There’s generally a strategy to the madness; you just have to wait until it starts to become visible.  The anniversary of October 7, 2023, massacre is right around the corner.

Hamas-led attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023, which killed about 1,200 people and involved mass shootings, hostage‑taking, rapes and horrific assaults on civilian communities.

As noted in the end of this article about the French protests, “student organizations are nevertheless calling for protests to continue, with the movement now looking towards Tuesday’s National Day of Action.”

EUROPE – Around 400 of France’s 3,700 secondary schools were closed on Friday on the orders of police prefects, with many schools switching to online lessons.

Education Minister Edouard Geffray urged parents to intervene, warning that young people were putting themselves at risk.

“Children are in danger on the streets,” he told BFMTV. “Parents must, quite clearly, take action and tell their children not to go [to the blockades].” The protests began over staffing, funding and school conditions and have spread rapidly across the country.

The Interior Ministry said 1,027 secondary schools were affected on Thursday, including 222 that were blockaded. Around 30 university campuses were also blocked.

It said 1,949 people were arrested on Thursday alone, mainly in connection with violence, unlawful gatherings and attacks on people in positions of authority. (read more)

suspect the U.K is only a few days from having a much worse set of crises on their hands.

Posted inBig Stupid Government, Cultural Marxism, European Union, France, Islam, Jihad, Notorious Liars, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, United Kingdom (UK) and Great Britain

Sundance, The Last Refuge

Robert B. Bluey•   September 26, 2026

When Nick Freitas walks down a city street in the opening scene of his new documentary, recounting his days as a Green Beret, most viewers might think he’s somewhere in the Muslim world. I certainly did.

He’s in Britain. And the transformation he documents there, driven by decades of mass Muslim migration and a political class unwilling to demand assimilation, is one Americans ignore at their peril.

Freitas, a former member of the Virginia House of Delegates, joined me on “Midterm Report” to discuss “The Immigration Crisis That Will Destroy the West,” a film he made with The Heritage Foundation and The Blaze. It features Heritage experts Mike Gonzalez, Nile Gardiner, and Lora Ries.

Asked how a nation is demoralized and destabilized, Freitas has a simple answer.

“In the simplest terms, you give it an identity crisis,” he told me. “And I think we’re suffering that in the West in general, and we’re starting to see it become a significant problem in the United States.”

A Clash of Worldviews

Freitas embarked on the project because he cares deeply about his own country’s future. He decided to visit Britain given its shared heritage with the United States.

In the United Kingdom, mass migration from Muslim countries has tested the country’s traditions and reshaped its culture.

“I’m not talking about differences in dress or festivals or food,” Freitas said. “I’m talking about diametrically opposed views on the fundamental components of what builds a high-trust society.”

Those components, he explained, are political, social, theological, and economic. When migrants arrive with “no genuine interest in assimilating,” he warned, the result is “ultimately destructive.”

Nowhere is that clearer than in Britain’s grooming gang scandal, the film’s most heart-wrenching segment. Freitas said the overwhelming majority of the men who organized the abuse were Pakistani. Yet British police were reluctant to pursue them because they feared being called Islamophobic.

“That should just absolutely baffle us,” Freitas said. “But on the other side, we should start to recognize how far America has gone down this path.”

What Americans Can Do

In its promotion of the film, Heritage is blunt about the stakes: What mass Islamic immigration did to Britain could happen here if Americans don’t act now.

Freitas said America can change course, and he believes it starts close to home. His advice: Vote in primaries, where he estimates only 7% to 8% of voters participate. And parents shouldn’t assume their local public school reflects their values, even in a conservative community with good teachers.

“The teachers don’t select the curriculum,” he said.

Instead, Freitas urges parents to teach their kids the real history of the United States, ensuring they pass that inheritance to the next generation. That, he said, is the surest way our country doesn’t follow the Britain’s path.

Virginia’s Choice

As a former Virginia delegate who spent 10 years in the General Assembly, Freitas is closely watching this year’s midterm elections.

Early voting began Sept. 18 and will continue through Election Day on Nov. 3. Virginia voters will decide the fate of three constitutional amendments after they received approval in two consecutive sessions of the General Assembly, as required under state law.

Question 1 would amend Virginia’s constitution to expand abortion access throughout pregnancy and eliminate the need for parental consent. Question 2 would replace the current constitutional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman with language guaranteeing the right of two adults to marry regardless of sex. Question 3 would restore voting rights for felons.

Freitas urged a “no” vote on all three constitutional amendments.

“The Left feels no obligation to be open and honest about what they’re trying to do,” Freitas said.

>>> A RARE MOVE BY A VIRGINIA BISHOP AHEAD OF ELECTION DAY

Freitas warned about the long-term consequences for Virginians if the amendments pass, equating it to what’s already happened in Britain.

“They selectively enforce the law,” he said, warning that Democrats would go after Christian pastors while leaving mosques and imams alone. “That’s what they do all the time.”

He added, “This is a question of whether or not they are eventually going to be able to sue you as a Christian pastor because you don’t want to sanctify a gay marriage.”

The film’s message ultimately comes down to Freitas’ plea to value “the truth over comfort.” Britain didn’t. America still can.

Robert Bluey, Daily Signal

For more than six decades, the Cuban regime has been the leading sponsor of radical leftism and Third Worldism in the United States.

The State Department is exposing the full history of Cuban espionage and subversion in our country.

The American people deserve to know.

ransomnote: After reading the report Rubio linked, CUBA | THE CAPITAL OF 21st CENTURY COMMUNISM (PDF), I realized that the concluding paragraph (see last paragraph indented below), was likely written for people like me who did not realize just how weaponized CUBA has been. As a failed nation, I did not see its profound success in tormenting America in its endless endeavor to destroy us.

By the end of the State Department’s (well-written) report, I had the distinct impression of Cuba as a forwarding operating base – the equivalent of a stationary aircraft carrier – docked near America, protecting, recruiting, supplying and collaborating with every enemy America has had, and will have.

Cuba is home sweet home to foreign intelligence agencies, some with multiple offices in Cuba, conducting cyber attacks, electronic disruption, intelligence collection etc. along with terrorist training and the cultivation of Antifa, No Kings rallies etc., while saturating our government, universities with their ideology. The money, the recruting via ‘tourist visits’ offered to college students. The Democratic Socialists of America are among Cuba’s proudest accomplishments, because they can use it to function as a ‘legitimate’ social effort – no more hiding behind terrorist organizations like the Black Panthers, the Weathermen etc.

Our intelligence agencies say that Cuba’s intel people are top flight, largely because they are ‘true believers’ with some lasting in our government for 30 to 50 years. Lives spent attempting to destroy the United States, while working and drawing a pension from…the United States.

I think CUBA’s success fielding attacks on America explains why few nations find it cost effective to own and operate their own air craft carriers. Why bother? Fly terrorists into CUBA for training, fly them to Africa or the Middle East for additional training, insert them into the US under ‘exchange’ programs and ‘freeing the oppressed.’ Harbor terrorists escaping the US to Cuba’s terrorist ‘haven’. Karen Bass is alumni of the nation’s efforts to rot the US from within, but she’s just one of the countless insurgents, whether armed or ideological, which Cuba is proud to sponsor. 

LAST PARAGRAPH Exerpted from the report:

“To mistake Cuba’s poverty for harmlessness is to misunderstand the threat entirely. Its material weakness was never the measure of its danger. Its power was always ideological, subversive, and parasitic – and it has proven remarkably durable, outlasting the Soviet empire that helped build it and grafting itself onto every new enemy of the United States that has arisen since. Today it serves as the connective tissue of a broader anti-American coalition, a staging ground where the ambitions of Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran converge with the radical movements operating inside our own border

Secretary of State Marco Rubio

The midterm polls suck, and they might be right – if you believe them, we could be headed for anything from a blue tsunami to a blue wave to a blue trickle. But that’s a big if. To avoid that conclusion, you have to believe that the majority of polls, which are undeniably showing most of our key Senate candidates losing, are inaccurate.

Now, this is where it gets tricky, because we want to believe in a massive polling miss. We want to believe that the polls are skewed Dem-ward. We want to believe that there are Republicans out there who aren’t being surveyed by these polls who are going to show up on election day and pull our bacon out of the fire. The power of wanting is potent, and it can blind you. It can make you stupid. It can make you miss the obvious. And that danger exists there. Those polls could be substantially correct, in which case we’re going to have a very bad November 3rd.

And yet…

Yes, I want to believe, but there’s evidence supporting hope. There’s evidence supporting the idea that the polls are so substantially flawed that they do not accurately reflect what’s going to happen. Again, the caveat – this could be delusion. We could be seeing what we want to see. But then, what we’re seeing is there. There is evidence supporting what we want to happen, evidence worth considering.

We’re seeing how polls have been missing big lately. Look at Abdul El-Sayed. He was supposed to win that Michigan primary in a walk. We’re talking five, 10, 15 points, according to the primary polls. And yet he barely squeaked past that squeaky woman he was competing with. We’ve seen lots of other polls that assured us of a Democrat victory. Just ask President Harris about that.

If you’ve been around a while, you know that the polls always favor the Democrats. You almost never see a Democrat surprise us by exceeding his polling against a Republican. You just don’t. So, there’s that. And of course, there’s an interest in driving down Republican enthusiasm by telling people they can’t win.

Then there’s the gut vibe. Don’t completely disregard that. In Texas, you must believe the Texans are going to support a blasphemous, anti-meat, anti-gun, anti-white, woke weirdo with a thing for trans kids. Does that sound like Texas to you? It sure doesn’t sound like Texas to me, and I’m in Texas. I’ve talked to a lot of Texan conservatives. Not one thinks this guy is going to win. Now, they agree it could theoretically happen, but they don’t think it’s going to.

Ken Paxton has won three times in statewide races, and he’s done a lot of great conservative things. Are Texans really going to choose a bizarre homunculus to spend six years in Washington, D.C., voting like Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) in their name? It just doesn’t fit. It’s weird. That’s not saying it couldn’t happen – there are lots of communists here along with other weirdos, losers, and mutations who would be thrilled to have this geebo as a Lone Star senator. But it just doesn’t feel like something that’s going to happen.

Moreover, we’ve been told a lot of conservatives are going to sit this out. The bots on X are certainly pushing that coordinated message, as the semi-coherent comments on my Monday column about quitters demonstrate. Yes, there are probably some Republicans who are going to sit out this midterm, but I haven’t met any of them personally. Maybe you have. I just don’t think there are a lot of them, especially in light of how appalling the Democrats are.

It doesn’t make sense, at least to people who aren’t idiots who blame everything on Epstein conspiracies and the Jews and blah blah blah, to be mad at Trump and the Republicans for not being conservative enough and showing them what-for by allowing the election of communists. As risky as it is, I’m not going all-in on the assumption that people are that stupid.

No, you can’t take all that to the bank. No, it’s not scientific, but are the polls scientific? Well, the pollsters apply statistical analysis to creating them – at least sometimes. It’s very clear that a significant number of the polls, if not all of them, to some extent have an endgame in mind. Some of them are obviously ops. But others are effectively ops. Remember, you don’t just count up numbers with polls.

You don’t call X number of people and do the breakdown of who said what. You have to weight it by who you think will show up at the ballot box. So, what does the voter profile look like for this election? Does it look like 2006? 2012? 2018? 2020? 2022? 2024? Who knows? The science of polling involves statistics, regression, and all sorts of math that makes your head hurt. But there’s an art too. That art manifests as an educated guess.

And yes, if you notice, before we discussed polling science, I talked about what goes into what are effectively educated guesses. Polls are not free from considering outside factors. Polls require that even an honest pollster make his best guess about what the breakdown of voters is going to look like.

Maybe all the Democrats are going to come out and none of the Republicans. Maybe vice versa. Maybe they’re going to come out even – as Steve Kornacki pointed out just the other day, party enthusiasm is now even at 71 percent. Well, if everybody’s going to show up, that kind of changes things, doesn’t it?

Now here’s the big question, and it’s a tricky one because it once again requires us to believe something we want to believe. When presented with something that you want to believe, you should be extra suspicious. Confirmation bias is real. Even the best of us is not immune to it. So, let’s proceed with caution. We’ve got Democrats out there paying tens of millions of dollars to fool us; there’s no need for us to do it to ourselves for free.

Here’s the question – are pollsters getting a good sample of actual Republicans? In other words, are Republicans either not being called or refusing to participate in polls to such an extent that they are being undercounted? Pollsters will tell you that it’s very hard to poll Republicans. Why? We don’t trust pollsters. We don’t trust the regime media. We don’t trust anybody. But is that significant enough to substantially change the bad polling we’ve seen? I guess that depends on how many Republicans refuse to play with the pollsters.

Now, to measure that, or at least give ourselves some idea of it, I conducted a poll on X, which is about as scientific as voodoo. Still, here it is:

“This is a question for conservative Republicans who intend to vote… Do you respond to polls?”

Results from 2,479 respondents:

Never: 81%

Sometimes (1%-50%): 13%

Usually (51%-99%): 3%

Always: 3%

Well, that result is pretty substantial. If my informal poll is even remotely accurate, the vast majority of the time, Republicans won’t participate in formal polling. And of course, one thing that isn’t captured by this poll is what kind of Republicans respond sometimes, usually, or always. This is important because, by showing up, they’re doing a lot of the work of measuring Republican intentions. Are they substantially different from Republicans who never respond? They might well be since the responders might feel more comfortable dealing with the establishment and are therefore probably less hardcore.

But is this significant? Well, it’s obviously not a scientific survey. It is an X poll, so it’s going to be answered by the kind of people who follow me. These are majority conservative folks with a large America First contingent, though the comments include a lot of idiotic bots who thought they were clever by pointing out the irony of people answering an X poll by a friendly commentator regarding answering formal institutional polls by entities we largely consider to be enemies, as if those two things are identical.

The comments that do matter include the many people who say they’ve never been polled at all. Some of us get outreach all the time – I’m one of the “Never” folks, and I get hit up every couple of days by text or call. So, this exercise seems to indicate that, among relatively conservative folks, there is a huge resistance to participating in formal surveys. Does this result translate to “normal” conservatives, the kind who are never on X? I don’t know, but I suspect it does.

So, where do we stand? Well, science alone won’t give us the answer. We’ve got to use the art part, the intuition based on experience and other evidence that helps us evaluate the scenario. What does it all tell us?

I know what it tells me. I don’t think the polls are accurate. I think there is a significant undercount of conservatives because conservatives refuse to participate in the polling process, and because many of the other factors lead me to believe that Republicans are not going to skip voting or vote for the Democrat enemy. Neither makes sense to me, though I realize I may be completely wrong. But my gut, for what it’s worth, feels like the Democrats have peaked.

This is when Republicans start coming home. By the time the election rolls around, they will be ready to roll out and vote red. Is this all just wishful thinking? You bet it is. I certainly wish my hypothesis is true. And right now, I think it is.

But don’t rely on that. Get everybody you know and get out there and vote Republican up and down the ballot. We need to nuke the socialists from orbit; it’s the only way to be sure.

Kurt Schlichter, Townhall

Let’s check in on our “devout Catholic” former president, and see how well he’s Catholic-ing today.

Last week at a gala in Delaware, Biden spoke (mumbled) for 20 minutes, telling the abortion fanatics that this is “no time to give up” in the fight to kill as many babies in the womb as possible.

Biden delivered remarks at Planned Parenthood of Delaware’s 22nd Annual Chocolate & Champagne Gala in Claymont, Delaware, on Thursday. Before the former president spoke, former first lady Jill Biden presented her husband with the Sonia Schorr Sloan Service Award.

According to a Facebook post by Delaware Planned Parenthood earlier this month, the Sonia Schorr Sloan Service Award ‘honors a legacy of service’ and is ‘given annually to someone whose work reflects the same dedication’ as the ‘longtime supporter and community leader.’

Biden went on to blast the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v Wade, while encouraging the abortionists to keep their chins up and keep on slaughtering children.

Biden described the abortion debate as the latest example of what he referred to as ‘a constant push and pull between peril and possibility’ as well as a ‘battle’ that is ‘never truly over.’ He concluded his remarks with a message to ‘all of you who love our country, to all of us who are disheartened by the present state of the nation.’

‘There’s no time to give up. It’s time to get up,’ he said as the crowd erupted in applause.

Thank God that this man isn’t still president.

Harris Bigby, Not the Bee

Probably the biggest reason for President Trump losing support? Iran.

A big part of Trump’s coalition were people who didn’t want any prolonged wars, wars which served the interests of the “military industrial establishment” (politicians and their cronies), but not the cause of American liberty and sovereignty.

They equated Trump with, “No war.” But clearly that’s not what Trump was about. Trump was about pro-America. True: It didn’t serve America’s interests, back in 2003, to invade Iraq and then deal with the years long mess created by that war.

But Iran is different. Iran is openly and proudly the # 1 sponsor of world terrorism. Thanks in large measure to the money and moral support afforded by the Obama and Biden regimes, Iran has moved closer and closer to having nuclear weapons capability. In fact, based on information now released by Trump’s administration, Iran may have already been to that point.

You can’t say “no war” as an out-of-context absolute. When someone is already at war with you, literally coming to kill you (or, perhaps just as bad, engage in nuclear blackmail with you), then you have to strike them before it gets to the fatal point. It’s not about Israel. It’s about American safety. America benefits from Israeli sovereignty because, compared to the alternatives, Israel is a bastion of freedom and individual rights in that part of the world. And we need that part of the world for oil, which keeps the lights on in Western civilization. If we didn’t have a Communist-inspired environmentalist fascist movement impairing oil and energy production in America, it might be a different story; we might be able to ignore the middle East much more. But Iran would still be a threat, because Iran exports terrorism to America.

You can’t assume, “Trump stands against endless wars” and then consider Trump to have betrayed you when he strikes out against Iran. You might debate the timing, strategy and manner of that strike — but you cannot oppose the strike itself, not in principle. If “America First” means anything, it means saving us from nuclear blackmailers and bloodthirsty totalitarians like the Iranian regime. Oil and Israel are important factors; but America First is really what this was all about. It makes me terribly sad to think that radical leftist totalitarians (some of whom call for “capitalist blood” in the streets) will take over Congress because some people don’t believe in war, even when it’s clearly self-defense and survival.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

A reader emails: “Dear Dr. Hurd, my brother is 32. He doesn’t work. He, his wife and daughter live with our mother. They scrape by on disability, food stamps and our Mom’s generosity. I believe that his disrespect and mooching off our mother and late grandmother actually hastened our grandmother’s death.

“About a year ago he was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. Since then I wonder if he’s legit or faking to collect disability. My feelings notwithstanding, do you think it’s possible to fake a diagnosis of that kind?”

Dear Reader, you wonder if your brother is mentally ill or just faking it. The answer is that it really doesn’t matter. You can acknowledge his problems if you so desire, but you should still hold him responsible for allowing his life get to this point.

Some health professionals will assert that your brother’s problems are entirely physical – that a “chemical imbalance” impacts his choices and his actions. But if that were true, then pills would easily cure all that ails us emotionally. No such miracle drug exists.

In trying to understand your brother, ask yourself, “What mistakes in his thinking make him act in self-defeating ways?” That’s how we hold people responsible. If his attitude is, “I can’t help it. I’m not responsible and everybody else owes me a living,” then you should indeed take issue with the way he thinks. If he says, “I know I think in irrational ways. I want to change so I can live a better life,” then he deserves credit for at least attempting to take responsibility for himself.

One takes responsibility by taking charge of his or her mind. That’s the goal of cognitive psychotherapy. If someone isn’t willing to take charge, then they have, in effect, given up. Some give up passively (“I’m beyond help”) and others in a more angry way (“I’m helpless and you had better take care of me!”). It sounds like your brother falls into the latter category. Because he’s overly emotional, he believes that there’s something wrong with him that he can’t be expected to fix. No wonder he’s angry and bitter. His erroneous conclusions led to his choice to mooch off your mother and be generally unpleasant.

Your mother and late grandmother helped facilitate the problem by buying into the same line of thinking. They viewed it as a false choice: Either he’s lying, or he’s physically ill. The truth is that we are the product of more than just brain chemistry. We’re the product of the way we view life, people and events. Anyone who’s even minimally intelligent can evaluate his or her own thinking. Sometimes it’s hard to do that alone. The psychiatrist who prescribed the medicine should have told your brother that he needed cognitive psychotherapy to figure out how to improve his thinking.

Going only on what you told me, I doubt that he’s faking. More likely he’s sad, angry and bitter. He has it easy by mooching off family and then attacking them verbally. He likely believes he has no choice but to be that way. Nobody ever challenged him to rise to a higher standard. This is his biggest problem, although he’ll never see it that way.

Of course, not every person labeled with a mental disorder is like your brother. There are as many different types of disorder labels as there are those without them. However, people with emotional issues often suffer from significant self-esteem problems and will tend to underestimate themselves. Health professionals, significant others and family who encourage this helplessness are doing them an injustice.

If he’s a victim of anything, he’s a victim of that insidious social trend. He has the power to liberate himself from that. If you want to help him and hold him responsible, that’s the way to do it. Tell your mother too.

Michael J. Hurd, Life’s a Beach

In what is clearly an existential war, will the French government fight back and, if it doesn’t, will the French people? Or, more importantly, can the French people?

Andrea Widburg | October 3, 2026

France’s urban areas have extremely large Muslim populations. I mean, extremely large. Now, those same populations are rampaging through the streets, attacking people, and setting buildings on fire. This is an existential problem for France, and it’s unclear whether the government will stop it and, if it doesn’t, whether the French people (mostly disarmed, of course) will step up to save themselves.

Let me take this step by step. First, how big is the urban Muslim population across France? Because France is an aggressively secular nation, it does not officially collect religious data, so the numbers are estimates and can be a little confusing, as they encompass both urban centers and the suburbs ringing those centers. Still, the data are useful. I asked ChatGPT to assemble the available data, which I present here. Please follow this link to see the caveats it attached to this data, and this link to see its source material.

Keeping those numbers in your head, especially for Marseille, consider this historically-based analysis that Michael Haltman compiled based on data in Peter Hammond’s Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat:

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia — Muslim 40%

Chad — Muslim 53.1%

Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

Of course, at 60%, it’s all over for any belief system other than Islam.

Keeping those numbers in your head, especially for Marseille, consider this historically-based analysis that Michael Haltman compiled based on data in Peter Hammond’s Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat:

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia — Muslim 40%

Chad — Muslim 53.1%

Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

Of course, at 60%, it’s all over for any belief system other than Islam.

Now, combine that data with reports of riots across France. This AP report gives a little background:

Thousands of arrests, hundreds of injuries, schools set on fire in France. When the summer vacation ended and the new term started just a month ago, few could have imagined that the academic year would so quickly descend into nationwide student protests — and turmoil.

In a country beset by crises — both foreign and domestic — the eruption and rapid spread of protests by unhappy teenage high schoolers caught France off guard.

Friday brought more of the scenes that have dominated streets this week: vandalism, garbage fires, teens confronting and taunting police. Officers charging, firing tear gas and making more arrests. By early afternoon, the education ministry reported protests impacting 560 schools.

Lest readers get upset, the AP hastens to assure them that (a) street protests are a common feature in France (that’s true) and (b) that the high school students have a level of professionalism, right down to masks and goggles to protect against tear gas.

Ostensibly, the protests are about bad schools:

High schoolers are expressing broad grievances — mainly, schools are under-resourced, with dilapidated facilities and insufficient staff. Still, spending on education is one of the costliest items in the state budget that Macron’s government proposed this week, with 65.5 billion euros ($74 billion) set aside for schools in the next year. That’s more than the proposed 63.4 billion euros for defense.

Students also complain that school days, which often start at 8 a.m., are too exhausting and the university entrance system too complex. Some university students also joined the protests this week.

Yeah, maybe. But footage on the ground suggests that the protesters aren’t students who want nicer buildings and better teachers. Instead, a lot of the footage suggests that the protesters are Muslim immigrants flexing their muscles:

It’s ironic, really, that the French national anthem is La Marseillaise, named after the city in France with the largest percentage of Muslims and the most aggressive Palestinian…er, Muslim…er, student rioting.

As the AP report quoted above notes, the French police have been busy arresting the rioters. But I doubt the efficacy of that approach. I also doubt many, if any, will have serious jail time or any jail time at all. The left is allied with Islam, and the left fears Islam. That means Islam is in the driver’s seat.

Given an anticipated weak French response, will the French population act? Despite France’s periodically dismal war record since Napoleon’s downfall (despite some victories, it’s failed enough to be a standing joke), the French have been a warlike people, and darn good at it, too. Their generals have been awful, whether at Agincourt in 1415 or during WWI and WWII, but the French citizens used to be brave.

Are they still brave? And does bravery matter when you’ve voluntarily disarmed yourself in an orgy of virtue signaling, as all good citizens across Europe have done?

Currently, France has fewer than 12.7 million civilian-held firearms, compared to the 400 million or so in the U.S. Even adjusting for America’s larger population, that works out to ~120.5 firearms per 100 people in America, and only ~19.6 per hundred in France. Are they going to throw champagne bottles and frogs’ legs at rampaging “second- and third-generation migrants” who have a living culture of violence, rather than just a faded history of warfare?

Unrecognized at the time, Europe basically died in WWII. America kept it on life support for a long time, and it went through the motions of living. But once Europe embraced leftism and, through that, unlimited Islamic immigration, it began dismantling the very values that created it.

What’s happening now is tragic to watch, but it feels terribly inevitable. The European train is already halfway across a collapsing bridge stretched high over a bottomless abyss.

American Thinker

How the British people gave up their own country, their future, and the narrative of their past.

Lars Møller | October 3, 2026

With intellectual clarity and courage, Soviet-born British podcaster Konstantin Kisin has challenged the common claim that Britain has always experienced high-volume immigration and is inherently a “nation of immigrants.” He notes that the post-1066 Norman conquest added only 5,000–10,000 individuals from mainland Europe to the ruling class—a number that pales, both numerically and proportionally, next to modern net migration figures running in the hundreds of thousands annually.

The unprecedented transformation of Britain’s demographic composition has long ceased to be a matter of distant projection or abstract statistical modelling. In fact, it has become the decisive structural fact of contemporary British politics. White British people are forecast to fall below half the population by 2063, according to modelling that incorporates fertility differentials, age structures, and sustained net migration.

In the major cities and among the younger cohorts, the transition is already far advanced; primary-school classrooms are expected to register a White British minority between 2030 and 2035. These numbers are not neutral background. On the contrary, they determine the composition of the electorate, the selection of candidates, and, ultimately, the character of the House of Commons itself.

After the July 2024 general election, the Commons reached its highest recorded level of ethnic diversity. Approximately ninety members—14% of the House—came from minority ethnic backgrounds, a 24% increase on the previous parliament. Of those ninety, sixty-six sat on the Labour benches, constituting 16% of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Representation of this kind has risen steadily since the first modern Black and Asian MPs entered the House in 1987, accelerating after 2010 as demographic change and party recruitment strategies reinforced one another. Labour’s dominance among minority MPs is not accidental; it reflects the party’s deeper organizational penetration of the communities that have grown most rapidly through postwar and recent immigration.

Immigrant and minority Labour members do not speak with a single voice. Some align with the pragmatic strand of party policy that emphasizes controlled, contribution-based migration and the need to retain public confidence in the system. Others draw explicitly on personal or familial migration histories to defend expansive family-reunion rights, refugee pathways, and the claim that continued inflows enrich public services and the economy.

When leadership figures have floated tighter rules—such as lengthening the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain—resistance has surfaced from left-wing and minority-background MPs who warn that such measures damage community cohesion or punish legal migrants. The practical consequence is institutional friction. Any bill designed to achieve a decisive and sustained reduction in net migration, or to reverse the cultural consequences of earlier settlement patterns, must navigate a parliamentary party whose demographic profile and experiential commitments make robust restriction politically costly.

Muslim representation follows a parallel trajectory. Twenty-five Muslim MPs now sit in the Commons, the large majority within Labour, others among Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and independents. None belong to an explicitly Islamist party; the formal structures of British parliamentary politics remain mainstream. Yet the presence of this bloc, based in constituencies with high concentrations of Muslim voters, introduces further constraints. Independent Muslim candidates in 2024 campaigned heavily on local community concerns and on foreign-policy questions, notably Gaza. The electoral incentives are clear: positions that appear to privilege national cultural continuity over transnational religious solidarity risk alienating decisive shares of the electorate in key seats.

Violence has already entered the calculus. Sir David Amess was murdered in October 2021 by a British national inspired by Islamic State propaganda while conducting a constituency surgery. An earlier attempt on the life of Stephen Timms in 2010 was likewise motivated by Islamist ideology. These episodes do not establish a general rule of parliamentary behavior, yet they illustrate the asymmetric costs that attach to open advocacy of cultural preservation or immigration restriction. Self-censorship and risk-aversion become rational responses long before formal majorities shift.

The cumulative effect is a progressive foreclosure of legislative possibility. Effective curbs on further immigration—measures capable of altering the long-term trajectory rather than merely managing its symptoms—require majorities willing to prioritize the historic nation’s demographic and cultural integrity over competing claims of diversity, anti-racism, and global equity. As the share of MPs whose personal or constituency interests lie elsewhere expands, that willingness contracts. The House of Commons is no longer a body that can be assumed to treat the preservation of British cultural continuity as a primary, non-negotiable good. It has become a body in which such preservation must compete, often unsuccessfully, with the distributive and symbolic demands of newer population groups.

Philosophically, the process reveals the vulnerability of liberal democratic institutions to demographic transformation. Classical liberalism presupposed a relatively homogeneous demos capable of sustaining the mutual recognition and shared historical memory that make majority rule legitimate. Once the demos itself is reconstituted by continuous large-scale settlement from culturally distant regions, the presupposition dissolves. Sovereignty remains formally intact; the capacity to exercise it in defense of the historic people evaporates. Edmund Burke’s insistence on society as a partnership across generations is inverted: the living generation, by acquiescing in policies that dilute its own continuity, extinguishes the inheritance it was obliged to transmit.

The narrative of the past is rewritten in parallel. School curricula, public commemorations, and institutional memory increasingly frame British history through the lens of empire, slavery, and racial hierarchy, while the achievements of industrial civilization, parliamentary government, and individual liberty are relativized or pathologized. This is not an organic evolution of historical understanding; it is the ideological counterpart of demographic change. A population that no longer constitutes a secure majority loses the cultural authority to insist upon its own story as the central thread of national identity. The past becomes contested territory rather than common inheritance.

The destructive mechanisms are self-reinforcing. Higher fertility among certain immigrant groups, continued net migration, and the electoral weight of already-settled communities lock in further diversification. Political parties respond by adjusting candidate selection and policy platforms to the new electorate. The resulting parliament then finds restriction both electorally unattractive and ideologically suspect. Attempts to reverse course invariably confront accusations of “racism” that carry genuine professional and social penalties. The Overton window shifts; what was once mainstream defense of national continuity is reclassified as “extremism.” 

Britain’s experience is not unique, yet it is particularly advanced among Western European nations. The combination of postwar imperial legacies, successive waves of unskilled labor migration from Africa and Asia, family-reunion policies, and asylum commitments has produced a denser and more rapid transformation than occurred in countries that maintained stricter controls. The result is a polity in which the historic people have, through a series of incremental decisions and failures of political will, surrendered the demographic foundations of their own continuity. The country remains geographically the same; its people and the narrative that once defined them do not.

The matter is settled not by formal declaration but by the arithmetic of births, deaths, and arrivals, and by the parliamentary majorities those numbers generate. Legislation capable of restoring the demographic and cultural conditions of earlier Britain is no longer a realistic prospect within the existing constitutional order. 

The British people have not been conquered by external force. Instead, they have consented, through successive governments and electoral choices, to the progressive displacement of their own majority status and the attenuation of the cultural confidence that once accompanied it. The future belongs to the numbers. The past is already being rewritten to accommodate them.

American Thinker

The right has its own unwritten rules of political correctness. There are forbidden words, and while they might not be met with censorship, they do elicit eye rolls. One proscribed term is “misogyny.” It also happens to be the most accurate description of the right’s mood and trajectory these days.

The right’s response to this trend has been to downplay it, or even deny that it is happening at all. But ignoring it will not make it go away. Political discourse often operates like a ratchet: the intensity around a given topic is constantly turned up, but the mechanism is not designed to dial back.

It might have been easier to wave away accusations of misogyny a few years ago. Now, I can just point to a viral post on X by Christian Heiens, who worked for former Republican Virginia delegate Nick Freitas, declaring that the time has come to end women’s suffrage. “The experiment has been run, and the results have been a catastrophe,” Heiens said.

“The sensible and prudent thing is to admit that our 20th century ancestors were wrong, and our ancestors over the preceding 5,000 years were right all along.”

The backdrop for that call to give women the Bronze Age treatment is the Lindsay Clancy case, which has become the latest fodder for a movement looking to break the clock of sexual equality.

In 2023, Clancy killed her three young children and then attempted suicide by slashing her neck and wrists before jumping from a second-story window. She survived, paralyzed from the waist down. That she killed her children is undisputed. Clancy’s defense is that her actions were the result of a lost battle with mental health issues, including bipolar disorder and postpartum psychosis. Unlike postpartum depression, which is different and more common, postpartum psychosis is considered a psychiatric emergency. It can involve hallucinations, mood swings, and delusions. All things Clancy reported experiencing before tragedy struck.

A judge declared a mistrial on September 4 following seven days of deadlocked jury deliberations. By then, though, it had already become a magnet for what Rolling Stone described as the “true-crime-obsessed network of internet commentary.” Some of Clancy’s female supporters went so far as to claim that her then husband was the real culprit – a conspiracy theory vigorously rejected by Kevin Reddington, Clancy’s own defense attorney. “My response to those people is, at some point, maybe you get a chance to listen to that 911 tape, and then you look me in the eye and tell me that you think Patrick Clancy did this,” Reddington told Fox News. “What this guy has been through is horrific.”

The right went even further than true-crime-obsessed misandrists and used the case to paint a picture of women as a whole in the most sordid colors conceivable. Clancy became “proof” that all women everywhere are evil, simply looking for any excuse to destroy their families, then lie about it to evade accountability.

Over at the Daily Wire, Matt Walsh used the case to claim that postpartum depression is mostly fake. Women are just being “selfish,” he said. The stuff about hormones causing havoc after birth? Overblown. The real problem is the rotten core of modern women.

Walsh’s wife, Alissa Walsh, seems to disagree. In a 2024 post, she comforted a struggling friend: “Postpartum is not easy at all.” “We blame hormones but… should we?” Joshua Lisec, an author who frequently collaborates with high-profile MAGA celebrities, wrote on X. In another post, he claimed that “upwards of 70-80% of marriages are one-sided abuse and violence of every kind, women against their husbands,” and that this is a conservative estimate.

Others used the Clancy case to make even more shocking assertions. “If women can be excused for killing their kids due to Postpartum depression then men should be excused from raping women if they have High Testosterone,” wrote self-described “paleocon” and “Christian” Andrew Wilson. “Modern women have become incompetent, immoral, and driven heavily by hatred of accountability,” he added in another post, citing the Clancy as evidence.

You might be wondering if people like Wilson and Walsh understand the difference between postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis. But the truth is that it doesn’t matter to them. They don’t care that men account for 91 percent of all perpetrators of familicide for the same reason that they didn’t care about another recent tragedy involving a father who strangled his five-year-old son and was found not guilty by reason of insanity – the same defense Clancy is making. The reasoning seems to be that if it does not contribute to the cause of vilifying women, then it may as well not be real.

Some conservative women have begun to take note of where this is all going. Kimberly Begg is a lawyer and the president of the Clare Booth Luce Center for Conservative Women. She’s also the mother of five children and a devout Catholic. Speaking to the New York Times, Begg expressed concerns over “conservatives pushing for a return to rigid gender norms, with women firmly planted at home.” Begg rejects that framework. She believes women can have both a family and a career, which is pretty typical anyway.

What Begg is saying is not controversial, or at least it shouldn’t be. Working moms had a labor force participation rate of 71.7 percent in 2021, according to USAFacts. Indeed, women accounted for virtually all US job growth in August. That’s not surprising, given that they tend to gravitate more than men toward some of the only reliably growing sectors, such as public education and healthcare.

On the same day the story about her ran, Brian Sauvé, a pastor and founder of a Christian publishing house, encouraged his flock on X to put women like Beggs in her place. “Laugh at the girl boss,” he wrote. “Make her feel low-status. Call her cringe.”

Sauvé is part of a constellation of right-wing religious figures who want women taken down a peg in society. Among the most notable of these figures is Doug Wilson, a pastor who believes women should not be able to vote. Wilson has powerful allies, like Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who belongs to a congregation in the evangelical fundamentalist network of churches co-founded by Wilson.

One of Begg’s sons told her that his male high school classmates have “openly questioned whether women should be able to vote.” Several of her young female interns shared similar stories. One recalled hearing a classmate quote webcam pimp-turned-MAGA celebrity Andrew Tate saying, “So I guess women just want to be raped.” Another shared that, upon expressing interest in law school, a male colleague told her, “I don’t know if women should be lawyers.”

Though Begg is aware of the problem on the right, she seems to view it as a nascent thing that hasn’t quite arrived in full. But it is already here. In August, a reader of my Substack told me about how the misogynistic views absorbed by her husband, through his contact with online spaces, contributed to the collapse of their marriage. This woman, I’ll call her Jane, described herself as a lifelong conservative, raised in a religious household by two smart, caring parents. Her husband was initially a fairly conventional, fiscally-minded, and business-oriented conservative. Gradually, then suddenly, that changed as he immersed himself in right-wing spaces online. Eventually, he began to challenge and provoke Jane, spurred on by whatever he had been consuming.

“He would pick a fight with me, say something that was so clearly not his independent idea,” she said. “Sure enough, I would find out later that he had read ‘red pill’ right-wing rage-bait that stated husband versus wife was necessarily a zero-sum game.

“He said I had tricked him into marrying me for children,” Jane said. “I did marry him for children – isn’t that the whole point?” Jane noted that he had been struggling with himself as an individual, and that it seemed to make him vulnerable to pernicious ideas.

Their marriage crumbled. She emerged late in the Trump era, divorced, without children, and starting over. To make things worse, she said her parents fell under the same influence as her husband after stewing in the same psychic milieu for too long.

“From their interactions with me lately, and what they share with me on Twitter, it’s clear that some part of their brains have steeped in the general anti-woman discourse in right-wing online spaces,” she said. It’s unclear how or even if this genie goes back in the bottle. Ideologically, much of the movement has been infected by concepts from “incel” subculture.

Now, even married men on the right talk about women in a way that had once only been associated with the terminally online and involuntarily celibate. Part of the reason for this pervasiveness is that the rationale behind misogyny can be used to bolster some of the right’s political interests that have, on the face of it, nothing to do with gender.

Women are cast as the carriers of empathy, which is pathologized by the right and presented as a kind of social contagion. There is some evidence that women indeed register more emotional responsivity than men, meaning that they’re better able to recognize the thoughts and feelings of others and take perspectives outside their own.

Women have also historically played key roles in a range of social justice efforts, from suffrage to the civil rights movement – all things a not-insignificant part of the right wants to roll back. This bears out even across the daily news cycle.

A Gallup survey in June on approval for the US strikes in Iran found that women were far less supportive than men. Just 28 percent of women said they approved. They are also less likely to support the war than men in general. Similarly, polling from YouGov and the Economist earlier this year found that more Americans support than oppose abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, with more women overall than men being in favor. Even on AI safety, women are more likely to express skepticism about the benefits and concern about the risks. From the perspective of the hard right, it makes sense to try to diminish the influence of women in the movement.

Even if someone wanted to halt this trend, it’s hard to imagine how it could happen. The right-wing attention economy places a premium on outrage. There’s just no reason for it to dial any of this down. You might be wondering whether that is wise from an electoral standpoint. Politics, after all, is about adding, not subtracting supporters – though, not according to Matt Walsh.

When warned by conservative women that the rhetoric he was mainstreaming would alienate members of the Republican coalition, Walsh simply balked in a three-post thread. “Tired of this nonsense. Don’t care. Go cry somewhere,” he said, adding that anyone who would walk away from the movement due to the misogyny of its leading voices would be a “a retarded, morally debased egomaniac.”

His responses swiftly garnered tens of thousands of likes and half a million impressions. The ratchet turns again. That’s what it’s designed to do.

Pedro Gonzalez, The Spectator