Ever since regime change in Syria last December, the country had not exactly offered safety to its minorities, despite President Ahmed al-Sheraa’s (al-Julani) fine words that he is the head of all Syrians, not just Sunnis.

Druze have been murdered in the town of Suweida, there has been massacre, mutilation and humiliation.

In fact there are suspicions that Al-Julani’s own forces slaughtered the entire staff at Suweida’s hospital along with their patients and carried out extrajudicial executions.

The international community has been conspicuous by its silence: no Jews, no news. The international media have reverted to form, obscuring who are the real aggressors and blaming Israel for de-stabilising Syria. They have deflected from Syrian atrocities against the Druze by decrying Israel’s symbolic bombing of the Ministry of Defence in Damascus.

Only one country has rushed to intervene to save their Druze blood brothers: Israel.

The Druze are an ancient offshoot of Islam but are viewed by Islamists as heretics. Israel is committed to protecting its 150,000-member Druze minority. They serve in the IDF, often with distinction, and in the security services.

But there is a wider significance to Israel’s intervention – the Jewish state has taken on the mantle of champion of Middle Eastern minority rights.

Until the destruction of the Jewish communities of the Arab world, Jews were one of the oldest indigenous minorities in the Middle East, itself a rich tapestry of different tribes, religions and sects. Yet people insist on viewing political rights in the region as belonging exclusively to Arab Muslims: 22 Arab states were created by European colonialists (who drew arbitrary lines on a map). Only Zionism is treated and rejected as a a creature of western colonialism.

Mesmerised by the romance of the Palestinian cause, the West routinely ignores the plight of other minorities. There are five times as many Kurds as Palestinians, but where are the calls for their rights?

While disproportionate attention has been paid to the Balfour Declaration’s call for a homeland for the Jews, it is often forgotten that Kurds, Assyrians and other non-Arab minorities also sought self- determination the wake of World War One. They were betrayed by colonial powers, who broke their promises and surrendered to the demands of the pan-Arab nationalists.

Instead of giving minorities the right to be different the nationalist ethos has invested a predominantly Arab Sunni elite with power, and oppressed Berbers, Assyrians, Baloch and Kurds.

Religious minorities – Copts, Druze, Baha’i’s, Yazidis, Mandaeans – do not aspire to self-determination but do deserve to have their rights protected. The record of Arab regimes here has been abysmal. It’s a safe bet that even if Israel had not existed, Jews, Zoroastrians, Bahais and Copts would continue to have been pushed out of the Middle East.

This is because, to quote the great historian Bernard Lewis:’ in the Muslim world view it is right and proper that power should be wielded by Muslims and Muslims alone. Others may receive tolerance, even the benevolence of the Muslim state, provided they clearly recognise Muslim supremacy.’

Israel stands out as the only sovereign non-Muslim state in the Middle East (Lebanon was carved out of Syria by the French as a safe haven for Maronite Christians, but these are now a dwindling minority in a fragmented state until recently dominated by the Iran-backed Hezbollah.) Without an army, Israel would be as vulnerable to massacre as the Yazidis – who were targeted for rape, massacre and forced conversion by ISIS in Iraq.

This could conceivably have been the fate of Mizrahi Jews, 99 percent of whom have fled the Arab Middle East. In his essay ‘Mizrahi Nation’, the Israeli journalist and author Matti Friedman writes: “The construction of the state of Israel, in which Mizrahi Jews have been partners of numeric equality (if not other forms of equality) for over 66 years, provided the stateless Jews of the Middle East with self-determination in their native region and turned them from an endangered minority into half of a majority.

Indeed, as Friedman puts it, having your own sovereign state and the power to defend it is the only way to survive in the hostile environment that is the Middle East. His words have never been truer.

Lyn Julius

Isn’t it strange how some of the most notorious white supremacist groups — the same ones that idolize Hitler and celebrate the Holocaust — suddenly claim to care about brown “Palestinian” Arabs?

Their selective outrage is telling. The very people who glorify real genocide now pretend to oppose a fake one — using the term “genocide” only when they can aim it at Jews.

Let’s be clear: the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry, which doubles as a propaganda arm, manipulates casualty figures while ensuring civilian suffering by using human shields and obstructing aid. This isn’t about humanitarian concern — it’s about weaponizing lies to demonize Israel.

The hypocrisy is staggering. These extremists don’t care about Arab Muslims. They care about attacking Jews. And they’ve simply found a new banner to march under.

You really can’t make this stuff up.

Watch how these liars pose to care for the “Palestinian” Arabs who are 97% Muslim.

We just completed a massive Deal with Japan, perhaps the largest Deal ever made. Japan will invest, at my direction, $550 Billion Dollars into the United States, which will receive 90% of the Profits.

This Deal will create Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs — There has never been anything like it. Perhaps most importantly, Japan will open their Country to Trade including Cars and Trucks, Rice and certain other Agricultural Products, and other things.

Japan will pay Reciprocal Tariffs to the United States of 15%. This is a very exciting time for the United States of America, and especially for the fact that we will continue to always have a great relationship with the Country of Japan.

Thank you for your attention to this matter!

President Donald J. Trump

We all tell lies at one time or another. Most are little white lies to spare somebody’s feelings, or to get out of a commitment that we wish we had never made. The majority of people feel guilty after telling a lie, probably because they took advantage of somebody who cared enough to believe what they said.

Lies fall into several categories. The first is the lie we tell because we don’t know how to say “no.” We’re asked to do something, and we say “yes” because it’s easy and it feels good at the time. But when the chips are down, we don’t follow through. How many times have you been stood up by a service person, a friend or family member who simply chose not to follow through? They might have said “yes” before, but they never meant it. Did this increase your respect for them?

The second category is a lie told to mislead or cheat. Sadly, the more regard a person has for you, the more likely he or she is to believe you. In most people, the toxic combination of betrayal and deception can lead to a sense of guilt that lingers long after the short-term benefit of the lie has worn off.

Either way, lying can be hazardous to your mental health. As kids, we are duly instructed not to lie, but usually without any explanation other than, “it’s wrong.” But as adults, when lies can so conveniently become woven into the fabric of our daily lives, it’s important to realize that they not only damage our self-esteem, but also bring about a sense of anxiety. Let’s face it: It takes enough energy to keep up with the things that are real, much less keeping track of things that are fictitious!

Honesty isn’t just a blind commitment to doing the right thing. It’s the end result of self-awareness and a clear understanding of what’s going on in your mind. Obviously, a key aspect of mental health is a solid grounding in reality. We tend to think of people as “crazy” when they’re wildly out of touch with facts, logic and reason. What better way to ground yourself in reality than to know the truth and have the courage to act on it? For example, a friend or relative asks you to stay at his house when you visit from out of town, but you’d actually prefer to stay in a hotel. Do you tell him that? Or do you do what you think he wants you to do? What purpose has been served by making your stay less enjoyable? Or, a person writes substantial lies in her resume in order to get a job. She now has to live with the nagging apprehension that someone might discover her deception. The threat of being found out is like an emotional time bomb — maybe it will go off; maybe it won’t.

For people who are self-aware, lying feels foolish and contradictory. They want no part of it. They understand that once they lie to somebody, they’re depending on that person’s ignorance of the truth in order to maintain the lie. Having to rely on the ignorance of others doesn’t sound very healthy to me.

For people who are emotionally repressed, it’s easier in the short run to fudge and fabricate. But in the long run, they feel conflicted. Most people who lie are not con-artists; they’re just psychologically unhealthy. They’re not comfortable in their own skin, and they never will be until they stop trying to make themselves up.

Honesty is both an ethical and a psychological matter. Instead of faking parts of your identity, or telling stories to get out of what you don’t want to do, an honest person looks at the facts and sticks by them. All the platitudes and childhood lessons aside, honesty is truly the best policy. It’s a tribute and a compliment not only to yourself, but to your friends and loved ones as well.

Michael J. Hurd, Life’s a Beach

They say anxiety is a disorder.

Yet we’re simultaneously told that we must care what others think.

“Which others? And why?” Those questions are not permitted, nor considered.

Young people come of age in a society with their psyches firmly fixed in these contradictions. “Don’t be afraid of being who you are. But be sure not to upset anyone. Be all you can be. But make sure you fit in.”

Fit — into what, and why? That question is never considered, nor permitted.

And we wonder why anxiety paralyzes millions, tempting them into addiction, possible depression, even suicide. We have done this to ourselves, and to each other. Because of the way we think.

Michael J. Hurd

The three C’s of life: choices, chances and changes. You must make a choice to take a chance or your life will never change.”

— Zig Zigler.

If you don’t mix this into the equation, the result will be depression and no matter how much $$$ you spend, the psychiatric industry will not fix it.

The problem: People fail to make choices and take chances. Over time, the status quo of their lives becomes less and less satisfying.

This leads to a kind of listlessness or low motivation we call “depression.”

Once sad people get into this state (to any degree), they reach out and say, “Help me!”

But the only solution will be the one they had all along: Make choices, take chances. Don’t like the results of your previous or recent choices? That’s OK. Make new ones. Not sure which ones to make? Try new ones. Experiment.

Of course, once you’re depressed you’re less willing to take chances than ever before.

It’s tough, but the point here isn’t to shame or scold. It’s simply to state the truth.

You don’t help people by shielding them from the truth.

The truth: Your life is in your hands — and your hands alone.

It doesn’t mean you have to be alone. It doesn’t mean you can’t hire or find a person to coach you, give you some guidance or cheer you on.

But at the end of the day, you are the only one with yourself 24/7. You’re the only one who can possibly make new or different choices in your life.

Challenging the faulty thinking that got you here is how a useful confidante can help.

An unhappy life isn’t a disease to be cured by a pill or an external party, as the psychiatric industry tells us. An unhappy life is yours to fix.

Here’s one of the most beautiful quotes ever, by Randy Komisar: “And then there is the most dangerous risk of all — the risk of spending your life not doing what you want on the bet you can buy yourself the freedom to do it later.”

Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Charleston SC). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on X at @MichaelJHurd1, drmichaelhurd on Instagram, @DrHurd on TruthSocial. Dr. Hurd is also now a Newsmax Insider!

Max Tani

Media Editor, Semafor

As a conservative political backlash sweeps across US media, some are reaching for the ultimate prize: Hollywood.

Shifting the liberal tilt of the studios and creative culture that shapes America’s image of itself has long been a goal for the right: The late media entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart popularized the notion that politics is “downstream” from culture, and acolytes from Steve Bannon to Ben Shapiro have sought to inject their politics into the movie business, with limited success.

But conservatives have celebrated a few mainstream hits, like the patriotic Top Gun: Maverick and Taylor Sheridan’s nostalgic, libertarian-inflected Yellowstone. And a longstanding Christian culture industry has backed projects like the 2023 film Sound of Freedom, a dramatization of child trafficking that grossed more than $242 million for Provo’s Angel Studios. The Christian drama The Forge earned $30 million on a $6 million budget last year.

Now a set of prominent figures close to the software firm Palantir are pitching a new project to shake up streaming TV and film with a portfolio ranging from feature films about daring Israeli and American military operations to a three-part treatment of an Ayn Rand tome.

In a pitch deck circulated to investors in recent months, Palantir chief technology officer Shyam Sankar, early Palantir employee Ryan Podolsky, and investor Christian Garrett are raising money for Founders Films, a new production company based in Dallas that aims to push for films with a nationalistic bent and unsubtle political overtones. The company said its projects would adhere to a set of rules: “Say yes to projects about American exceptionalism, name America’s enemies, back artists unconditionally, take risk on novel IP.

“The American Brand is broken. Hollywood is AWOL. Movies have become more ideological, more cautious, and less entertaining. Large segments of American and international viewers are underserved. Production costs have soared and sales are flagging,” the deck, which is labeled confidential, says. Founders aims to be a production studio that would also co-finance projects, distribute films, and engage in brand partnerships.

Podolsky did not respond to requests for comment. A representative for Palantir also did not respond to requests for comment.

The project’s name echoes that of Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, and both Palantir and Garrett have close ties to the investor, a key figure on the new right. A spokesman for Thiel didn’t respond to a request for comment on the project.

But in a post late last year on his Substack, Sankar outlined his view for a return to blockbusters of the 80s and 90s, like Red Dawn, Top Gun, Rocky IV, and The Hunt for Red October. He said the entertainment needed to be unafraid of offending Chinese audiences, and use American cultural power to spread skeptical views of the Chinese government: “Breaking out of our cultural malaise will require the studios to wake up and choose America,” he wrote, invoking the renaissance in American film in the 1970s, when directors including Steven Spielberg “brought back heroes, villains, and romance” and “rekindled the flame of the American Cinematic Universe.”

While Founders’ deck largely avoids political language, the company’s proposed projects celebrate American military action, push for confrontation with China, and elevate heroes of the right from Rand to Elon Musk.

The slate includes 102 Minutes, a feature film about the evacuation of the World Trade Center on 9/11 (“courage is contagious,” the tagline reads). The company also hopes to create a three-part adaptation of Atlas Shrugged, and a film about killing Qasem Soleimani.

Not to be confused with the 2000’s stoner comedy Pineapple Express, the deck pitches Operation: Pineapple Express, a movie about the “botched withdrawal from Afghanistan.” Then there’s The Greatest Game, a “multi-season, global spy thriller that lays bare China’s plans to replace the United States as the dominant global power by showing their operations and sometimes devastating impact from Kenya to the Atacama desert in northern Chile.”

The company brands itself as explicitly pro-American, but many of the projects also celebrate Israel. Founders’ proposed film slate also includes Roaring Lion, a movie about the recent attack against Iran, which depicts Israel as “striving for nuclear non-proliferation and exercising its right of self-defense against a crazed regime intent on destroying it.” The proposed projects also include When the Towers Fall, a film about Israel’s 2024 booby-trapped pager operation against Hezbollah.

While much of the content has a military bent, the company also said it hoped to produce unscripted documentaries about influential figures like Musk, Oculus founder Palmer Luckey, and Admiral Hyman Rickover, who led the development of nuclear-powered submarines.

Founders Films, if it succeeds in its fundraising efforts, would immediately be a major player among conservative media companies like the Daily Wire, which have also gotten into the scripted and theatrical movie and TV business, and have sought to tap into right-leaning audiences while also challenging the cultural dominance of Hollywood.

“It’s great that new players are coming into the space, and I’m almost positive that we will work with them,” said Dallas Sonnier, a former manager for Hollywood talent including Greta Gerwig and whose production company produces for the Daily Wire. His output includes TV shows and films like Am I Racist?, a mockumentary that played in 1,500 theaters and grossed $12 million.

The esteemed Thomas Sowell, easily the most important economist of the last 50 years, turned 95 a couple of weeks ago. He has an extraordinary ability to take complex ideas about economics and culture and distill them down in prose that speaks to everyone from PhDs to those with a GED.

His ability and willingness to address issues from race to economics to history in compellingly readable books are unmatched. Indeed, his Cultures trilogy is one of the most robust weapons one might equip themselves with in any battle against the nonsensical wokeness that plagues America in the early 21st century.

As one would expect from a career spanning over six decades, Dr. Sowell has more than a few quotes that are perfect for our time. My favorite is easily:

“Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as racists.”

Another is:

“One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonized those who produce, subsidized those who refuse to produce, and canonized those who complain.”

As accurate as those quotes are, the following is perhaps the most insightful I’ve ever read:

The esteemed Thomas Sowell, easily the most important economist of the last 50 years, turned 95 a couple of weeks ago. He has an extraordinary ability to take complex ideas about economics and culture and distill them down in prose that speaks to everyone from PhDs to those with a GED.

His ability and willingness to address issues from race to economics to history in compellingly readable books are unmatched. Indeed, his Cultures trilogy is one of the most robust weapons one might equip themselves with in any battle against the nonsensical wokeness that plagues America in the early 21st century.

As one would expect from a career spanning over six decades, Dr. Sowell has more than a few quotes that are perfect for our time. My favorite is easily:


“Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as racists.”

Another is:

“One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonized those who produce, subsidized those who refuse to produce, and canonized those who complain.”

As accurate as those quotes are, the following is perhaps the most insightful I’ve ever read:

I’m talking, of course, about the Russiagate hoax that Barack Obama and his national security team foisted on the American people. CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper essentially manipulated the Intelligence Community Assessment [ICA] such that the impact of a Trump Russia collusion charge was devastating. And they had a bit of help from the beginning.

Essentially, they undermined the credibility of the incoming administration and saddled the country with two years of intrigue, corruption, and uncertainty in the form of an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. What’s more, Paul Ryan, the then-Speaker of the House who basically would have been just as happy with a President Hillary Clinton, would use the distraction to undermine Trump’s No. 1 issue: the border wall. He delayed the fight until after the 2018 midterms, which of course ended up being a bloodbath for the GOP.

Needless to say, Trump’s No. 1 issue was DOA when Congress reconvened.

By the time Mueller reluctantly admitted that there was nothing to the Russiagate hoax — six months after the midterms — the damage had already been done. Some coups take the form of military takeovers, others involve assassinations; this one involved a conspiracy at the highest levels of the Obama administration.

Things are not supposed to work like that. We have elections so the people can decide how they would like the nation to be governed. While there are always many people who are unhappy with the outcome, most Americans accept it because they believe in the system established by our Constitution.

John Adams said of that Constitution: “[It] was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” That is demonstrably true. It’s a piece of paper. Americans accept the outcomes of elections not because there are stormtroopers stationed on every corner ensuring acquiescence, but rather because they believe that, while flawed, our constitutional elections are a relatively honest and fair way to decide our paths forward.

Which brings us back to Sowell’s quote: “One of the common failings among honorable people is a failure to appreciate how thoroughly dishonorable some other people can be, and how dangerous it is to trust them.” What the Obama cabal did to Donald Trump and the country was anything but moral. It was insidious, it was treacherous, and most of all, it was treasonous.

And now that the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has released documents and suggested they show that Barack Obama was behind it all, we’ll get an opportunity to see what the Trump administration is really made of. It’s one thing to tell the American people about the treason of a previous administration, but it’s something else altogether to do something about it. Will it be like the Jeffrey Epstein debacle, where Americans were told the hammer is coming, only to be later told there’s nothing there? Or will this be a ruthless, methodical, and intentional prosecution of the traitors who put the nation through so much?

I would suggest that at a moment in time when public trust in government is near all-time lows, if the Trump administration has any hope of being considered successful, it will take the latter course. For far too long, Americans have watched as elites like Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Barack Obama have not only gotten away with what many see as abject treason, but then they have the temerity to lecture us that “No one is above the law.”

Most Americans agree with that and believe criminals should pay for their deeds. The question is, does Donald Trump? Will he demonstrate to the American people that we are indeed a nation of laws and not men, or will he tell us once again that there’s no there there and that in modern America, the only people who face consequences for their actions are those who stand up to the swamp and the ruling elites?

Vince Coyner, American Thinker

The Democrat indicated to former Fox News host Megyn Kelly that he does not agree with his party on whether biological males should be allowed to compete in women’s sports, and that biological males cannot actually become women.

Potential Democratic presidential contender Rahm Emanuel on Monday admitted in a news interview that a biological male cannot actually become a woman, marking a significant break from what has become the mainstream view in his party.

Emanuel, who previously stated he was “in training” to run for the Oval Office, is a powerful figure in Democratic politics, having served as the ambassador to Japan under the Biden administration, and as White House chief of staff during the Obama administration. He also represented Illinois in the House and was the mayor of Chicago from 2011-2019.

The Democrat indicated to former Fox News host Megyn Kelly that he does not agree with his party on whether biological males should be allowed to compete in women’s sports, and that biological males cannot actually become women.

“Can a man become a woman,” he repeated back to Kelly on her SiriusXM show. “Not– no.”

Kelly praised Emanuel for “telling the truth” and asked why other Democrats are hesitant to do the same.

“Because I’m now going to go into a witness protection plan,” he joked.

The Illinois Democrat also stated that he does not believe minors should be on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, stating people under 18 are too young to make such a decision.

“I think parents have to make that decision themselves,” he said. “I think that is too – a child is too young at 18 to make that decision. It has to be made with a family and that choice. I think before somebody makes a life decision, they have to think twice about that … You have to have some moral development, and character, and judgment and foundation for that.”

Emanuel additionally agreed that biological men should not be in female prisons.

Misty Riveri, Just the News

Speakers warned that without decisive action, Poland’s internal security will continue to deteriorate.

Marches under the slogan ‘Stop Immigration’ took place across Poland on Saturday, July 19th, including in Bialystok, Krakow, Poznan, Warsaw, and Wroclaw.

More and more Poles are demanding the closure of the borders with Belarus, Lithuania, Slovakia, and Ukraine. This relates to both the alleged actions of Minsk weaponising releases of migrants into Polish borders as a form of hybrid warfare, and the wider sense that migration has led to a deteriorating crime and security situation within Poland itself.

One of Saturday’s anti-immigration gatherings heard Confederation (Konfederacja) party leadership figure Krzysztof Bosak declare

Without closing Poland to illegal immigration, without launching a deportation operation, without renouncing political correctness, without equipping the Border Guard and the forces responsible for controlling the legality of residence, and without controlling the labour market, security will gradually deteriorate.

After years of raging against the sovereigntist Law and Justice party (PiS) and its lack of ‘European values’ from within Brussels, Polish PM Donald Tusk now attempts to reassure voters that he is protecting borders, with a representative stating

The government is pursuing a responsible and well-considered migration policy, taking care of the stability and security of citizens.

This is unlikely to convince everyone. Despite some leftist counter-demonstrations, for the wider Polish public there is a strong sense that ‘enough is enough’—echoing sentiments elsewhere in Europe. Partial controls introduced by Poland on its borders with Germany and Lithuania, that came into effect on July 7th, have helped to undermine the Schengen project but have done little to placate citizens, who seem increasingly concerned by their overall security situation.

Graham Barnfield is an assistant news editor for europeanconservative.com.

• Tags: anti-immigration protest, demonstrations, Graham Barnfield, Konfederacja, Poland