Some two weeks before the 2nd anniversary of October 7, the UN, the UK, France, Australia, Canada and other failed radical governments rallied to commemorate the massacres, kidnappings and rapes by giving the Islamic terrorists responsible for it their own ‘state’.

Along with a High Holidays gift to the Jews celebrating their new year.

The invention of a ‘Palestinian’ state is the capstone to the Big Lie that this is a war between Israel and some smaller population in Gaza or the West Bank rather than a regional conflict between Muslims and Jews, as part of a global conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Since Oct 7, Israel has been forced to fight not only Hamas in Gaza, but Muslim terrorist forces in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Iran. A possible war with Egypt may be on the horizon. And while that may seem like a lot, but back in 1948, Israel was forced to fight its War of Independence against genocidal invasions by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

During that conflict, Egypt and Jordan seized control of those parts of Israel that they today claim represent a ‘Palestinian’ state. No such state was created because those territories never represented a unique culture or nationality, only a platform for pursuing the Muslim genocide of the Jews of Israel, as part of the larger mission of the Islamic conquest of non-Muslims.

With the complicity of plenty of those same non-Muslims.

The Jordanian armies in 1948 were under the command of British generals with the sanction of the Labour government which not only backed the Islamic invasions of Israel but that same year began the process of filling the United Kingdom with Muslim mass migration through the British Nationality Act. PM Keir Starmer is doubling down on both policies of his Labour predecessors, supporting Islamic terrorists in Israel and inviting them to invade and overrun the UK.

That is what ‘globalizing the intifada’ really means.

The ‘intifada’ is not a war in Israel. It’s a world war. It may well be the final world war. But unlike Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or Communist China, the invaders don’t represent a mighty military force that can swamp the civilized world on its own. It could not claim a single piece of territory without our sustained appeasement, mutual backstabbing and helpful nation building.

The oil industry that funds the global war was built by America, British and other western hands, that was then nationalized by Muslim dictatorships, or like Aramco, gradually nationalized with American taxpayers funding the Saudi tyranny through the ‘Golden Gimmick’ lobbied for by John J. McCloy, the former president of the World Bank, chairman of the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation, who had once quipped, “the Constitution is just a scrap of paper.”

Western governments built up Muslim armies in the hopes that they would prove a bulwark against Communism. They welcomed every Muslim dictatorship into the UN, for the same reason, making a mockery of its commitment to democracy, only to have them either side with the Soviet Union against America, or play America and the USSR against each other.

Western governments were tasked with maintaining the power of the same Muslim governments that were funding airline hijackings and bombs in their own cities. And then when America and Europe intervened to protect those governments, that was used as a rallying cry for Jihadists to launch a new era of terrorism, and when we intervened to promote ‘democracy’, that allowed the Jihadists to come to power and then double down on waging a war on the West.

After selling out the Christians of Lebanon and the secular government of Iran, Western governments spent a generation working to legitimize an Islamic terrorist state inside Israel made up of the parts of Israel that Egypt and Jordan had lost during their attempt to wipe out Israel in the Six Day War, to finally bring about peace. A generation later the ‘Palestinian’ state demonstrated that it could kill far more people and cause far more havoc once it had land.

Oct 7 should have buried the ‘Palestinian’ state experiment once and for all, instead it gave it new life, showing once again that the real impetus for the ‘Palestinian’ cause isn’t peace: it’s war. Peace has never been a real world criteria for ‘Palestinian’ statehood. If it had, the state wouldn’t have been set up by terrorists, the terrorists wouldn’t have been armed by Western governments, and Oct 7 wouldn’t have led Western governments to embrace a terror state.

Too many people suffer from the misunderstanding that if only they prove to these same governments that the ‘Palestinian’ state is a terrorist operation, they would stop pushing for it. But the only thing such arguments accomplish is to make leaders like France’s Macron or the UK’s Starmer briefly cringe like clergymen caught on camera in a whorehouse before they go right back to vocally advocating for a terrorist state. Because it’s the terrorism they really want.

When there is a fundamental discrepancy between what people say they want and what they do, the answer is to ignore what they say and pay attention to their actions. If only their behavior had been limited to Israel, some might be justified in attributing it to antisemitism. But if Starmer, Macron, Canada’s Carney, Australia’s Albanese and many others simply hate Jews, why are they filling their own countries with Muslim terrorists and suppressing opposition to them?

Dark 

Home recent  A ‘Palestinian’ State is a Death Wish for the West

A ‘Palestinian’ State is a Death Wish for the West

Some two weeks before the 2nd anniversary of October 7, the UN, the UK, France, Australia, Canada and other failed radical governments rallied to commemorate the massacres, kidnappings and rapes by giving the Islamic terrorists responsible for it their own ‘state’.

Along with a High Holidays gift to the Jews celebrating their new year.

The invention of a ‘Palestinian’ state is the capstone to the Big Lie that this is a war between Israel and some smaller population in Gaza or the West Bank rather than a regional conflict between Muslims and Jews, as part of a global conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Since Oct 7, Israel has been forced to fight not only Hamas in Gaza, but Muslim terrorist forces in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Iran. A possible war with Egypt may be on the horizon. And while that may seem like a lot, but back in 1948, Israel was forced to fight its War of Independence against genocidal invasions by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

During that conflict, Egypt and Jordan seized control of those parts of Israel that they today claim represent a ‘Palestinian’ state. No such state was created because those territories never represented a unique culture or nationality, only a platform for pursuing the Muslim genocide of the Jews of Israel, as part of the larger mission of the Islamic conquest of non-Muslims.

With the complicity of plenty of those same non-Muslims.

The Jordanian armies in 1948 were under the command of British generals with the sanction of the Labour government which not only backed the Islamic invasions of Israel but that same year began the process of filling the United Kingdom with Muslim mass migration through the British Nationality Act. PM Keir Starmer is doubling down on both policies of his Labour predecessors, supporting Islamic terrorists in Israel and inviting them to invade and overrun the UK.

That is what ‘globalizing the intifada’ really means.

The ‘intifada’ is not a war in Israel. It’s a world war. It may well be the final world war. But unlike Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or Communist China, the invaders don’t represent a mighty military force that can swamp the civilized world on its own. It could not claim a single piece of territory without our sustained appeasement, mutual backstabbing and helpful nation building.

The oil industry that funds the global war was built by America, British and other western hands, that was then nationalized by Muslim dictatorships, or like Aramco, gradually nationalized with American taxpayers funding the Saudi tyranny through the ‘Golden Gimmick’ lobbied for by John J. McCloy, the former president of the World Bank, chairman of the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation, who had once quipped, “the Constitution is just a scrap of paper.”

Western governments built up Muslim armies in the hopes that they would prove a bulwark against Communism. They welcomed every Muslim dictatorship into the UN, for the same reason, making a mockery of its commitment to democracy, only to have them either side with the Soviet Union against America, or play America and the USSR against each other.

Western governments were tasked with maintaining the power of the same Muslim governments that were funding airline hijackings and bombs in their own cities. And then when America and Europe intervened to protect those governments, that was used as a rallying cry for Jihadists to launch a new era of terrorism, and when we intervened to promote ‘democracy’, that allowed the Jihadists to come to power and then double down on waging a war on the West.

After selling out the Christians of Lebanon and the secular government of Iran, Western governments spent a generation working to legitimize an Islamic terrorist state inside Israel made up of the parts of Israel that Egypt and Jordan had lost during their attempt to wipe out Israel in the Six Day War, to finally bring about peace. A generation later the ‘Palestinian’ state demonstrated that it could kill far more people and cause far more havoc once it had land.

Oct 7 should have buried the ‘Palestinian’ state experiment once and for all, instead it gave it new life, showing once again that the real impetus for the ‘Palestinian’ cause isn’t peace: it’s war. Peace has never been a real world criteria for ‘Palestinian’ statehood. If it had, the state wouldn’t have been set up by terrorists, the terrorists wouldn’t have been armed by Western governments, and Oct 7 wouldn’t have led Western governments to embrace a terror state.

Too many people suffer from the misunderstanding that if only they prove to these same governments that the ‘Palestinian’ state is a terrorist operation, they would stop pushing for it. But the only thing such arguments accomplish is to make leaders like France’s Macron or the UK’s Starmer briefly cringe like clergymen caught on camera in a whorehouse before they go right back to vocally advocating for a terrorist state. Because it’s the terrorism they really want.

When there is a fundamental discrepancy between what people say they want and what they do, the answer is to ignore what they say and pay attention to their actions. If only their behavior had been limited to Israel, some might be justified in attributing it to antisemitism. But if Starmer, Macron, Canada’s Carney, Australia’s Albanese and many others simply hate Jews, why are they filling their own countries with Muslim terrorists and suppressing opposition to them?

Western leaders calling for a ‘Palestinian’ state are not antisemitic. (Or at least that doesn’t prove they are.) They’re trying to destroy Israel just like they’re destroying their own countries.

Even as European leftists are demanding a ‘Palestinian’ state in Israel and threatening to bring its existence into being by force, they’re creating ‘Palestinian’ states in their own countries. And the Americans who are the most enthusiastic about waving PLO flags want to destroy America.

This isn’t putting words in their mouths or their minds. It’s what they now openly say.

Columbia University Apartheid Divest, whose most famous figure, Mahmoud Khalil, was embraced by Democrats and the media, called for the total eradication of Western civilization.”

At The People’s Conference for Palestine, there was a call to “destroy the idea of America in Americans’ heads.” The ‘globalized’ intifada is about a world war on a truly global scale.

The drive for a ‘Palestinian’ state is a civilizational death wish out to destroy the civilized world. Those who collaborate with it want war, not peace, and they are as willing to destroy their own countries as they are enthusiastic about bringing down Israel. The only supporters of a ‘Palestinian’ state are the enemies of civilization and their useful idiots.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center’s Front Page Magazine.

Story by Karen Tumulty

Government shutdowns are a familiar autumn rite of dysfunctional government. But this one is different from any that have come before. That makes it a harder test of both sides’ resolve and discipline.

President Donald Trump is reveling in a legally shaky plan to employ the shutdown to punish his enemies — or more accurately, their constituents.

The administration has put a halt on tens of billions of federal dollars that are going to blue states, including roughly $18 billion for New York’s subway and Hudson Tunnel projects. Not coincidentally, those are in the hometown of the Democratic leaders of the U.S. House and Senate.

And instead of furloughing federal employees and giving them back pay when the government reopens, as has happened in past shutdowns, Trump is threatening to fire them and gut entire agencies.

As much as the White House is trying to blame this on Democrats, who have refused to give Republicans the eight votes they need in the Senate to reopen the government, a survey by The Washington Post showed that a large plurality of Americans are holding Trump and the Republicans responsible.

Nearly three-quarters support the Democrats in their central demand that subsidies lowering the cost for health coverage purchased under the Affordable Care Act should be extended, rather than expiring as scheduled at the end of the year…….

In the meantime, he has been gleefully trolling the opposition, spreading deepfake videos that include one portraying Vought as the grim reaper. Another depicts House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York), who is Black, in a mustache and sombrero. The racist imagery promotes a false Republican claim that Democratic lawmakers are trying to force the government to offer full health care benefits to undocumented immigrants.

An immigration judge on Wednesday denied MS-13 gang member Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s request for asylum.

Abrego Garcia asked an immigration judge to reopen his asylum case after he was deported to El Salvador and then brought back to the United States.

Abrego Garcia was an illegal alien residing in Maryland when he was deported to his home country of El Salvador earlier this year and placed in the notorious CECOT prison, however, radical left-wing judges ordered him to be returned to the US.

The US government brought Abrego Garcia back to the US after federal prosecutors in Tennessee indicted him on child sex-trafficking charges.

Following the indictment, the Trump Administration informed Abrego Garcia that he may deported to Africa.

Abrego Garcia immediately put up a legal fight to stop his deportation claiming fear of persecution and torture in Uganda.

“I fear persecution in Uganda on account of my race, nationality, political opinion, and membership in a particular social group. I also fear torture by or at the acquiescence of a public official in that country,” Abrego Garcia said in August.

The Trump Administration then informed Abrego Garcia he may be deported to the tiny landlocked African country of Eswatini.

The immigration judge on Wednesday said Abrego Garcia did not show sufficient evidence that the DHS was going to remove him to Eswatini or Uganda.

“The word ‘may’ is permissive and indicates to the Court that in sending this notification to Respondent’s counsel, the Department sought to convey that it reserved the right to remove him to Uganda, not necessarily that it intended to do so, that it had decided to do so, or that it would do so imminently,” Judge Philip Taylor wrote, according to ABC News.

ABC News reported:

An immigration judge on Wednesday denied a motion filed by Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s attorneys to reopen his immigration case, according to a copy of the decision obtained by ABC News.

In the emergency motion filed in August to reopen the case, attorneys for the wrongly deported Abrego Garcia argued that because he was deported to El Salvador and then brought back to the United States, he is now eligible to apply for asylum within one year of his last entry into the U.S.

But in the order filed on Wednesday, Regional Deputy Chief Immigration Judge Philip Taylor said that Abrego Garcia’s motion to reopen his motion to seek asylum is “untimely” because he filed the motion nearly six years after his immigration proceedings — beyond the 90-day deadline required.

Judge Taylor also concluded there is “insufficient evidence” that the Department of Homeland Security has decided to remove Abrego Garcia to Uganda, Eswatini, or any other third country, after the DHS sent Abrego Garcia’s attorneys a notice in August saying the agency may deport their client to Uganda.

Cristina Laila, Gateway Pundit

A visiting professor at Harvard Law School has been placed on administrative leave after allegedly firing a pellet rifle outside a Brookline synagogue on the eve of Yom Kippur.

Carlos Portugal Gouvea, 43, was arrested Wednesday night after police said he fired two shots near Temple Beth Zion on Beacon Street in what he later claimed was “hunting rats,” Brookline.News reported.

Investigators do not believe that Gouvea was targeting the synagogue, but he was charged in Brookline District Court with illegally discharging a pellet gun, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace and malicious damage of personal property, according to court records.

Harvard Law School spokesperson Jeff Neal told The Post that Gouvea “has been placed on administrative leave as the school seeks to learn more about this matter.”

Ariel Zilber, New York Post

After Hamas announced its response to his peace proposal Oct. 3, President Donald Trump called on Israel to “immediately stop the bombing of Gaza” to clear the way for the release of hostages.

In a breaking news report, Hamas-friendly source Al-Jazeera reported that the terrorist organization accepted two key proposals of Trump’s 21-point plan, namely freeing all Israeli captives and handing over administration of the enclave to Palestinian technocrats.

According to the Associated Press, Hamas also argued that “aspects of the proposal touching on the future of the Gaza Strip and Palestinian rights should be decided on the basis of a ‘unanimous Palestinian stance’ reached with other factions and based on international law.”

The statement made no mention of Hamas disarming, a key demand included in Trump’s proposal.

After being informed of Hamas’ statement, Trump posted on X: “Based on the Statement just issued by Hamas, I believe they are ready for a lasting PEACE. Israel must immediately stop the bombing of Gaza, so that we can get the Hostages out safely and quickly… this is about long sought PEACE in the Middle East.”

Hamas’ response was issued hours after Trump announced that Hamas had until 6 p.m. ET on Sunday, Oct. 5, to accept his Gaza peace proposal or face “all HELL, like no one has ever seen before.”

“We will have PEACE in the Middle East one way or the other,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Catholic Vote

In today’s fast-paced world, the process of writing for publication—whether essays, articles, or books—has evolved. One of the most common questions I receive is whether I “used AI” to write a particular piece. The simple answer is yes, but that requires context. AI is not a replacement for human thought or creativity; it is a tool, much like a research library or an editorial team.

When I write, the ideas and structure are mine. I may compose a first draft, then use AI to edit, clean up language, and refine flow. I can also ask AI to fact-check, suggest structure, or summarize complex research in seconds—a process that would otherwise take hours. After AI’s assistance, I review the content, adjust it, and add my own voice and perspective. The result is a finished essay that is both mine and enhanced by AI’s capabilities.

This process is no different in principle from traditional publishing. Consider the journey of a book or article: an author writes a draft, an editor reviews it, suggests improvements, and another editor ensures the final version is ready for publication. AI effectively acts as a personal editorial team, available instantly, without the need for a staff of humans.

Using AI also addresses challenges that modern search engines present. Today, using Google or similar platforms for research can be frustrating: ads crowd search results, bias in ranking can push one viewpoint over others, and personal data is constantly harvested. AI allows me to conduct comprehensive research without those distractions and compile relevant information efficiently while maintaining privacy.

Some critics argue that AI diminishes originality, but in reality, the tool amplifies human creativity rather than replacing it. The core ideas, reasoning, and final narrative come from the human author. AI does the heavy lifting of organizing, editing, and fact-checking, enabling the author to focus on thought, analysis, and expression—the essence of writing.

In conclusion, AI-assisted writing is not a shortcut—it is an evolution of the writing and editorial process. It mirrors the traditional roles of research assistants and editors, adapted to the digital age. Authors using AI remain the creative force behind their work; the finished product is theirs, enhanced by technology, and prepared for the realities of modern publication and research. AI is not a replacement for thought—it is a tool to bring ideas to their best possible form.

Anonymous

For decades, mid-tier casual dining chains have occupied a comfortable place in American life: a step above fast food, offering consistent menus, a sit-down experience, and a sense of convenience. Yet a closer look at the economics of these franchises reveals a system that inflates prices for consumers while funneling the bulk of profits to the parent corporation. Combined with changing consumer habits, mounting economic pressures, and reliance on consumer credit, this model may be approaching a breaking point.

At first glance, the price of a breakfast plate—eggs, bacon, pancakes—seems far above the cost of raw ingredients. Yet most people don’t see the layers of expense embedded in every menu item. While the franchise buys food in bulk, often securing eggs, flour, and dairy at deeply discounted wholesale prices, those costs represent only a fraction of the total. Labor, utilities, insurance, and equipment maintenance often account for the majority of expenses. Add in commercial rent—frequently paid to the corporate entity that owns the land—and royalties on sales, and the cost of delivering a single meal rises dramatically. In many cases, the corporation profits far more from these structural fees than from food itself, leaving franchise operators to pass the costs to the consumer.

Corporate management may provide centralized services, maintenance, or marketing, but these come with back charges to the franchisee. Every layer of corporate involvement—necessary or not—translates into higher menu prices. Even hedging commodity costs or buying in bulk cannot offset the cumulative effect of rent, labor, royalties, and corporate fees. Consumers, especially those living paycheck to paycheck, end up paying not only for the food but for the corporate infrastructure that surrounds it.

A hidden factor that keeps these chains afloat today is consumer debt. Many customers rely on credit cards or BNPL (Buy Now, Pay Later) programs to pay for meals, temporarily masking the fact that prices may be unaffordable. For debt-fueled spending, the immediate cost feels irrelevant; consumers are effectively borrowing their way to convenience. But this is a fragile foundation. If the credit bubble bursts—or if interest rates rise, limits are reduced, or defaults increase—customers will have far less discretionary spending available. Fewer people dining out will directly hit revenue, exposing how dependent the casual dining model has become on borrowed money.

History offers lessons on the danger of failing to adapt. Sears, once America’s retail giant, ignored the rise of online commerce and lost to Amazon. Kodak, which invented digital photography, clung to film and missed the digital revolution. Detroit automakers, heavily invested in fuel-inefficient vehicles, ceded market share to nimble foreign competitors. These examples illustrate a broader principle: even dominant business models can falter if they fail to evolve with the market.

Casual dining franchises face a similar inflection point. Inflation, higher labor costs, and rising rents are pushing prices beyond what many Americans are willing—or able—to pay. Meanwhile, the convenience of dining out is challenged by the simplicity and affordability of home cooking. Small, owner-operated restaurants offer competitive pricing, freshness, and flexibility that corporate chains struggle to match. As the debt-driven consumer bubble is tested, the fragility of the casual dining model will be exposed. If enough people reduce spending, the chain model—built on corporate overhead, fees, and high prices—may collapse under its own weight.

In the end, high menu prices at mid-tier casual dining restaurants reflect a combination of corporate greed, structural overhead, and reliance on consumer credit. Without fundamental changes—simplifying operations, reducing unnecessary corporate layers, or adapting to the real spending power of consumers—these chains risk irrelevance. Like the retail giants and industrial powerhouses of the past, decades of success offer no guarantee of survival in a rapidly changing economic landscape.

Anonymous

Following Charlie Kirk’s assassination, there have been over 75,000 requests for new Turning Point USA chapters and many conservative commentators have written about his legacy and achievements, but what hasn’t been remarked about enough is, “What was the essence of his appeal to young voters?” asks Victor Davis Hanson on today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words.”

The answer?

Charlie Kirk understood that young people, by their very nature, are rebellious. He wanted to take their natural skepticism and point it toward the establishment, which, today, is composed of the corporate media, higher ed, and baby boomers who never got over the 1960s and ’70s.

“So what was the secret to his success? I think what he did was quite brilliant. He understood that young people are, by nature, rebellious. They always, as—you’re full of energy. They’re full of hormones. They’re full of ideas. They haven’t lived a long time. And they question authority. That’s innate to all of us at that age.“But what he was trying to tell them was: Use that natural inquisitiveness, skepticism, maybe even rebelliousness, at the establishment. But you’re mistaken. The establishment is not conservative. “The establishment, as defined by the network news, PBS, NPR; as defined by higher education, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Berkeley, Stanford; as defined by the corporate boardroom at Budweiser or Target, or Disney; as defined by the popular culture, if you look—I could just direct you to the halftime show at the typical Super Bowl extravaganza. We could go on, but you get the message.”

Viktor Davis Hanson

“There are so many disgusting animals in public life that we have allowed to fraternize with the rest of society to our absolute peril.” Aimee Terese on “X”.

Harvard, apparently, can never learn. It has made itself the poster-child for all the failures of contemporary education, including the racketeering around endowments, government grant grifts, race and gender hustles, and intellectual surrender to ideas that would make medieval astrologasters burst out laughing.

Case in point: the university lately announced the hiring of a Boston-area drag-queen to teach a course in the spring semester of 2026 about the TV show known as Ru Paul’s Drag Race. The show features contestants vying for prizes and crowns based on “Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, and Talent” (C.U.N.T.). Get the picture? Reach into your Jungian psychology tool-bag.

This backwater of the arts was identified some years ago by the literary pop-star Susan Sontag as “camp” derived from the French se camper “to pose in an exaggerated fashion” depicting “unnatural artifice.” Camp is the theatrical cousin of kitsch, which is the celebration of bad taste, with histrionic overtones of exaggerated sentimentality.

Please understand: when you are watching drag-queens, you are not really seeing men posing as women. You are seeing men portraying women as monsters. You might surmise that these are men who labor under “mommy issues.” The giveaway is that they often banter onstage humorously about their male genitalia, and sometimes even attempt sneaky displays of such, which opens that behavior to interesting interpretations.

Harvard’s drag-queen du jour demonstrates all that nicely. Kareem Khubchandani, his legal name, is a professor of theater, dance, and performance studies at Tufts University. He also teaches “Studies in Race, Colonialism, and Diaspora.” As a drag star, he goes by the stage-name LaWhore Vagistan. This is how he describes himself to the news media: “[M]y preferred pronouns are ‘she’ or ‘aunty.’ I chose ‘LaWhore’ because my family traces its origins to Pakistan: Lahore is an important city in Pakistan, and well, I’m a bit of a whore. And Vagistan because I see the subcontinent as one, big, beautiful Vag … istan.”

Of course, his fascination with female genitalia, of seeing a whole nation in that guise, is a bit odd considering that A) he is a homosexual performer who is ostensibly not attracted to female sexual characteristics and lacks experience with them, and B) he is a male of the species who does not possess such organs himself. Therefore, on what basis would he have gained so much knowledge of female genitalia and developed such a powerful obsession around them as to imagine the whole country of his ancestors that way? Possibly, it has something to do with mommy. . . something that made her appear. . . unforgettably monstrous.

We will probably never know the answer to these quandaries, and they are somewhat secondary to the main question of Mr. Khubchandani’s employment in this connection at Harvard where young minds get molded to become the future managerial class of our nation. Other questions do present, though. For instance, did Harvard’s President Alan Garber know about this hire and sign off on it, and how would he say it fits Harvard’s mission? Or Provost John Manning? Or Hopi E. Hoekstra, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences? Or Harvard’s Board of Governors?

All this underscores an important lesson that America has apparently managed to unlearn, something that we once knew quite well: that marginal behavior belongs on the margins, not in the center of our national life. The celebration of vulgarity for its own sake is arguably not the highest aspirational ideal for the best-and-the-brightest of our society, however amusing it might be in their hours of leisure, when people are free to pursue whatever lights their imaginations.

It also raises the question as to why would highly-educated women, say, the female faculty and admins at Harvard, virtually all PhDs, certified geniuses in their fields, go along with such a garish display of farcical disrespect for the female of the species, being officially showcased as part of Harvard’s curriculum? Do they see themselves as monsters who deserve mockery and objurgation? Do they enjoy watching a man enact such degrading psychodrama so as to diminish his manhood altogether? Does it signify some sort of conclusive triumph over “the Patriarchy?” (And how much of a good thing is that?)

Harvard happens to have a Psychology Department, including a PhD program in Clinical Science, Social Psychology, and Cognition, Brain, and Behavior, under chairman Matthew K. Nock, PhD. His official Harvard bio states: “Nock’s research is aimed at advancing the understanding of why people behave in ways that are harmful to themselves, with an emphasis on suicide and other forms of self-harm. . . to better understand how these behaviors develop, how to predict them, and how to prevent their occurrence.” Perhaps President Garber should ask Dr. Nock to audit LaWhore Vagistan’s upcoming course to see, for instance, how it speaks to the epidemic of transgender violence currently plaguing the USA. We need all the insight we can get.

James Howard Kunstler

The Mamdani momentum is taking the country by storm. After his big New York City primary win shocked the Democratic establishment, socialists like Zohran Mamdani are not just gaining popularity, but are actually being recognized as serious candidates in elections across the nation.

One of those key elections is the Minneapolis mayoral race, where Democratic Socialist State Senator Omar Fateh is now just 5 points behind incumbent Democratic mayor Jacob Frey, who is seeking reelection for a third term.

Fateh joins Mehdi to discuss the mayoral race, the racist and Islamophobic attacks he’s received, and how he plans to stand up to Donald Trump.

He explains what MAGA and establishment Democrats fear the most when it comes to candidates like him. “When MAGA extremists attack us, and also, at times, the establishment Democrats, it’s because they’re scared,” he tells Mehdi. “They’re scared of the multiracial working-class coalition that has been rising up… of having a city where ordinary people have real power.”

Fateh also discusses being targeted online by far-right figures like Libs of TikTok and the late Charlie Kirk, attacks which he believes have only been emboldened by Donald Trump and explains how he is ready to defend Minneapolis as Donald Trump targets Democrat-run cities across the country.

We have a federal government telling us that we either have to sacrifice our values or risk losing funding,” he says.

Zeteo Staff