Example #1: The Democratic governor of New York is outraged that Republicans in Texas are redistricting to the advantage of their Party. She implied that Democrats have never done this in blue states, like her own. Hello?! Democrats have done this for decades, virtually out in the open while bragging about it. Republicans in Texas are merely acting in retaliation. “This is war,” the governor of New York thundered in her echo chamber. Yes it is — a war her Party started. Her shrieks are the equivalent of Hitler shrieking in 1941 that America and Western Europe have suddenly become violent.
Example #2: Republicans in Congress are afraid to change the U.S. Senate rules so President Trump can appoint members of his administration, as the Constitution demands. Republicans are afraid if they change the rules, then Democrats will change the rules too when they control the Senate again. Hello?! Democrats made all the rules in the Senate even when they had a 1 seat majority. All the rules were to their advantage, brazenly so. The Biden regime and its Senate tolerated no dissenters. Democrats follow no rules. They are lawless totalitarians, and these trembling Republicans know it.
You see why I call them the Uniparty? You see why even when Republicans win, they lose — with the lone exception of President Trump? The good guys will never win in Washington DC, because there are no good guys in the Imperial City, other than President Trump for 3 more years. At some point, we have to trash the city, lock them all up and start over.
As C3 pointed out on X:
I don’t think we’ve had legitimate elections in decades. No way the Senate is 53-47. No way the House is 220-215. Dems are a 20% approval fringe party. Nothing gets done with these fake margins and that’s exactly what DC wants. A scam to slow progress. Audit our elections.
Picture a seven-year-old girl living under communism in the 1980s. Her dad brings her to a local grocery store in the Ukraine, their home, in the old Soviet Union. He tells her to look around at the store and memorize the scene. This was described to me in a radio interview a few years ago by Marina Medvin, a successful D.C. area attorney and writer for Townhall and Forbes. She was that little girl.
Marina’s father told her, “Make a photograph of this in your mind.” She does. The walls are bare. There are some shelves, but the only food item is on a shelf way up top. It is a jar of pickled, green tomatoes. They look like they might be spoiled.
Fast forward to a year or two later. Now the family is in Newark, New Jersey—the first step in their move to America as a new home. Marina Medvin then enters a grocery store and is shocked by all the food and all the variety.
The difference between capitalism and socialism could not be clearer. And yet millions of Americans, including the young, fall prey to the siren song of socialism.
Could the old Soviet Union-type store with its bare shelves be coming soon to New York City?
As we all know, several weeks ago, Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old avowed Marxist Islamist, won the Democratic primary for NYC mayor. If his opposing candidates split the opposition vote in November, an avowed socialist could actually become the mayor of the nation’s largest city.
AOC and Bernie Sanders support him. So do many other prominent liberals. I believe Mamdani would be bad as mayor for many reasons, but this article will only focus on socialism.
Many young people today are disenchanted with capitalism. Socialism seems to have the better branding among the young. The Cato Institute even points out that one-third of people under 30 support communism. What an indictment on modern education.
Marxism begins with an atheistic premise. But today we have been so cut off from the premise of America, founded on the idea that our rights come from God, that many disillusioned Americans want to try and give socialism another shot.
Although some modern proponents of socialism might argue that even if it hasn’t work in other places, it will work this time around—given the right leader. Zohran or AOC or Bernie.
But haven’t we seen this before?
Socialism didn’t work under Lenin, maybe it will work under Stalin.
Socialism didn’t work under Mao, maybe it will work under Xi.
Socialism didn’t work under Chavez, maybe it will work under Maduro. And so on.
Socialism is often the gateway to communism—the redistribution of wealth by government force. As Winston Churchill observed, “communism is nothing but socialism with a gun at your back.”
I read about a T-shirt that says, “Communism has only killed 100 million people. Why not give it another shot?” This can be found in the book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Communism: The Killingest Idea Ever (Regnery, 2017) by my friend, Dr. Paul Kengor of Grove City College, whom I’ve interviewed multiple times.
Maybe it doesn’t work anywhere and never will because it runs contrary to human nature.
Human nature is sinful. And the best form of government recognizes that and therefore separates power, so no individual or small group can amass too much of it.
Why has America historically succeeded in granting us freedom? It’s because the founding fathers recognized the fact of human selfishness. They did everything in their power to limit how much power any one man or group of people might have. Belief in the sinfulness of man can be seen in the Constitution with its strict separation of powers.
Ben Franklin said, “There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh, get first all the peoples’ money, then all their lands and then make them and their children servants forever.”
Capitalism does not produce an equal distribution of wealth. No system does. But in the socialist schemes, it is only the rulers that do well, not the people.
The people are forced into breadlines for inferior bread—or pickled, green tomatoes.
For all of its warts and flaws, capitalism produces much greater prosperity for the greatest amount of people.
What does communism produce? Ultimately, a lot of dead bodies.
One might ask, “Why would God allow all the suffering that the socialists and communists have imposed on this world—not to mention the total loss of religious freedom in such places?” I would answer: “So that we don’t go down that road again.” We pray New Yorkers won’t go down that road.
Kamala had desperately wanted to become the next Obama and had obsessively pursued Obama’s approval, but despite the similarities in their backgrounds, both were the children of radical academics and absent foreign fathers, raised in an atmosphere of privilege before learning to blow racial dog whistles to win over black voters and guilty white liberals, he had remained cool to her. Kamala had been far more interested in Obama than he was in her.
And that had not changed just as Kamala was on the verge of following in his footsteps.
Obama could see the disaster coming a while away. Kamala was unpopular, as bad a speaker as her boss, lacked charisma and had no appeal to voters, from his perspective, she had nothing in common with him other than their tentative racial identification, but he was unable to convince top black Democrats who may have had their own private doubts about Kamala’s political skills, but were not about to pass up the opportunity of a second black president.
Kamala’s appointment, or at least that of a black VP, had been the promise they secured from Biden, and with the old white guy on his last political legs, they were determined to cash it in.
Even as the fallout grew from Biden’s debate performance, ‘Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House‘ revealed that Congressional Black Caucus members “laid down a marker: if Biden exited the race, they would accept no option other than Vice President Kamala Harris”.
Racial tensions exploded among Democrat insiders right after the debate. “I watched the black-white stuff start on Thursday night,” an elected official recalled.
At a private chat, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, the first ranking House Democrat and Rep. Jim Clyburn, the third ranking House Democrat, “had watched next-generation white governors lay the groundwork to battle Harris for the nomination” and agreed that, “they would not let their party skip over the first Black woman vice president, not without a fight.”
Former DNC Chair Donna Brazile and other black Democrats who had been helping the campaign with black turnout began lobbying delegates to back Kamala even before Biden dropped out. “We’re not going to let anyone skip over the VP,” Brazile had warned.
Obama had helped touch off the takedown of Joe Biden. His allies, loyalists and operatives had seeded doubt about Biden’s functionality and jumped on him when he faltered at the debate. But Obama had not done it for Kamala, he had done it to replace Biden with one of his own people, and yet after pulling strings on white establishment players, like Pelosi and George Clooneyi, his path forward was being blocked by the Congressional Black Caucus members with whom he always had an uneasy relationship. The CBC had initially backed Hillary Clinton over him. And while it was forced to hail him as the first black president, the same old time Dems like Jesse Jackson who once bragged on TV, “I want to cut his nuts off”, resented him.
Biden’s debate collapse had created a historic moment of the worst possible kind. Dems needed to oust the man at the top of their ticket before his nomination could be confirmed and pick a replacement. Obama wanted a mini-primary process to pick his chosen candidate, but virtually every other powerful black Democrat wanted to rubber stamp Kamala for the position.
Obama did not want Kamala, but that made black Democrats want her even more. Elevating Kamala would eclipse Obama. And Obama’s opposition to her only reinforced their mistrust of his racial solidarity. Black political activists of any generation had never trusted Obama to stand with the black community and his campaign missteps once Kamala became the nominee, which included attacking black men, only reinforced their doubts whether he was really one of them.
And they had a point. Obama was far more comfortable with the white Democrat power players than with the old black establishment that was busy cutting off his plans by rallying for Kamala. Obama was heavily reliant on white operatives like David Axelrod or his Pod Save America cohort who were of far less use against Kamala and the black activists laboring for her. His white operatives were afraid of crossing racial lines and Obama preferred to work behind the scenes, but the former community organizer had never been good at actual organizing.
That ineptitude was part of a larger problem. Obama thought of himself as an idea man. He expected others to do the hard work. His efforts to interfere in the 2020 primary by putting forward his own candidate had collapsed badly. And whatever candidate he had in mind for his mini-primary shell game in 2024 went unnamed. Obama correctly warned that Kamala would lose but he never revealed who his dream candidate was going to be. And that may be because the candidate would not make an appearance unless Kamala had already been sidelined.
Some speculated that Obama was going to put forward his wife. There is no way to know, but it’s likelier that Obama’s dream candidate was not black or even a woman. The CBC had been right about Obama. He was a leftist before he was anything else and his allegiance to the black community had always been a political facade to advance his radical agenda.
Obama could have put his wife forward before he could put forward a white leftist woman or man up against Kamala. The only way that could happen was if black Democrats had joined him in opposing Kamala and despite his best efforts, Obama could not get any takers.
[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]
In the 2024 election, Barack Obama found himself in the unexpected position of fighting against the rise of the second black president. Opposing him was nearly every black Democrat, from Rep. Jim Clyburn, who helped put Biden in the White House in exchange for promises to appoint a black woman as his VP and to the Supreme Court, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and DNC Chair Jaime Harrison, who were determined to make Kamala the candidate.
Biden’s debate collapse had created a historic moment of the worst possible kind. Dems needed to oust the man at the top of their ticket before his nomination could be confirmed and pick a replacement. Obama wanted a mini-primary process to pick his chosen candidate, but virtually every other powerful black Democrat wanted to rubber stamp Kamala for the position.
Kamala had desperately wanted to become the next Obama and had obsessively pursued Obama’s approval, but despite the similarities in their backgrounds, both were the children of radical academics and absent foreign fathers, raised in an atmosphere of privilege before learning to blow racial dog whistles to win over black voters and guilty white liberals, he had remained cool to her. Kamala had been far more interested in Obama than he was in her.
And that had not changed just as Kamala was on the verge of following in his footsteps.
Obama could see the disaster coming a while away. Kamala was unpopular, as bad a speaker as her boss, lacked charisma and had no appeal to voters, from his perspective, she had nothing in common with him other than their tentative racial identification, but he was unable to convince top black Democrats who may have had their own private doubts about Kamala’s political skills, but were not about to pass up the opportunity of a second black president.
Kamala’s appointment, or at least that of a black VP, had been the promise they secured from Biden, and with the old white guy on his last political legs, they were determined to cash it in.
Even as the fallout grew from Biden’s debate performance, ‘Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House‘ revealed that Congressional Black Caucus members “laid down a marker: if Biden exited the race, they would accept no option other than Vice President Kamala Harris”.
Racial tensions exploded among Democrat insiders right after the debate. “I watched the black-white stuff start on Thursday night,” an elected official recalled.
At a private chat, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, the first ranking House Democrat and Rep. Jim Clyburn, the third ranking House Democrat, “had watched next-generation white governors lay the groundwork to battle Harris for the nomination” and agreed that, “they would not let their party skip over the first Black woman vice president, not without a fight.”
Former DNC Chair Donna Brazile and other black Democrats who had been helping the campaign with black turnout began lobbying delegates to back Kamala even before Biden dropped out. “We’re not going to let anyone skip over the VP,” Brazile had warned.
Obama had helped touch off the takedown of Joe Biden. His allies, loyalists and operatives had seeded doubt about Biden’s functionality and jumped on him when he faltered at the debate. But Obama had not done it for Kamala, he had done it to replace Biden with one of his own people, and yet after pulling strings on white establishment players, like Pelosi and George Clooneyi, his path forward was being blocked by the Congressional Black Caucus members with whom he always had an uneasy relationship. The CBC had initially backed Hillary Clinton over him. And while it was forced to hail him as the first black president, the same old time Dems like Jesse Jackson who once bragged on TV, “I want to cut his nuts off”, resented him.
Obama did not want Kamala, but that made black Democrats want her even more. Elevating Kamala would eclipse Obama. And Obama’s opposition to her only reinforced their mistrust of his racial solidarity. Black political activists of any generation had never trusted Obama to stand with the black community and his campaign missteps once Kamala became the nominee, which included attacking black men, only reinforced their doubts whether he was really one of them.
And they had a point. Obama was far more comfortable with the white Democrat power players than with the old black establishment that was busy cutting off his plans by rallying for Kamala. Obama was heavily reliant on white operatives like David Axelrod or his Pod Save America cohort who were of far less use against Kamala and the black activists laboring for her. His white operatives were afraid of crossing racial lines and Obama preferred to work behind the scenes, but the former community organizer had never been good at actual organizing.
That ineptitude was part of a larger problem. Obama thought of himself as an idea man. He expected others to do the hard work. His efforts to interfere in the 2020 primary by putting forward his own candidate had collapsed badly. And whatever candidate he had in mind for his mini-primary shell game in 2024 went unnamed. Obama correctly warned that Kamala would lose but he never revealed who his dream candidate was going to be. And that may be because the candidate would not make an appearance unless Kamala had already been sidelined.
Some speculated that Obama was going to put forward his wife. There is no way to know, but it’s likelier that Obama’s dream candidate was not black or even a woman. The CBC had been right about Obama. He was a leftist before he was anything else and his allegiance to the black community had always been a political facade to advance his radical agenda.
Obama could have put his wife forward before he could put forward a white leftist woman or man up against Kamala. The only way that could happen was if black Democrats had joined him in opposing Kamala and despite his best efforts, Obama could not get any takers.
Black Democrats had colluded to put forward Kamala, not because they believed in her personal abilities or because they thought she was the best candidate, but because she was black. Time and time again, black establishment players emphasized that she was black, was the first black vice president and would be the first black female president rather than any rationale rooted in her actual candidacy. The same irrational tribal logic that had elevated Obama was now being used to elevate Kamala. And Obama couldn’t do anything to stop it.
After Kamala’s defeat, party narratives and campaign books have attached most of the blame to Biden. But it wasn’t Biden whom voters rejected on Election Day. It was Kamala.
And how did Kamala come to be the party’s standard bearer in 2024?
Biden had picked Kamala because he had been obligated to pick a black woman and his choices were sparse. It had been either Kamala, future Los Angeles Mayor (and Castro sympathizer) Karen Bass and, somewhat bafflingly, Obamaite operative Susan Rice who had never held elected office. When it came time to replace Biden, Kamala got in because of race.
Democrats picked Kamala as their vice presidential and presidential candidate for the wrong reason. The resulting political disaster had less to do with Biden’s health than their racism.
Racism made Kamala the candidate and cost Democrats the White House.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
Planned Parenthood will close its two clinics in Louisiana on Sept. 30 as the organization faces funding challenges under President Trump’s tax and spending package.
Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast President Melaney Linton said in a statement the Louisiana closures are a “direct result of relentless political assaults.”
“This is not a decision we wanted to make; it is one we were forced into by political warfare. Anti-reproductive health lawmakers obsessed with power and control have spent decades fighting the concept that people deserve to control their own bodies,” she wrote.
She added that “extremists” lawmakers have done everything in their power to try and “defund” Planned Parenthood and dismantle public health infrastructure and prevent Americans from receiving needed health care.
We spend around six years of our lives — 2,100 days — in the shadowy world of dreams. And that world still mystifies us. But because of their deeply personal nature, we know few facts about dreams. But examination of dreamers’ shared experiences has generated interesting theories as to the origin and meaning of dreams.
After we fall asleep, our mental and metabolic condition progresses through four stages. In the fourth stage, REM (rapid eye movement) sleep, our blood pressure, brain activity and heart rate increase. Voluntary muscles become paralyzed, and dreams begin to unfold.
It’s a fact that daily activities affect our dreams. When you suppress your feelings during the day, there’s a good chance they’ll show up in your dreams. For example, if you wanted to express anger, but chose not to do so, that anger may appear symbolically in your dreams.
A friend tells me that on the eve of a particularly difficult business negotiation, he will often have intense dreams during which he “rehearses” what he will say in the meeting. When he wakes up, the stress and anxiety that could have affected his performance and judgment are gone. He’s now ready to do it again — this time for real.
People share some dream themes. The website, dreams.ca, suggests that the top ten shared subjects are (in no particular order):
being in an out-of-control car (is life maybe too hectic and out of control?);
falling (am I feeling “unsupported” or worried?);
arriving late or unprepared for an exam (am I lacking confidence, or feeling unprepared for an upcoming event?);
being chased or attacked (is there a fearful aspect of my personality?);
encountering a helpless baby or small animal (have I been attentive enough to myself?);
drowning or experiencing huge waves (am I denying or feeling overwhelmed by my emotions?);
being injured or dismembered (is there a part of my life I’ve been neglecting or forgetting?);
being trapped (should I open myself up to new perspectives?);
being naked in public (do I feel insecure or ashamed about something?), and,
being stuck in slow motion, unable to move or make a sound (am I getting nowhere in some endeavor, and unable to voice my true feelings?).
Of course, these are open to speculation. We’re all different, and variations will be reflected in our own imaginations.
I like to refer to dreams as “day residue” where the mind seizes onto a particular trigger event encountered during our waking hours. It could be just a few words overheard in a restaurant, or some life-changing experience. The accompanying feelings are integrated into our memories, symbols, anxieties and perceptions, and then played back — rich in imagery. The feelings evoked by the trigger event are re-experienced as the dream unfolds.
You can sometimes figure out what that trigger event was. Try this: Immediately after waking up, apply what dream researchers call “associative logic.” In other words, because the dream connects to you by way of a specific feeling, you can match that feeling to some event (the trigger) that took place when you were awake. As you recollect the past day or so, a particular incident that generates the same feeling (you’ll know it when you feel it) is probably the one that triggered the dream.
Another interesting exercise is called lucid dreaming, where you realize you are dreaming and even manipulate the outcome. Some people actually develop the skill of continuing the dream without waking up. Though there’s certainly a lot of baloney out there, some products on the market (from CDs with rhythmic sounds to blinking sleep masks … I’m not endorsing ANYTHING, by the way…) might be fun to try. Imagine a little fantasy world where anything goes!
It’s important to remember that dreams are not real. They are nothing more than intricate fabrications of our psyches; healthy by-products of our complex, yet always mindful, selves.
Trump’s trade strategy isn’t chaos—it’s calculated disruption, using American leverage to reshape global markets and deliver wins his critics can’t comprehend.
What Trump’s critics don’t understand—and probably never will: President Trump isn’t rattled. He’s composed, deliberate, and in control—which drives his opponents crazy.
But instead of fixating on his tone, measure his results. Trade victories are stacking up, each one strategically designed to favor America.
And why shouldn’t we enjoy these kinds of wins?
We earned them through generations of sweat, toil, and ingenuity, all of which built the U.S. consumer market into the most coveted in the world—the literal engine of global discretionary demand. Access to it isn’t automatic, and therein lies the leverage. For the first time in decades, we have a leader who knows how to employ those earned advantages.
Critics see disruption and scream chaos, but they confuse volatility with recklessness. In reality, disruption is the strategy. Tension is the prerequisite tool, and while it makes some ninnies uncomfortable, this rigged system cannot be unwound by simply asking politely. After decades of American acquiescence on trade, the old economic regime will not just submissively fade away.
Accordingly, this process isn’t accidental—it’s engineered. Trump guards the strategic sectors of the U.S. economy through calculated, targeted, and surgical incentives and prohibitions to grow domestic production of semiconductors, steel, medicine, energy, and defense technology.
Behind the TV news chyrons and hand-wringing, a blueprint unfolds. This emerging paradigm harnesses America’s unmatched strengths to reorient global trade and tip the balance back toward U.S. workers.
That kind of work demands poise, not polish. That kind of grand task necessitates brains, leverage, and calm under pressure. Think Tom Brady in the pocket: the chaos swirls, the hits keep coming—but he hangs in and delivers the throw.
Trump operates the same way. While his critics flinch, he closes. This isn’t small-ball, and these wins are not incremental. Instead, this process accelerates a truly global correction—long overdue—and only possible through business instincts brought into geopolitics.
Even former FBI hostage negotiator Chris Voss would recognize the method. In Never Split the Difference, Voss lays it out: apply pressure. Stay detached. Never settle halfway.
Sound familiar?
But Trump’s critics cannot see past their own biases to discern the mounting stack of headline-worthy wins. Consider the results, just in July:
European Union:
– $600B in EU investment
– $750B in U.S. energy purchases
– Broad tariff reductions for American exports
– 15% across-the-board tariffs for European firms—unless they move production to the U.S. and hire American workers.
Japan:
– The tariff cap was lowered to 15% (from 25%)
– $550B investment fund with direct U.S. veto power
South Korea:
– 15% tariff agreement
– $350B investment in the U.S.
– $100B LNG purchase commitment
China:
– Talks resume.
– Tariff protections hold.
– The deadline looms—and the leverage is as American as apple pie.
Tariffs aren’t punishment—they’re strategy. In this new era, tariffs represent policy and positioning. They compel the secure rebuilding of supply chains. In this process, America reclaims the leverage we are due, and reasserts our primary role in shaping the terms of global trade—not reacting to them.
So, it’s not a tantrum, not remotely. It’s a recalibration.
As Scott Adams wrote in Win Bigly, Trump isn’t unpredictable. He’s persuasive.
He throws the political equivalent of a knuckleball—deliberately unconventional and difficult to counter.
Adams and Trump recognize that superpowers don’t beg and don’t need to ask for permission. We are done allowing the ruling class of this country to profit and thrive by managing a national decline.
What beckons? Nothing less than a golden age—built on leverage, clarity, and control.
A spate of massive anti-illegal-immigration protests has broken out across the United Kingdom. Indeed, one might say that the kingdom is increasingly united about one thing: Britain belongs to the British. Waving Union Jack flags and carrying “Britain First” signs, thousands of protesters walk down city streets sporting patriotic clothing and repeating patriotic cheers. A stranger who knew no better might mistake the mass euphoria for a post-war victory parade celebrating the prospect of peace.
Americans have seen these kinds of festive gatherings before. In spirit and enthusiasm, they resemble the “Make America Great Again” rallies that President Trump has headlined since 2015. It is quite common, in fact, to see “Make Britain Great Again” signs in the crowds and to hear the phrase shouted energetically among those gathered. What a dramatic shift in social consciousness a decade brings! Ten years ago, most Brits thought little of Donald Trump and expected him to wind up an odd historical footnote to Hillary Clinton’s inevitable coronation. Now much of the U.K. is desperate to ditch Britain’s rotten Establishment and taking inspiration from President Trump’s political revolution on the other side of the Atlantic.
This is hardly surprising. For decades, mass illegal immigration into the U.K. has been a growing problem that Establishment politicians have been unwilling to address. For decades, regular Brits have been told that there is nothing the government can do. Closing the borders to foreign nationals intent on breaking the U.K.’s immigration laws was apparently too difficult of a task for the once mighty kingdom to undertake. Across Europe, North America, and Australasia, Establishment governments have told their citizens much the same thing.
Then President Trump returned to the White House and finished a job that he started in his first term: sealing the border from foreign invasion. After four years of open borders during Biden’s lawless presidency, what the Trump administration has managed to accomplish is nothing short of amazing. The United States has now had several months in which zero illegal aliens were released into the country, and 2025 might end with net-negative immigration on the whole — a feat that most Americans have never witnessed.
All of a sudden, the common government excuse in the U.K. and across continental Europe — that nothing can be done to stem the tide of mass illegal immigration — has been exposed as a risible lie. That lie was common in the United States, too. It was told for more than forty years. In six months’ time, President Trump has proved that secure borders require but one thing: leaders willing to enforce them. It has become much more difficult for politicians in Germany, France, the Netherlands, and the U.K. to claim that limits on illegal immigration are impossible when President Trump is demonstrating in real time the hollowness of that lie in the United States.
Establishment news media are doing their best to protect the Establishment politicians. Just as corporate “reporters” in the United States fill the public’s airwaves with sob stories about “asylum seekers” and “undocumented migrants” willing to do the jobs that Americans are supposedly unwilling to do, corporate “reporters” on the other side of the Atlantic speak of illegal aliens as if they all have hearts of gold. Meanwhile, “honor” killings, child rapes, rampant misogyny, organized crime, terror attacks, and serial stabbings increase in direct proportion to the influx of foreign nationals — or what the Orwellian press across the West prefers to euphemistically call “newcomers.”
This nearly century-long project to destroy the West by flooding the West with foreigners who despise the West is finally coming to a head. Perhaps it is too late to rectify the damage caused by generations of unelected bureaucrats and Marxist globalists who have done more to undermine their own countries by erasing national borders than any foreign enemy ever could. We will soon find out whether Great Britain may survive as an island that natives will find safe enough to call home, or whether the United Kingdom will surrender what is left of its sovereignty to those who wish to conquer it in the name of foreign gods, anodyne “multiculturalism,” and totemic worship of diversity.
If the West’s survival were not such a serious issue, the outrageous lengths to which its leaders have gone to arrange its suicide would almost be comical. Central banks have depreciated the value of common currencies to such a degree that Westerners’ cost of living continues to rise, while suitable jobs are steadily exported overseas. The rate of homeownership is in a free fall. Fewer Westerners can afford to have a single child, much less financially support large families. Even if Westerners could support large families, the West’s cultural vanguard has spent the last hundred years encouraging women to kill their babies, choose careers over families, and regard men as evil foot soldiers of the dreaded “patriarchy.”
In their quixotic project to control the means of economic production by branding valuable hydrocarbon energies “pollutants,” the “global warming” climate hoaxers continue to drive up the cost of electricity. Reliance on wind and solar power has made electrical grids unreliable. Because higher energy costs increase industrial and manufacturing costs, Westerners are less self-sufficient than ever before. Meanwhile, globalists have convinced Western populations that they will magically maintain their standard of living by making nothing of value and subsisting on government welfare.
European countries fortunate enough to survive Nazi Germany’s pursuit of a European empire have chosen to commemorate their victory by forming a European Union managed principally by the Germans. Those European countries fortunate enough to survive the Soviet Union’s Iron Curtain have chosen to safeguard their independence by destroying their own energy sectors, investing in “green” unicorns, and rendering their industries dependent upon Russian natural gas. Those European countries that witnessed firsthand how vulnerable unarmed civilians are to foreign belligerents have chosen to disarm their citizens, dismantle their militaries, and pin their hopes for survival on American national security guarantees.
Historically Christian Western nations go out of their way to welcome foreign religions to their lands while mindlessly condemning Christian natives as bigots. Western leaders do little when Christian churches are ransacked or burned to the ground. Western schools banish Christian teachings from class curricula. As committed as Western nations are to embracing foreign cultures, they are commensurately hostile to the Christian foundations of Western civilization.
How else could one describe this century-long assault on the West than to acknowledge it as deliberate suicide? Nations that denounce their own cultures, traditions, histories, and religions are not nations for long. Nations that treat foreigners better than native citizens soon become foreign nations. Nations that do not produce children, goods, or art eventually disappear. Diversity and multiculturalism do not sustain civilizations; they end them.
It is all the more curious, then, that so many Western nations are today beating the drums of war — particularly with regards to potential conflict with Russia. European and American proponents of World War III insist that “democracy” is under attack. Yet Western “democracy,” such as it is, has had no greater enemy than the multigenerational collection of political elites who have worked so hard to euthanize it. It is difficult to ask Western citizens to fight and die for a civilization in the grips of suicide. Nobody, it turns out, is interested in running onto a bloody battlefield waving a nondescript flag for generic multiculturalism. Choosing to sacrifice oneself for a nation requires a nation worthy of being saved.
Before the U.K. government decides to arrest anti-illegal-immigration protesters for violating “hate speech” laws, perhaps it should take a moment to consider who will one day defend the British Isles from foreign invasion. With patriots imprisoned, what country will remain?
The self-appointed liberal thought police have loaded their proverbial guns and aimed them at Sydney Sweeney since 2022.
What offense did Sweeney commit in 2022?
She posted pictures of her mother’s 60th birthday, and some ‘fans’ claimed that individuals wearing MAGA-style hats and “Blue Lives Matter” tops were in the background. The rodeo theme of the party must have also irked liberals, because it is perceived as anachronistic and rural.
Soon, Sweeney was linked to the ‘far right’ and the choicest epithets related to bigotry were conferred upon her.
The liberal mob wanted Sweeney to issue a groveling apology and a denunciation and ridicule of the MAGA agenda. Instead, she clarified that her motives weren’t political, but that did little to placate the online mob.
It is most revealing about the times we live in, when individuals have to issue clarifications merely for having relatives and friends belonging to a different political affiliation. But it wasn’t just online trolls; the invisible powers running Biden’s presidency made serious attempts to criminalize dissent and political opposition.
The outrage against Sweeney for her perceived political affiliations that has been simmering since 2022 reached a boiling point following the recent advertisement for American Eagle jeans with the slogan “Sydney Sweeney has great jeans,” which is a clever wordplay.
The online mob either honestly believed or pretended to believe that this was Nazi propaganda and that American Eagle was promoting eugenics. Ironically, this very mob will have no compunction using Nazi terminology while referring to Jewish people and the conflict in Israel.
It is disturbing that certain people are so utterly vacuous that they believe the absurd allegation. It is equally troubling that certain individuals are amplifying the malicious hoax to earn via ‘engagement’ on social media.
The online mob either honestly believed or pretended to believe that this was Nazi propaganda and that American Eagle was promoting eugenics. Ironically, this very mob will have no compunction using Nazi terminology while referring to Jewish people and the conflict in Israel.
It is disturbing that certain people are so utterly vacuous that they believe the absurd allegation. It is equally troubling that certain individuals are amplifying the malicious hoax to earn via ‘engagement’ on social media.
But it wasn’t just vacuous trolls; some academics opined the advert was “problematic.” Liberal propagandists masquerading as journalists also joined the mob. MSNBC carried a piece claiming the advertisement showed a cultural shift towards whiteness. The UK Guardian claimed that asked “Is American Eagle really using whiteness to sell jeans?“
Following the controversy, the stock of American Eagle soared, and sales were through the roof.
This once again proves that online mobs do not reflect reality. Some trolls may have been offended, but social media bots could have been employed to whip up the frenzy.
Now, about Sidney Sweeney.
She possesses all the attributes of an old-fashioned movie star. She is blonde, beautiful, and voluptuous — very reminiscent of Hollywood sex symbols such as Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield. She’s also a fine actress who began her career with small parts in television series and films. This led to her earning substantial parts in HBO Series such as “Euphoria” and “The White Lotus.”
She graduated to the big screen, playing the lead in the romantic comedy hit Anyone But You (2023), the psychological horror film Immaculate (2024), and most recently, Eden (2024).
Her Instagram posts and various public appearances demonstrate that she possesses the right attitude towards stardom. She seems humble, with a refreshing self-deprecatory humor.
In her SNL monologue, she joked about her image, her flop Madame Web (2023), Hollywood gossip, and Ozempic. There were no jibes at Trump or the MAGA agenda. Just simple, good-hearted fun.
This was once a normal display on television, i.e., presenting an entertainment with an attractive star and nothing more.
And this is the root of all the rage — Sidney Sweeney appears to be normal.
Sweeney is beautiful, and men are attracted to her — this is normal.
Sweeney seems to be a happy person enjoying her journey in Hollywood — this is normal.
She seems healthy, both mentally and physically — this is normal.
She seems attached to her parents — this is normal.
She doesn’t seem perpetually angry or focused on politics — this is normal.
This is what liberals despise. They even have a pejorative slang for this, it’s called “normie,” which derogatorily refers to individuals who are attributed to the demographic majority.
The norm in Hollywood is to be bitter, angry, outraged, sanctimonious, and against traditional values.
Jennifer Lawrence boasted about distancing herself from her Trump-supporting family members and hurling abuses towards President Trump.
Meryl Streep dedicated her lifetime achievement award speech at the Golden Globe Awards in 2017 to insulting Trump and regular Americans who support Trump instead of thanking her audience and colleagues.
Charlize Theron, 49, boasted about having sex with a 26-year-old man and expressed her aversion to being in a relationship.
Just yesterday, Buzzfeed News, whose track record on being factual is poor, claimed that Sydney Sweeney is a registered Republican as of 2024. The media amplified the claim. This caused cheers in the MAGAverse.
President Trump also complimented Sweeney and the advert, which caused American Eagle shares to surge by 20 percent.
The fact that Sweeney hasn’t explicitly revealed that she’s a Republican means she either prefers to keep her political affiliation private or that the claim is fake.
Maybe Sweeney wants to be an old-fashioned, mysterious movie star whose image is untouched by politics. This was the norm in the past.
Marilyn Monroe’s political affiliations were unknown to most people; all that mattered was that she looked alluring and delivered a strong performance. Marilyn Monroe’s famous birthday serenade to Kennedy at Madison Square Garden in 1962 occurred when her career had hit a rough patch; sadly, she passed away the same year.
The secondary outrage about the American Eagles’ campaign is that it is targeted at the “male gaze.”
If there was exploitation involved, it would have been outrageous. But Sidney Sweeney is an adult, and the adverts were made with her approval, and she was compensated for them. The advert is tongue-in-cheek and suggestive, but tasteful.
Once again, the male gaze is normal. Most men are attracted to beautiful women and prefer to see attractive women on screen or in person. The same is true if the genders are swapped.
The predators must be punished, but these outliers are no reason to vilify what is normal.
This natural, healthy, and mutual attraction between men and women is what leads to procreation, which allows civilization to continue.
In the end, the outrage by liberals against Sydney Sweeney and her catchy advertisement campaign is an objection against what is normal and indeed natural.
The liberal outrage and hate, and subsequently the support from the highest echelons in politics, right up to President Trump, have generated publicity for American Eagle that no company can dream of or campaign can buy. American Eagle is now a leading international brand.
Based on her attitude, choice of projects, and performances, Sydney Sweeney is on her way to becoming a major superstar.
On July 4, 2026, the United States will celebrate the 250th anniversary of its founding, marked by the Continental Congress’s adoption of the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration has inspired the world. Even Vietnam’s Declaration of Independence, written by communist Ho Chi Minh in 1945, begins with some very familiar words: “All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, among them are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
As most U.S. schoolchildren used to be taught (and some still are), the Declaration of Independence articulates a set of “self-evident” principles, or “Truths,” that define our country and society. While there is still work to be done to achieve them fully, and always will be, most Americans continue to celebrate those principles.
There is no better example of how one can balance America’s strivings and failures than that provided by the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass in his famous July 5, 1852, speech, “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?”
In that speech, Douglass encouraged Americans to celebrate their anniversary. He lauds the country’s Founders: “Your fathers were wise men. … They felt themselves the victims of grievous wrongs. … With brave men, there is always a remedy for oppression.”
He went on to say that the idea of total separation from England was born on July 2, 1776, “… in the form of a resolution” that “these united colonies are, and of right, ought to be free and Independent States.”
“Today you reap the fruits of their success,” Douglass told his audience. “The freedom gained is yours, and you, therefore, may properly celebrate this anniversary. The 4th of July is the first great fact in your nation’s history — the very ring-bolt in the chain of your yet undeveloped destiny.”
“The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles,” he added. “Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.”
Douglass then switched gears. From praising the Founders as “statesmen, patriots and heroes,” he turned to the question of slavery. “What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.”
Douglass is unforgiving in his attack. He discusses the internal slave trade. He lambasts the clergy for tolerating slavery. And he denounces those who make constitutional or other arguments for slavery’s legality. Half of the speech is devoted to condemning slavery, its defenders and those who remain silent in its face.
The speech is brilliant, both in the depth of Douglass’s understanding of the principles embodied in the Declaration (and Constitution), and in the persuasiveness of his language condemning the country’s failure to extend its hard-won freedoms to the enslaved.
For those reasons, among others, Douglass’s speech is required reading for many Ameritas College students — not just the first part, praising America’s declared principles, and not just the second part, condemning our failure to live up to them, but the entire speech.
That’s why I was puzzled recently when I printed a copy of the speech from the PBS.org website.
I intended to use it for a discussion about the connection between principles grounded in “self-evident” truths, and the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s famous statement that there is no truth.
“How,” I wanted to ask my students, “could Douglass ground his claims about the injustice of slavery if he did not first appeal to the principles in the Declaration?”
Unfortunately, the sections of Douglass’s speech lauding American principles had been omitted. My intended lesson on Douglass’s rhetoric evolved into one about selective editing, censorship and hidden agendas.
As we mark the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, it is crucial that we uphold its ideals and acknowledge its lofty goals have not been fully achieved.
This requires an honest discussion of American principles and American history.
In its entirety, Douglass’s speech is an inspiration. It played an essential role in ending slavery. Edited, it is reduced to propaganda.
Kamala needs to be asked if she had been elected last year would her justice department have pursued the Hillary Clinton bogus Russia Collusion hoax with potential indictments against Hillary Clinton, Clapper, Brennan, Comey and others involved. Would be fun to hear her answer.
The only question you need to ask is if she wants red wine or white. She’s not really qualified to answer much else.
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 