker defended figures in the pro-China activist network funded by American Marxist tech millionaire Neville Roy Singham as “wonderful people,” while dismissing scrutiny surrounding his Cuba trip.
Asked about reporting on Singham’s network and its connections to far-left activism, Piker said there is “this environment of suspicion” surrounding Singham and his activities, taking a “sinister shape,” but they are “totally above board and totally legal.”
In recent months, many agitators from the Singham network have fueled, coordinated and organized fiery protests against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Minneapolis, New York City, Los Angeles, New Jersey and elsewhere.
The remarks by Piker are noteworthy because the online influencer isn’t just a livestreamer on the Twitch platform. With millions of mostly young followers across Twitch, YouTube and social media platforms, he has emerged as one of the most influential — and polarizing — figures on the American left, regularly mobilizing support for candidates and causes aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America. Piker wore a baseball cap emblazoned with the group’s logo.
Piker has used his platforms to interview, promote and campaign alongside candidates backed by Democratic Socialists of America, helping introduce them to younger voters who consume political content online. His audience reach has made him a significant force in Democratic politics, giving him the ability to shape narratives and drive grassroots enthusiasm for candidates running on socialist and anti-establishment platforms.
As reported, Singham is an American Marxist tech tycoon who has pumped $285 million since 2017 into a network of nonprofits that have organized and coordinated divisive anti-American street protests, such as the one unfolding in New Jersey.
I don’t have any personal contact with Roy Singham or any of these other people,” Piker said, in response to questions from Fox News Digital. “I mean, I know some of these people. They’re wonderful people in general. They’re activists….None of it is actually hidden or illegal in any way, shape or form.
There are a lot of stories about Cuba floating around right now. Some are MSM outlets acting like they have a scoop on something that’s been happening or rumored to be happening for months. Some are simply absurd and probably not true. Most aren’t actually verified by the Donald Trump administration and come from anonymous sources. I’m not even going to bother with those today. I saw this happen in the final months before we captured Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela. Most of these reporters and media outlets didn’t even care about these countries until they became newsworthy, and once they do become hot topics, they’ll publish just about anything to get clicks. I can’t do that.
But what I can tell you is that what the regime is saying and what’s happening on the ground tell two different stories. Both the “president,” Miguel Díaz-Canel, and the foreign minister, Bruno Rodríguez, have been doing interviews for a month or two now, warning of the United States’ impending military aggression, claiming the people of Cuba will fight the imperialists, etc.
In the last week or two, Díaz-Canel claimed publicly that the U.S. “will cause a bloodbath with incalculable consequences.”
Most recently, Rodríguez has been going after Marco Rubio with his favorite talking point: Rubio has a personal vendetta against the regime — as if he’s not just one of the millions of Cubans who have seen their parents and grandparents flee the communist s**thole in which they were forced to live. He just happens to be the one with the power to do something about it.
But while these guys are going on all the TV networks yelling about U.S. aggression, on the ground, the regime is actually playing nice with the U.S. because it knows it holds no leverage.
On Friday, the most unusual thing happened. United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) Commander Gen. Francis L. Donovan was at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, and he met with Army Corps General, Gen. Roberto Legrá Sotolongo, First Deputy Minister of the Chief of the General Staff, and other senior leaders from the Cuban military at the perimeter of the facility. They even posed for a picture:
Keep in mind that the regime considers our base at Guantanamo Bay an illegal occupation.
This extremely rare, high-level face-to-face meeting was described as “positive” by both sides. The Cuban Ministry of Defense said in a statement, “Both delegations considered the meeting to be positive, where issues related to security around the dividing perimeter of the military enclave were addressed and they agreed to maintain communication between both military commands.”
While some in the MSM are downplaying it, this isn’t something you see every day, but then again, a lot of what we’re witnessing lately is unusual. The regime is doing interviews with the U.S. press, including Fox News. The CIA director is holding talks in (and making threats) in Havana. Cubans standing on rooftops raising U.S. flags or writing “Long live Trump” on building walls without fear.
In the past, low-level “fence line” meetings took place each month between U.S. and Cuban military officials at the naval base, but Trump had them suspended when he took office in 2025. This is not a continuation of that. This is not routine.
Keep in mind that the regime considers our base at Guantanamo Bay an illegal occupation.
This extremely rare, high-level face-to-face meeting was described as “positive” by both sides. The Cuban Ministry of Defense said in a statement, “Both delegations considered the meeting to be positive, where issues related to security around the dividing perimeter of the military enclave were addressed and they agreed to maintain communication between both military commands.”
While some in the MSM are downplaying it, this isn’t something you see every day, but then again, a lot of what we’re witnessing lately is unusual. The regime is doing interviews with the U.S. press, including Fox News. The CIA director is holding talks in (and making threats) in Havana. Cubans standing on rooftops raising U.S. flags or writing “Long live Trump” on building walls without fear.
In the past, low-level “fence line” meetings took place each month between U.S. and Cuban military officials at the naval base, but Trump had them suspended when he took office in 2025. This is not a continuation of that. This is not routine.
Sarah Anderson is a Georgia-based freelance writer and journalist, specializing in foreign policy, with a passion for Latin America and the Caribbean.
When she’s not writing, you can find her chasing animals on her small hobby farm, swimming every chance she gets, traveling, gardening, reading, or yelling at a Georgia Bulldogs or Atlanta Falcons football game like any good Southerner.
You might also catch her watching State Department briefings to unwind.
The police’s vile treatment of young Henry exposes the cruelty and injustice of state ‘anti-racism’.
So this is where wokeness has dragged us. Into a moral abyss where a boy is handcuffed by cops as he bleeds to death. Into a wasteland of virtue where an 18-year-old lad, stabbed five times, is treated as a speechcriminal as he gasps his final breaths. Into a sorry, dystopic excuse for a society where the last words a youngster hears are the defamatory cries of the man who killed him. ‘He was racist’, his murderer said. ‘I can’t breathe’, the boy begged.
The case of Henry Nowak has shocked the nation. He was a Polish-Briton in his first year at university. During a night out in Southampton in England in December last year, he had a fatal encounter with a Sikh man named Vickrum Digwa. Some kind of altercation took place. Digwa then stabbed Nowak five times with his kirpan, the ceremonial curved sword that Sikhs carry. Nowak was gored in his chest, his face and his legs. He scrambled over a fence, leaving a blood trail in his wake. ‘I’m dying’, local residents heard him say. He was right.
As savage as the knifing was, it was what happened next that has shaken Britain’s soul. Digwa’s mother arrived and spirited away the murder weapon – it was later found hidden in the family home with 20 other Sikh swords and knives. Digwa then accused Nowak of having racially abused him. He said Nowak used a racist slur against him, punched him and knocked off his turban. These were ‘wicked lies’, the court heard during his murder trial. Yet there was a group of people on the scene of this atrocity who believed Digwa’s vile libels against the youth he had just fatally lacerated: the police.
The police’s behaviour that night defies all logic and humanity. They bowed to Digwa’s defamatory slurs and arrested and handcuffed young Henry. The Telegraph’s report captures the barbarism of the police’s credulous ineptitude that grim evening: ‘As the teenager lay there, unable to breathe as his lungs filled with blood, begging officers for help, they ignored his pleas and placed him under arrest. He died less than an hour later.’ If anything will cause decent Britons to lose faith in the police, it’s this: the haunting vision of a boy being manhandled by the state as he drowned in his own blood.
This week Digwa was found guilty of murder. His mother was found guilty of assisting an offender. And the police have apologised for the fact that Nowak was ‘arrested in the moments before he lost consciousness’. But this isn’t the end of this story. It can’t be. This cruellest of deaths, this humiliation by the state of a boy who was dying, will surely force a reckoning with the social poison of political correctness. For it exposes the extent to which the cult of wokeness has chased truth and virtue from our societies.
Enjoying spiked?
Why not make an instant, one-off donation?
We are funded by you. Thank you!£5£10£20£50Choose an amount
We all know why Digwa’s evil lie was believed and why wounded, gasping Henry’s pleas for help went unheeded – it’s because the word ‘racism’ acts like a magic spell on our ruling class. It’s like a rhetorical narcotic. The minute they hear it, they morph, like woke Manchurian candidates, into wide-eyed searchers for the merest hint of that greatest sin in our morally deracinated times: white privilege, and prejudicial speech. Their aim becomes not the discovery of truth but the demonstration of virtue. On that street in Southampton, once the word ‘racism’ had been uttered, the role of the state’s representatives suddenly and radically changed: it was no longer to investigate a potential crime but to obsequiously act out a moral script.
Having prostrated themselves so fully before the new regime religion that falsely calls itself ‘anti-racism’, the police were virtually programmed to believe the ‘brown man’ and be sceptical of the ‘white man’. No doubt the critical race theory that pumps like a toxin in the veins of the establishment kicked in, meaning that the Sikh who had so ruthlessly wielded his sword instantly became the victim, while the target of his red-mist knifing – the white boy – became the oppressor. The state’s intoxication with the hyper-racialised politics of victimhood has driven it ever further into a quagmire of dogma where cool moral judgment is all but impossible.
It’s important to say that this handcuffing of a dying boy was not ‘a failing’ by individual police officers. The police forces of the United Kingdom are expressly instructed to believe, without question, every accusation of hate crime. They are told that even things perceived to be racist are probably racist. They are trained to see ‘racism’ everywhere – in every slight, in every tussle between whites and non-whites. The police’s cruel subduing of a stabbed teen was not an aberration – it was the horrific logical conclusion of the new ruling-class ideology that sees us less as citizens with rights than as racial creatures in need of micro-management. The demeaning of young Henry was the woke state in action.
The state turned a blind eye to the rape of vulnerable girls by mostly Muslim gangs out of a fear of being thought ‘Islamophobic’. The very same wilful blindness born of cowardice led those officers to see a stabbed boy as a tyrant and his stabber as a victim. The questions pile up. For how much longer can we suffer under such a two-tier ideology that allows Sikhs to do what the rest of us are forbidden from doing: carry lethal weapons? Why did Keir Starmer take the knee for George Floyd when he died 4,000 miles away but not for young Henry murdered and failed down in Southampton? And most pressingly, what are we going to do about a state that arrests a boy as he chokes on his own blood and as his killer gloats and maligns him? We have to do something.
Brendan O’Neill is spiked’s chief political writer and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. His latest book – After the Pogrom: 7 October, Israel and the Crisis of Civilisation – is available to order on Amazon UK and Amazon US now. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy.
spiked summit 2026
One-Day Conference
10am-5pm, Saturday 27 June Emmanuel Centre, London, SW1P 3DW
With Lionel Shriver, Brendan O’Neill, Katharine Birbalsingh, Toby Young, Allison Pearson, Paul Embery, Tom Slater, Andrew Doyle, Fiyaz Mughal and more
spiked is funded by readers like you. Only 0.1% of regular readers currently support us. If just 1% did, we could grow our team and step up the fight for free speech and democracy.
Become a spiked supporter and enjoy unlimited, ad-free access, bonus content and exclusive events – while helping to keep independent journalism alive.
Monthly support makes the biggest difference. Thank you.
The police’s behaviour that night defies all logic and humanity. They bowed to Digwa’s defamatory slurs and arrested and handcuffed young Henry. The Telegraph’s report captures the barbarism of the police’s credulous ineptitude that grim evening: ‘As the teenager lay there, unable to breathe as his lungs filled with blood, begging officers for help, they ignored his pleas and placed him under arrest. He died less than an hour later.’ If anything will cause decent Britons to lose faith in the police, it’s this: the haunting vision of a boy being manhandled by the state as he drowned in his own blood.
This week Digwa was found guilty of murder. His mother was found guilty of assisting an offender. And the police have apologised for the fact that Nowak was ‘arrested in the moments before he lost consciousness’. But this isn’t the end of this story. It can’t be. This cruellest of deaths, this humiliation by the state of a boy who was dying, will surely force a reckoning with the social poison of political correctness. For it exposes the extent to which the cult of wokeness has chased truth and virtue from our societies.
Enjoying spiked?
Why not make an instant, one-off donation?
We are funded by you. Thank you!£5£10£20£50Choose an amount
We all know why Digwa’s evil lie was believed and why wounded, gasping Henry’s pleas for help went unheeded – it’s because the word ‘racism’ acts like a magic spell on our ruling class. It’s like a rhetorical narcotic. The minute they hear it, they morph, like woke Manchurian candidates, into wide-eyed searchers for the merest hint of that greatest sin in our morally deracinated times: white privilege, and prejudicial speech. Their aim becomes not the discovery of truth but the demonstration of virtue. On that street in Southampton, once the word ‘racism’ had been uttered, the role of the state’s representatives suddenly and radically changed: it was no longer to investigate a potential crime but to obsequiously act out a moral script.
Having prostrated themselves so fully before the new regime religion that falsely calls itself ‘anti-racism’, the police were virtually programmed to believe the ‘brown man’ and be sceptical of the ‘white man’. No doubt the critical race theory that pumps like a toxin in the veins of the establishment kicked in, meaning that the Sikh who had so ruthlessly wielded his sword instantly became the victim, while the target of his red-mist knifing – the white boy – became the oppressor. The state’s intoxication with the hyper-racialised politics of victimhood has driven it ever further into a quagmire of dogma where cool moral judgment is all but impossible.
It’s important to say that this handcuffing of a dying boy was not ‘a failing’ by individual police officers. The police forces of the United Kingdom are expressly instructed to believe, without question, every accusation of hate crime. They are told that even things perceived to be racist are probably racist. They are trained to see ‘racism’ everywhere – in every slight, in every tussle between whites and non-whites. The police’s cruel subduing of a stabbed teen was not an aberration – it was the horrific logical conclusion of the new ruling-class ideology that sees us less as citizens with rights than as racial creatures in need of micro-management. The demeaning of young Henry was the woke state in action.
The state turned a blind eye to the rape of vulnerable girls by mostly Muslim gangs out of a fear of being thought ‘Islamophobic’. The very same wilful blindness born of cowardice led those officers to see a stabbed boy as a tyrant and his stabber as a victim. The questions pile up. For how much longer can we suffer under such a two-tier ideology that allows Sikhs to do what the rest of us are forbidden from doing: carry lethal weapons? Why did Keir Starmer take the knee for George Floyd when he died 4,000 miles away but not for young Henry murdered and failed down in Southampton? And most pressingly, what are we going to do about a state that arrests a boy as he chokes on his own blood and as his killer gloats and maligns him? We have to do something.
Brendan O’Neill is spiked’s chief political writer and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. His latest book – After the Pogrom: 7 October, Israel and the Crisis of Civilisation – is available to order on Amazon UK and Amazon US now. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy.
spiked summit 2026
One-Day Conference
10am-5pm, Saturday 27 June Emmanuel Centre, London, SW1P 3DW
With Lionel Shriver, Brendan O’Neill, Katharine Birbalsingh, Toby Young, Allison Pearson, Paul Embery, Tom Slater, Andrew Doyle, Fiyaz Mughal and more
spiked is funded by readers like you. Only 0.1% of regular readers currently support us. If just 1% did, we could grow our team and step up the fight for free speech and democracy.
Become a spiked supporter and enjoy unlimited, ad-free access, bonus content and exclusive events – while helping to keep independent journalism alive.
Monthly support makes the biggest difference. Thank you.
We all know why Digwa’s evil lie was believed and why wounded, gasping Henry’s pleas for help went unheeded – it’s because the word ‘racism’ acts like a magic spell on our ruling class. It’s like a rhetorical narcotic. The minute they hear it, they morph, like woke Manchurian candidates, into wide-eyed searchers for the merest hint of that greatest sin in our morally deracinated times: white privilege, and prejudicial speech. Their aim becomes not the discovery of truth but the demonstration of virtue. On that street in Southampton, once the word ‘racism’ had been uttered, the role of the state’s representatives suddenly and radically changed: it was no longer to investigate a potential crime but to obsequiously act out a moral script.
Having prostrated themselves so fully before the new regime religion that falsely calls itself ‘anti-racism’, the police were virtually programmed to believe the ‘brown man’ and be sceptical of the ‘white man’. No doubt the critical race theory that pumps like a toxin in the veins of the establishment kicked in, meaning that the Sikh who had so ruthlessly wielded his sword instantly became the victim, while the target of his red-mist knifing – the white boy – became the oppressor. The state’s intoxication with the hyper-racialised politics of victimhood has driven it ever further into a quagmire of dogma where cool moral judgment is all but impossible.
It’s important to say that this handcuffing of a dying boy was not ‘a failing’ by individual police officers. The police forces of the United Kingdom are expressly instructed to believe, without question, every accusation of hate crime. They are told that even things perceived to be racist are probably racist. They are trained to see ‘racism’ everywhere – in every slight, in every tussle between whites and non-whites. The police’s cruel subduing of a stabbed teen was not an aberration – it was the horrific logical conclusion of the new ruling-class ideology that sees us less as citizens with rights than as racial creatures in need of micro-management. The demeaning of young Henry was the woke state in action.
The state turned a blind eye to the rape of vulnerable girls by mostly Muslim gangs out of a fear of being thought ‘Islamophobic’. The very same wilful blindness born of cowardice led those officers to see a stabbed boy as a tyrant and his stabber as a victim. The questions pile up. For how much longer can we suffer under such a two-tier ideology that allows Sikhs to do what the rest of us are forbidden from doing: carry lethal weapons? Why did Keir Starmer take the knee for George Floyd when he died 4,000 miles away but not for young Henry murdered and failed down in Southampton? And most pressingly, what are we going to do about a state that arrests a boy as he chokes on his own blood and as his killer gloats and maligns him? We have to do something.
Brendan O’Neill is spiked’s chief political writer and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. His latest book – After the Pogrom: 7 October, Israel and the Crisis of Civilisation – is available to order on Amazon UK and Amazon US now. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy.
A real autopsy from the party would have concluded that voters rejected Democrats in the last election because of their anti-American policies.
It was the anticlimax of the year when last week Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin finally released his party’s “autopsy” analyzing what led to its spectacular failure in 2024. It’s almost 200 pages long, but I’ll save you some time: There’s nothing in it about the Democrat Party’s fundamentally anti-American positions and therefore no indication that Democrats are interested in adapting to voters; rather, they’re still dead-set on physically eliminating their opposition.
The report’s debut was bad enough. It only came months and months after prominent Democrats, including Kamala Harris (haha), called for its release. Then, when Martin did push it out, he warned everyone in advance that it was worthless and proceeded to annotate it to hell and back so as to make it painfully clear that he was not a co-signer of the document. “This document reflects the views of the author, not the DNC,” reads the top of every single page of the report. “The DNC was not provided with the underlying sourcing, interviews, or supporting data for many of the assertions contained herein and therefore cannot independently verify the claims presented.”
To be fair to Martin and DNC leadership, it really is a woefully inadequate assessment of not just the 2024 election but the entire state of the Democrat Party. It spends most of its time chronicling results of past elections and contrasting Kamala’s performance with down-ballot candidates who were able to distinguish themselves from the party at large. The most useful portion comes on page 73, where the report suggests only a change in position would have blunted an attack from the Trump campaign.
Well, yeah, except Kamala did change her position on several key issues, including energy production, immigration, and health care. And she did it with little to no explanation at all. The problem wasn’t that she refused to morph into something she wasn’t. It was that her boss was a terrible president and as his vice president, she bore every bit of responsibility for it. Just because she might have said the opposite of what she had done right up until it was time to get elected didn’t mean voters would buy it.
It’s kind of perfect, though. There isn’t a single position Democrats have actually changed their stance on following that defeat. And to the extent that they’ve self-reflected, it’s only for them to say that there’s nothing wrong with the party, but that the problem is with voters who get their news from podcasts and who would like to hear less about transgenderism. That the DNC would then produce a report devoid of real criticism, but instead chock full of cliches (“We have to meet this moment with creativity, purpose, and openness”) is entirely in keeping with the Democrat Party’s refusal to acknowledge that its real problem is what animates it at its core — a burning resentment and hostility toward anyone who doesn’t want to destroy the American middle class.
They know that’s the gist of their platform, but of course they can’t put that in writing. So they do what they always do, which is talk instead about timing and messaging — anything but their monstrous policies.
Their plan isn’t to modulate or evolve. Their plan is to watch Trump and Republicans continue declining in popularity and run against that on its own. And then Democrats hope to take power and do exactly what they did during the Biden years, on a larger scale. That means legally harassing their political opposition, squeezing taxpayers — the middle class — of every cent possible (to give to foreigners), and allowing crime to run rampant, especially fraud.
A real autopsy from the party would have concluded that voters rejected Democrats in the last election because of their anti-American policies. They’re betting that it doesn’t matter going into the next one.
A recently revised estimate from the Congressional Budget Office finds 1.5 million fewer illegal immigrants in the country than would have been the case had Biden’s policies continued.
The establishment political consensus has long held that it’s impossible to rein in illegal immigration until Congress passes “comprehensive immigration reform.” The Congressional Budget Office has recently made clear that all it really takes is a president willing to enforce federal immigration laws, as he is constitutionally required to do.
The CBO recently revised its estimates concerning the number of illegal aliens entering or leaving the United States. More than a year ago, just before Inauguration Day, the CBO estimated that a net 1.1 million “other foreign nationals”—those lacking “a legal immigration status”—would be added to the U.S. population in 2025. Now the CBO has revised that estimate downward by a whopping 1.5 million illegal aliens—from an increase of 1.1 million to a decrease of 360,000. This downward revision of 1.5 million people is equivalent to the population of San Antonio.
What caused this “significant reduction?” The congressional scorekeeper’s answer is clear. The decline was “driven largely by administrative actions taken since January 20, 2025.” The CBO particularly emphasizes an action that President Donald Trump took on his first day in office: “Executive Order 14165 reinstated the policy of Migrant Protection Protocols, which require people who want to apply for asylum in the United States to return to the territory from which they came.” The CBO adds, “That order also ended all categorical parole programs and ceased the use of the CBP One app as a method of paroling or facilitating the entry of people into the United States.”
Under President Joe Biden, illegal aliens who “arrived between official ports of entry”—that is, along the open (southwestern) border—“were generally released into the United States,” writes the CBO. It adds, “People could also use the CBP One app to schedule an appointment at a port of entry” and then “be released into the United States.”
The Trump administration almost immediately stopped the Biden administration’s lawless practice of releasing illegal aliens into the U.S. interior. This accounts for the CBO estimate that 1.5 million fewer illegal aliens were living in the U.S. at the end of 2025 than would have been the case with a continuation of Biden’s policies. The 46th president’s “equity”-based policies brought about a border crisis by design.
While the mainstream press emphasizes ICE raids and deportations, the Trump administration’s removal of aliens from the U.S. interior accounted for less than one-tenth of the CBO’s downward revision in net illegal immigration—it estimates that 120,000 people were removed from the U.S. interior in 2025. Far from being driven by deportations, more than 90 percent of the Trump administration’s success in reducing illegal immigration has come from limiting border crossings, per the CBO’s figures.
The CBO estimates that 540,000 illegal aliens arrived along the open border in 2024, between the ports of entry, and were released into the U.S. by the Biden administration. In 2025, such releases dipped to 20,000—a 96 percent decrease. Similarly, 960,000 illegal aliens arrived at the ports of entry and were released into the U.S. in 2024, compared with only 60,000 in 2025—a 94 percent drop. (Many of those released under Trump were unaccompanied minors, required by law to be released to sponsor families.)
What’s more, only about half of the 2025 releases occurred from February through December. Most of the releases at the ports, and many of the releases along the open border, occurred in January, when Biden was still in office for most of the month. In fact, roughly the same number of illegal aliens were released into the country during three weeks of Biden as during 49 weeks of Trump.
In addition, the Trump administration dramatically cut the number of people who evaded capture and snuck across the border. The CBO estimates that about 300,000 people escaped across the border in this manner in 2024 but only about 50,000 did so in 2025—an 83 percent reduction. In a 2023 immigration case, U.S. District Court Judge T. Kent Wetherell said the Biden administration’s “actions were akin to posting a flashing ‘Come In, We’re Open’ sign on the southern border.” When the Trump administration effectively unplugged that sign, the number of people trying to sneak across the border dropped dramatically.
In all, the CBO estimates that about 80,000 people lacking “a legal immigration status” were released into the U.S. last year (roughly half of them during the 20 days of Biden), while 50,000 snuck across the border and 260,000 overstayed their visas. Meanwhile, 400,000 decided to leave voluntarily, 120,000 were removed from the interior of the U.S., and 225,000 attained permanent legal status. That amounts to a one-year reduction in the illegal alien population of about 360,000, whereas the CBO had previously projected an increase of about 1.1 million.
The CBO now projects that over the first three years of the Trump administration, the number of illegal aliens living in the U.S. will decrease by 1 million (with reductions of 360,000 in 2025, 330,000 in 2026, and 330,000 in 2027). Over the last three years of the Biden administration, the CBO estimates a 5.7 million increase (2 million in 2022, 2.4 million in 2023, and 1.3 million in 2024) in the number of illegal aliens living in the U.S. That 6.7 million swing—from 5.7 million to negative 1 million—exceeds the combined populations of Los Angeles and Phoenix. That’s the difference between three years of Biden’s policies versus three years of Trump’s, according to the CBO.
The success that the Trump administration has had in reversing the flow of illegal immigration—simply by enforcing existing laws—was broadly thought to be impossible. Less than a year before Trump took office, the Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote that “the President needs Congress to fix the underlying incentives at the border.” A few months later, the Biden White House issued a fact sheet that began, “Since his first day in office, President Biden has called on Congress to secure our border.” When asked about illegal immigration during a 60 Minutes interview in October 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris said that “we need Congress to be able to act to actually fix the problem.”
It turns out that fixing the problem required only executing the laws already on the books—specifically the law requiring that asylum-seekers be detained while their cases are heard, rather than being released into the interior of the country. The Immigration and Nationality Act declares that “if an alien asserts a credible fear of persecution, he or she shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum.” Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito writes that these detention “requirements, as we have held, are mandatory.”
The foreign-born portion of the U.S. population rose from 4.7 percent in 1970 to 16.2 percent in 2023, and probably reached about 16.8 percent in 2024—easily breaking the previous all-time record of 14.8 percent set in 1890, at the height of the great waves of nineteenth-century immigration. It will take many years of enforcing existing immigration laws to see that percentage dip back down to something approaching historical norms. But as the CBO now acknowledges, the Trump administration is making significant headway—even if the congressional scorekeeper didn’t see it coming.
Jeffrey H. Anderson is president of the American Main Street Initiative and served as director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics at the U.S. Department of Justice from 2017 to 2021.
PITTSBURGH, Pa. — Pride celebrations across the country continue to lose out on large sponsorships as corporations, a key source of funding, shrink their affiliation with diversity causes and LGBTQ+ events.
Corporate sponsorships of celebrations in several cities, including New York City, Salt Lake City, Louisville, St. Louis, Orlando, and Pittsburgh are down from previous years, organizers said.
Jordan Braxton, co-president of the United States Association of Prides, which supports Pride celebrations nationwide, said that while some smaller Prides have seen a growth in sponsorships, a majority have seen a reduction.
She said the Trump administration’s dismantling of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives, has scared corporations away from sponsoring Pride celebrations. “I think that’s why some of the corporations have pulled back, because they don’t want that government scrutiny,” she said.
In his first days in office in 2025, Trump issued presidential actions targeting DEI within the federal government and encouraging the private sector to end what the administration considers “illegal DEI discrimination and preferences.”
In Pittsburgh, Pride organizers are trying to make up for lost sponsorships in time for their festival and parade in early June.
“It takes a lot of money to do this,” said Dena Stanley, director of Pittsburgh Pride. “Permittings costs, security costs, headliners costs, staging costs, cleaning crew costs, insurance costs, all of these are expenses.”
Pittsburgh Pride organizers think it will secure 30-40% of the sponsorship dollars they were able to fundraise a few years ago.
To narrow the gap, the group said they received a state grant and solicited individual donations.
E Ciszek, who researches advertising and public relations at The University of Texas at Austin, said the downturn in corporate sponsorships is happening amid a movement against Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives and the “attack on trans rights, in particular.”
“I think this is not just a matter of budget cuts, right?” Ciszek said. “It’s important to take a step back and see this more as a moment of risk, a moment of political pressure, and looking really at the limits of corporate allyship, particularly when LGBTQ visibility has become really politically costly.”
Corporations, she said, are calculating the risk of public support for Pride, which could expose them to litigation, political retaliation or consumer boycotts.
“What once was [an] organizational asset, has now become an organizational risk,” Ciszek said.
Lyndsey Sickler, another Pittsburgh Pride organizer, described Pride celebrations as empowering for LGBTQ+ people who live in communities where they feel scrutinized for their identity.
For some people, it’s their first time being in, “a space that is actively, loudly celebrating everything that is us,” Sickler said. “Nothing else matters at that point.”
Less sponsorship money can also impact year-round events and resources for the LGBTQ+ community.
“People sometimes look at Pride festivals just as a big party, which they are, but they’re also resource fairs, job fairs, and we also use it as a fundraising event,” said Braxton of the United States Association of Prides.
In Florida, Tampa Pride announced a one-year hiatus after a slew of corporations dropped their sponsorships, said Carrie West, who ran the organization.
“All of a sudden, bingo. Here you have no money, no grant money, no supporting money, to make operations, to plan, to get any kind of anything,” he said. “Oh my gosh, it was, it’s devastating.”
The Solidarity Center has received over $86 million from the federal government since 2008; $61 million of that was given under President Biden. Three Solidarity employees joined Biden’s Labor Department. Solidarity receives 99 percent of its total revenue from American taxpayers and serves the AFL-CIO, which gave 86 percent of its 2024 political donations to Democrats.
On the climate front: Inflation Reduction Act funds set aside hundreds of billions for the green agenda. A former staffer from an environmental group called the Coalition for Green Capital joined the Biden EPA specifically to direct $27 billion in green funding. Under his tenure, $5 billion was granted to his former organization. Power Forward Communities received nearly $9 billion despite being only a few months old when it applied—and one recipient was a group affiliated with Stacey Abrams that had only $100 in the bank when it received $2 billion.
The Environmental Law Institute, which ran a “Climate Judiciary Project” to educate federal and state judges in favor of climate tort litigation against energy companies, received millions of dollars in grants and contracts from the EPA, the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, Agriculture, and State, and the National Science Foundation between 2021 and 2024.
Regarding the SPLC specifically: Despite the SPLC reporting $132.7 million in revenue and nearly $770 million in net assets for 2021, the State Department still granted honorariums and speaker fees to SPLC officials. Additionally, a Biden-era Department of Labor approved a $6 million “employment training” grant for NextGen, a nonprofit that fights for “progressive policy change” through advocacy and civic engagement.
The SPLC itself is in the news for separate reasons: the Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center on federal fraud charges, alleging it improperly raised millions of dollars to pay informants to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan and other extremist groups.
The revolving door between these funded NGOs and Democratic administrations is a key part of the story. Personnel from Open Society Foundations and associated left-wing groups cycled in and out of the Biden White House, Justice Department, and other agencies—the same people who had previously shaped grantmaking priorities then directed government money toward aligned organizations.
In just the first month of the Trump administration, 15 groups that had received federal cash from the previous administration sued the current administration, mostly to protect their funding, which totaled $1.6 billion. This is the feedback loop in miniature: government grants activist groups → activist groups lobby for more government → activist groups litigate against anyone who tries to stop it.
Concluding Thoughts
Several converging factors explain the timing of the Treasury Department’s April announcement:
1. Congressional pressure has been building. Multiple House hearings over the past year—the DOGE Subcommittee hearing “Public Funds, Private Agendas: NGOs Gone Wild” and the Judiciary Subcommittee hearing “How Leftist Nonprofit Networks Exploit Federal Tax Dollars”—have built an extensive public record and created political momentum for regulatory action.
2. The rebrand attempt flagged the problem. Arabella’s restructuring into Sunflower Services and Vital Impact in late 2025 was widely seen as an attempt to launder its reputation and escape scrutiny. The Treasury announcement signals that rebranding won’t be sufficient.
3. Form 990 has a structural blind spot. As noted in the Treasury Department’s press release, Form 990 has no mechanism for disclosing fiscal sponsorship activities. This isn’t a bug in enforcement—it’s a gap in the regulatory framework itself, one that has been known and exploited for decades. Treasury is finally moving to close it through regulatory action rather than waiting for Congress to act legislatively.
4.The SPLC indictment and related scrutiny. The indictment of the SPLC, combined with sustained focus on the Tides Foundation’s role in funding anti-Israel groups, has elevated the broader question of nonprofit accountability in the current political moment.
5. The “revolving door” has been documented. The Biden years produced extensive documentation of personnel moving between the dark money network and government agencies, with the explicit effect of directing public funds toward aligned organizations. The Trump administration is using every available tool—executive, regulatory, and prosecutorial—to dismantle these arrangements.
The bottom line is pretty straightforward: for decades, a small number of sophisticated nonprofit aggregators have used fiscal sponsorship to create a system in which billions of dollars—from private megadonors, foreign nationals, and American taxpayers—flow to politically aligned left-wing activist organizations with direct ties to the Democrat Party with essentially no public accountability. The sponsored groups don’t file their own 990s.
The pass-through organizations don’t have to disclose which projects their money supports. And the whole system is perfectly legal under current IRS rules. The Treasury announcement is the first significant regulatory step toward forcing disclosure of these arrangements, and its timing reflects both the political will of the current administration and the groundwork laid by over a year of congressional investigation.
“Sunlight is the best disinfectant” for the body politic !
In the crowded Democratic field running to replace Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, there’s a surprising frontrunner for a battleground state: a democratic-socialist line cook who has called to abolish the police.
Francesca Hong, a 37-year-old restaurant owner and single mother who became the state’s first Asian-American assembly member in 2021, has surged to the lead in several early polls after launching a long-shot bid on a deeply progressive platform
Hong is part of an array of lefty candidates with working-class credentials running in competitive states and districts up and down the ballot in this year’s midterm elections — a crop emboldened by the popularity of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and a turn toward economic populism amid widespread cost-of-living concerns.
Abdul El-Sayed is running from the left of Haley Stevens and Mallory McMorrow in the competitive Michigan Senate primary. Zach Wahls, who is backed by Elizabeth Warren, is locked in a tight contest against the Chuck Schumer-supported Josh Turek for Iowa’s Senate nomination. In Colorado’s 8th District, where Dems see a flip opportunity, Manny Rutinel is running against the more moderate Shannon Bird. And last month, Graham Platner got a boost when Schumer-endorsed Maine Gov. Janet Mills dropped out of the race to oust GOP Sen. Susan Collins.
Establishment Democrats worry that these figures — whose platforms play well among primary voters but could bite them in a general election — might spoil the midterms at a time when the party has the wind at its back, desperate to claw its way out of the wilderness and still weary of the “woke” allegations that Republicans effectively wielded against Kamala Harris. “If Democrats hope to beat Republican incumbents in red and purple districts, then they cannot run candidates who are far outside the mainstream of their district,” the center-left think tank Third Way wrote in a memo published last month.
Hong says the party establishment just lacks imagination.
“I think they’re underestimating voters,” Hong said in an interview. “I think that has always been a problem for the Democratic Party — that we are not listening to how they are feeling.”
Her platform includes free child care, a $20 minimum wage and a full moratorium on data center construction. She is an outspoken critic of the Israeli government and helped lead Wisconsin’s “uninstructed” pressure campaign on the Biden administration’s posture toward Gaza. She’s faced backlash for past calls to “abolish” the police. And she has suggested as governor she would call the state National Guard to arrest federal ICE agents.
But Hong doesn’t think her far-left politics would pose a risk in a general election. “The liability is having someone who is the establishment and wants to maintain the status quo,” she said
Wisconsin has a deep history of socialism, including three socialist mayors of Milwaukee between 1910 and 1960. The state boasts one of the Senate’s most conservative members, Sen. Ron Johnson, but also one of its most progressive, Sen. Tammy Baldwin. And progressive Democrats in Wisconsin are quick to point out that Sanders, the country’s democratic-socialist standard-bearer, won 71 out of Wisconsin’s 72 counties in 2016.
Hong isn’t just running on a different platform than her competitors — she is also running “the most non-traditional race,” said Gordon Hintz, who served in the Wisconsin state assembly with Hong when he was Democratic minority leader. While other candidates have been more reserved so far, Hong spent — and surged — early on to boost her name recognition. Hong’s campaign says it has about 3,000 active volunteers and has already organized 250 events across the state, with an additional 230 planned for the coming months.
“She has shown up, she’s the only candidate currently who has built any infrastructure down in Rock County,” said Jim White, who leads Rock County Democrats. “She’s the only person who has active canvassers, has people showing up at events, at meetings, she’s the only one who seems to have increasing infrastructure to do outreach to voters, and that’s been something that I think we’ve all really noticed.”
But it’s still an uphill battle for Hong — especially in the fundraising fight. Mandela Barnes, the former lieutenant governor and failed Senate nominee is polling in second place and has raised more than $2 million. Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley has brought in more than $850,000. Hong has raised about $635,000, according to Wisconsin campaign finance records.
Hong said she is focusing on turning one-time donors into recurring donors and has leaned on nontraditional fundraising tactics, like streaming. She has appeared with the progressive Twitch streamer Mike from PA and with Mercury Stardust, a TikToker with more than 2.6 million followers who describes herself as “The Trans Handy Ma’am.” Next month, Hong is planning to stream a DJ set and a cooking demo on Twitch, according to her campaign.
Both White and Hintz noted they still have not decided who they’ll vote for in the primary. But they both guessed part of Hong’s appeal to voters — particularly those who are young and politically disengaged — was because she is “fun.” Hong is, for example, known to host fundraisers at karaoke bars.
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 