ALBAWABA- Unconfirmed reports circulating on social media and in several regional media outlets claim that Ahmad Vahidi, commander-in-chief of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), was killed in recent Israeli airstrikes targeting sites in or around Tehran.
On Sunday afternoon, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) carried out an airstrike allegedly on a Hezbollah command centre in the Dahiyeh district of Beirut, following earlier rocket fire launched into northern Israel by Hezbollah.
In response, Iran declared that Israel had “crossed all red lines” in Lebanon and launched multiple waves of ballistic missile strikes targeting Israeli territory late on Sunday, June 7 and continuing into Monday morning. Air-raid sirens sounded across northern, central, and southern Israel, including the Tel Aviv area, forcing millions of residents to seek shelter.
Within hours of the Iranian barrage, Israeli forces launched a large-scale counteroffensive. Dozens of Israeli warplanes struck 12 military and strategic sites across central and western Iran. Targets reportedly included radar installations, truck-mounted missile launchers, and a major petrochemical facility in Mahshahr.
Following the Israeli strikes, Iran fired additional missile salvos toward Israel before its military command announced a temporary pause in operations, while warning of more severe retaliation if Israeli strikes in Lebanon continue. As of publication, neither Iranian authorities nor the IRGC have confirmed the reports. Israeli officials have also not commented on the claim.
Vahidi, a brigadier general and prominent hardline figure within Iran’s security establishment, assumed command of the IRGC in March 2026 following the deaths of senior commanders, including Hossein Salami and Mohammad Pakpour, during the early stages of the ongoing Iran-Israel conflict.
Before becoming IRGC chief, Vahidi served in several senior positions, including deputy commander of the IRGC, interior minister, and commander of the Quds Force during the 1990s. He was also the subject of an Interpol notice linked to the 1994 AMIA bombing in Argentina. Widely regarded as a close ally of Iran’s leadership, Vahidi played a significant role in shaping the country’s regional military strategy and missile program.
Israeli operations in recent weeks have reportedly focused on degrading Iran’s remaining missile capabilities and targeting senior military and security figures in Tehran and other strategic locations.
Vahidi’s death, if confirmed, marks another major setback for Iran’s military command structure and could further weaken the IRGC’s leadership at a critical stage of the conflict. However, given the absence of official confirmation and the prevalence of misinformation during wartime, analysts caution against concluding until credible evidence emerges.
Iranian officials have repeatedly warned that any assassination of senior military leaders would be met with retaliation, while Israel has maintained that it will continue striking what it describes as threats to its national security.
The situation remains fluid, with regional observers closely monitoring for official statements from Tehran and further developments on the battlefield.
Roseanne Milburn, 61, of Winnipeg, had a routine procedure turn into an amputation — not because the surgery failed, but because Canada’s government-run system couldn’t find her a bed.
A surgeon at Winnipeg’s Health Sciences Centre removed dead tissue from her knee, then sent her to Concordia Hospital with the plan to bring her back that same day so a specialist could stitch the wound (CBC News). She was never brought back.
There was no bed at HSC. So she sat at Concordia with an 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬, waiting for the system to make room.
As the video narrator put it: “𝘌𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘥𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘥𝘢. 𝘕𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘶𝘣𝘢, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘔𝘢𝘥𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘳, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘳-𝘧𝘭𝘶𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘥-𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘕𝘰, 𝘯𝘰, 𝘯𝘰, 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘥𝘢.” By the time a bed opened, the wound had rotted past saving. The doctors told her the leg couldn’t be salvaged. On a Friday in December, Roseanne Milburn lost her 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐠 — over a missing hospital bed. This is not a freak accident. It is the predictable output of a system that rations care by making people wait.
In 2025, the median Canadian waited 𝟐𝟖.𝟔 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 from a GP referral to actual treatment (Fraser Institute). For orthopedic surgery — the exact category Milburn needed — the median wait is 𝟒𝟖.𝟔 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬. Nearly a full year. By design.
That is 222 percent longer than the 9.3-week wait Canadians faced in 1993 (Fraser Institute). The system isn’t getting better. It’s getting slower — and the waiting list itself becomes the rationing mechanism. Defenders call it “𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦”. It is not free. Roseanne Milburn paid for it. She paid with her leg. Every politician selling “𝘔𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘈𝘭𝘭” is selling this — the bed that never opens, the specialist who never comes, the wound that turns black while a bureaucrat shuffles a list.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the universe had just…always been here?
Don’t get me wrong. I love the Big Bang. It has lots of drama, good action, a dying inflation field flooding the young cosmos with light and particles, and the grand central mystery of the singularity sitting right there at the start of everything. It has it all. And it is all so deeply, profoundly annoying. How exactly did it go down? What is inflation, really? Why did it switch off precisely when it did? And the singularity, well, anchoring your entire model of creation on a giant question mark is not what I would call a compelling opening move.
There is a different kind of comfort in imagining a universe that simply always was. Even if it repeats. Even if it runs in cycles. Maybe this particular version of the cosmos isn’t doing so great, and you know what, that’s fine, because we’ll get another shot. Sure, the next one might not come around for another 14 trillion years, but the point is that it comes around at all. And the past stretches back the same way, generation after generation of stars lighting up and burning out in some endless grand wheel. That is a genuinely comforting thought, if you let it be.
The Big Bang offers none of it. The Big Bang is relentlessly, almost rudely linear. This is it. This is the one and only chance the universe gets. It was born, it has already sailed past its glory days, and from here on out there is nothing but expansion into the deepening cold of the vacuum. No encore. No second act. Just a long, slow fade to black.
This linearity is a big part of what made the Big Bang so aggravating to so many people when it first arrived. Plenty of traditions, ancient and modern, religious and philosophical, build their cosmic history out of cycles. Even Christianity has a sort of cycle tucked into it: the flood and Noah and humanity getting handed a clean slate (yes, most people drowned in that story, but it’s the thought that counts), and the promise that however miserable your life is right now, a reset is coming. The Big Bang has nothing like that on offer. Just a beginning, a middle, and a cold, quiet end.
So it is no surprise that in the century or so since it was first scribbled down, people have kept trying to bend our cosmology back into a circle. The first person to really go for it was Richard Tolman, working all the way back in the 1930s, right as the standard Big Bang picture was itself just swimming into focus.
Tolman pictured a universe of big bangs followed by big crunches followed by more big bangs (nobody was using those names yet, but it’s the same idea). The cosmos expands, slows, stalls, and then falls back in on itself, squeezing down to something unimaginably small and dense before rebounding into a fresh expansion. Over and over. Forever. No first one, no last one, just the eternal heartbeat of a universe that breathes in and breathes out.
It’s a beautiful picture. And it falls apart almost immediately, for a reason that has haunted every cyclic model proposed since: entropy.
Entropy, the physicist’s bookkeeping for disorder, only ever climbs. It does not reset on its own. So each cycle is forced to inherit all the accumulated mess of the cycle before it. Every bounce starts dirtier than the last, which means every cycle runs a little bigger and a little longer than its predecessor. Now run that movie backward. The cycles get shorter. And smaller. And tidier. Until, inevitably, you arrive at a first one. A beginning. The exact thing the whole scheme was invented to avoid. Tolman worked through the math himself and saw it plainly. His eternal universe still needed a ground floor, some starting point to set the initial entropy, and the moment you concede that, you have quietly let the singularity back in through the side door.
There is a second problem, too. In a crunch, all of that entropy gets crushed back down into a tiny volume with absolutely nowhere to go. You can’t hide it. You can’t dump it. It just piles up, cycle after cycle, until the books no longer balance.
So for decades it really did look like the Big Bang would have the last laugh. A one-and-done cosmos. Beginning, middle, end, lights out. And every clever attempt to make it cyclic kept smuggling a beginning back in through some unlocked window.
And then, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, something genuinely new walked into the room and scrambled the entire board. A theory so strange that some of the very people who built it would later argue it isn’t even a theory at all.
One of my most memorable experiences as a college student was an insult I received from my professor. I had missed an exam due to work, and I asked him if I could make it up on another day. He reluctantly agreed. But when the day for the make-up arrived, I forgot about it. I needed an excuse: if I got a zero, I’d fail the course. I should have told him the truth and asked for mercy. But I lied. I told him that I had to work again. To my surprise, he looked at me and said, “If your work interferes with college, then you shouldn’t be in college.”
I was offended (which is ridiculous, since I had lied). His remark struck me as “classist” and “exclusionary”—words I wouldn’t have used at the time. How much students are required to work in college depends on their family income. Should people be excluded from higher education because they can’t afford to study full-time? What an elitist!
The thing was that I didn’t have to work much in college. My parents made sacrifices to pay for my tuition, room, and board. They didn’t give me any discretionary money, so I had to work some. But about ten hours a week at the library was enough to keep the drinks flowing and a pack of cigarettes in my pocket. I was a budding scholar! A student of promise!
In truth, my anger at Dr. Johnson’s quip was a way to ignore the humiliation I felt. Humiliation for lying, yes. But more for the assertion that I shouldn’t be in college. Me? I was a budding scholar! A student of promise!
“I’ll show him,” I thought.
His rebuke played a small role in transforming me into a very serious student. Ten years later, I had a tenure-track job as a professor. My run-in with Dr. Johnson happened in 1999. And the intervening time has vindicated his position.I have resisted teaching online courses.
Since the explosion of online education in the wake of the pandemic, I have resisted teaching online courses. Even at the peak of Covid hysteria in 2020, I insisted on teaching face-to-face. I thought that many students took online courses because they assumed they would be easier. These assumptions put pressure on professors: one must choose between lowering standards to satisfy student expectations or insisting on as much rigor as the digital medium allows (thereby risking negative evaluations from frustrated students who felt their online course was “too hard”).
Scheduling constraints have occasionally forced me to teach online. Sometimes, these have been successful courses. But it’s always the case that those courses would have been better if we had been in the classroom together. The prerequisites for a good online class are low enrollment and strong students. Often, though, it is the weaker students who choose online classes. They assume virtual courses will be easier: they don’t want a challenge. Other students choose to “attend” online because they have many competing responsibilities. They have jobs, children to look after, ailing fathers, and appearances in divorce court. For them, school is an afterthought —the time they devote to it is whatever time is left after all the important obligations are satisfied.
If you’re a serious student, it ought to be a priority.
These are the students who remind me of Dr. Johnson’s insight. His point was that school shouldn’t be an afterthought: if you’re a serious student, it ought to be a priority. And if it isn’t a priority (or if you’re not a serious student), then why do it?
This semester, scheduling forced me to teach the Freshman English course online. We met two days a week on Zoom. The first-year composition course is a critical one. It aims to equip students to effectively manage the writing demands of college—demands for which many are ill-prepared. Such a course probably shouldn’t be offered online. The students who need it the most often arrive with the expectation that the “left over” time will be sufficient for the class. This jeopardizes their prospects for success in the course—and in college at large.
As this semester progressed, I imagined Dr. Johnson rolling in his grave. My class started at 11:30 am. Some students were routinely arriving as late as 12:15 pm—halfway through the session. They had things to do, after all: flat tires, job interviews, moms who needed help moving. At the start of the course, most of the students had their cameras off. Our university has a policy that requires students in online courses to have their cameras on. I tried for weeks to get everyone to comply. It’s harder to teach a sea of black squares. Is anyone even there?
I contacted the leadership in my department to see what I should do about students who refuse to turn their cameras on. The answer was “nothing.” After all, some of them might be embarrassed for people to see the interior of their house. Allow them their dignity. I ignored this advice and told the class that I’d begin imposing penalties on their participation grades if their cameras were off.Some students were driving during class.
Most of the cameras finally came on, and I’m glad Dr. Johnson wasn’t there to see it. Some students had clearly just awakened—close to noon. Some students were literally still in bed. Some had posted a photograph of themselves as they sat in front of their computers to make it appear that their cameras were on and that they were present.
Some students were driving during class. One was in a classroom serving as a substitute teacher. Others were clearly conversing with people off-camera. Courteously, they had their microphones turned off. Some participants were dealing with small children. When I (repeatedly) asked an individual with his camera pointed at the ceiling to answer a question about the class material to make sure she was paying attention, I got no response. She wasn’t in earshot of the computer. One student who missed half of the semester (and handed in none of the assignments) showed up in Week 9 and was surprised when I informed her that she would fail the class. When I asked what had kept her away from the course for two months, she explained that her dog had surgery.
Remember, this is a writing course. On some days, I expect students to write during class. How does one write while driving an automobile? How can one compose while being intermittently interrupted at her desk by the children she substitute teaches? One student informed me that he wasn’t able to write because he was using his phone to attend class—long-form composition was impossible. Why would you use a phone to “attend” a class?
Questions continued to dart across my mind. Why would you use a phone to “attend” a class? Why would you sign up for a class that starts at 11:30 if you have “things to do” that keep you from logging on until 11:45 every session? Why would you enroll in a course that meets every Tuesday and Thursday if you can’t attend on Thursdays because of work demands? Why would you think substitute teaching can be done while participating in an online course? Why does the school you are working at allow it? Why is the federal government loaning (and in many cases, granting) students money for this?
The answers to these questions don’t matter. The class was an afterthought. That’s sad, but doubly so, since it means that education as a whole is an afterthought. It’s just something to fill the “in-between” time. Some students seemed mystified that I expected any learning to occur at all.
For so many American students, “college” is just another consumer item. The time they spend in class is a service. I am the “server.” They’ve paid for the class. My job, like any waiter, is to ensure customer satisfaction. If the patron of a restaurant orders a filet mignon, it’s his prerogative to watch the Yankees game while he eats it. And if the chef implores him to turn off the game and really enjoy the steak, it follows that the guest will see this as an imposition. Nevertheless, if the game is turned off, the patron still gets the enjoyment of eating the steak. But what happens when the waiter asks him to do something he doesn’t enjoy— like washing his dishes? That’d be an outrage. School can’t be reduced to an exercise in customer service.
This is why school can’t be reduced to an exercise in customer service: a serious education requires students to do many things they don’t want to do. Adding insult to injury, it’s not enough just to do those things: students are expected to do them well. In short, education is a job. Trying to maintain academic standards in this environment creates a lot of dissatisfied customers. The customer isn’t always right, but he always thinks he is. This transactional mindset now dominates our colleges and universities.
This was the “future” we chose for education when we forced all schooling online in 2020. The resulting decline in student performance is well documented, but the damage done to the vocation of education is less noticed. What was lost is what Dr. Johnson wanted to preserve: students for whom the pursuit of education is a spiritual commitment. He wanted (and deserved) students who would put learning first because they saw it as an end in itself. He didn’t want students who were in it for a diploma, for an increase in pay, for this or that job, or for something to occupy their extra time. Simply put, he wanted students in the true sense of the word.
It took almost three decades, but man…he showed me.
Adam Ellwanger is a full professor who studies rhetoric, writing, and politics at the University of Houston-Downtown.
Has Kathy Hochul, the Governor of New York, finally caught up with Aldous Huxley? We’ll find out very soon. A bill passed by the New York House and Senate just made it to the governor’s desk. She has ten days to sign it into law. The bill would require proceedings in state family court, child custody cases, and other domestic concerns scrap the words “mother” with the phrase “gestating parent” and “father” with “non-gestating parent.”
This little piece of linguistic insanity is a sop to the pathetic coven of woke sexual exotics who place biology high up on their list of impermissible intrusions into their narcissistic claims of unfettered autonomy. The whole machinery of reproduction, with its tiresome “binaries” and static gender roles, is something they regard with a mixture of resentment and horror.
Huxley predicted some such rebellion in his novel Brave New World. That book might be second-rate fiction—its characters wooden, its narrative overly didactic— but it has turned out to have been first-rate prognostication. Although published nearly a century ago, in 1932, it touches everywhere on twenty-first-century anxieties. Perhaps the aspect of Huxley’s dystopian—what to call it: fable? prophecy? admonition?—that is most frequently adduced is its vision of a society that has perfected what we have come to call genetic engineering.
Among other things, it is a world in which reproduction has been entirely handed over to the experts. The word “parents” no longer describes a loving moral commitment but only an attenuated biological datum. Babies are not born but designed according to exacting specifications and “decanted” at sanitary depots like The Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre with which the book opens. As with all efforts to picture future technology, Huxley’s description of the equipment and procedures employed at the hatchery seems almost charmingly antiquated, like a space ship imagined by Jules Verne.
But Huxley’s portrait of the human toll of human ingenuity is very up-to-date. Until very recently, had not—not quite, not yet—caught up with the situation he describes. We did not—not quite, not yet— inhabit a world in which “mother” and “father” were blasphemous terms from which people have been conditioned to recoil in visceral revulsion.
Are we there yet? Governor Hochul has not indicated whether she will sign this preposterous, reality-denying bill into law. Clearly, she is trying read the tea leaves and calculate the possible political costs of doing so. A spokesman said that “The Governor believes mothers are mothers and fathers are fathers, and no legislation changes that.” It is nice to see that the governor is possessed of a lively appreciation for tautology. Nevertheless, she is nervous. What if someone accuses here of being deficient in progressive woke sentiment? The aide went on—do you catch a hint of anxiety?—to note that the bill “appears to address technical legal issues related to surrogacy and parentage.” Do you suppose that is adequate cover for the rank insanity of calling mothers “gestating persons”? If a mother is a mother regardless of legislation, why not call a mother by her proper name?
To do so, the aide went on the suggest, might be to “deliberately mislead New Yorkers for political gain.” It might also be to utter the frank and unadorned truth. But George Orwell, Huxley’s great fellow-laborer in the vineyard of dystopian prognostication, well understood that if you want to construct a tyranny, language is one one of the first things you should endeavor to subvert because by subverting language you also subvert thought and the pipelines to reality that language lays down.
Stepping back, it is clear that the assault on the word “mother” and “father” are part—if perhaps a partly unconscious part—of a larger to undermine the traditional family. Tearing down that institution is high up on any Marxist’s to-do list. Old Karl declared the abolition of the family a conditio sine qua non for the establishment of his Communist paradise. His heirs have been energetic accomplices in bringing that piece of destruction to fruition. It is not, I think, fortuitous—a Marxist would say “it is no accident”—that even as Governor Hochul agonizes over the question of whether abolishing the words “mother” and “father” would be politically expedient for her staying in power, the New York City Council hosted a performance by transexuals at City Hall to celebrate “Pride Month.”
Calling the woman who gave birth to your “mother” may soon be verboten. Cheering as sexually exotic freaks prance, twerk, and gyrate at an official city government colloquy is not just OK, it is something we must celebrate. “O brave new world, that has such people in’t.”
President Donald Trump’s top counterterrorism adviser confirmed that U.S. and Nigerian forces killed 199 suspected terrorists and seized massive new evidence about ISIS extremists during a recent secret mission deep in Africa.
Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Senior Director for Counterterrorism at the National Security Council, dropped the details during an appearance on the “Just the News, No Noise” show, declaring the operation “the most successful counterterrorism operation since September 11.”
“This is a historic moment, because that operation in Nigeria … that one operation led to the killing of 199 enemies,” Gorka stated. “That is the most successful counterterrorism operation since September 11. That’s the enormity of what the president’s new counterterrorism strategy is doing for Americans to keep us all safe.”
As The Gateway Pundit has previously reported, this latest success builds directly on the highly successful joint U.S.-Nigerian raid in May 2026 that eliminated Abu-Bilal al-Minuki — the second-in-command of ISIS globally — along with several of his top lieutenants in the Lake Chad Basin.
Trump personally approved sending American troops into Nigeria last month to take out the high-value ISIS target, and the mission was executed flawlessly.
Gorka revealed that approximately 1,031 jihadists have now been killed under President Trump’s second term alone — a staggering body count that shows the president’s “peace through strength” doctrine is producing real results against radical Islamic terrorism.
Just The News reported:
Gorka noted the Christmas Day airstrikes the United States launched at ISIS camps in Nigeria last year, which the president claimed at the time had saved “tens, hundreds of thousands” of lives. The strikes were in retaliation for ISIS purportedly killing Christians in Nigeria.
“He sent a message to those jihadis. ‘I’m not here to do regime change, I’m not here to fix other countries, but if you wantonly go after Christians because they’re Christians, we will come down on you like the hammers of hell,’” Gorka said. “So, whether it’s Christmas Day or whether it’s the biggest CT operation ever since September the 11th … President Trump is back in the business of counterterrorism.”
Gorka said the successes of the recent counterterrorism strikes were because of continual collaboration between the National Security Council, the War Department and the State Department.
The director also noted that the Trump administration has targeted all kinds of ISIS leaders, not just the masterminds.
“It’s also the person who uses social media to spread that ideology of jihad,” he said. “So these individuals we’re going after, for example, this number two in ISIS, aren’t just, you know, nuts and bolts planners or plotters, these are people who are trying to spread that message of ‘it’s important to kill Christians or Jews or apostates wherever you find them.’”
The police force involved in the death of Henry Nowak sought to falsely cast the British teenager as the aggressor in the incident that led to his killing before seeking to intervene to lecture the public about “disinformation”, a report from the Times of London has claimed.
The Hampshire police force has come under heavy criticism for the response of its officers during the murder of 18-year-old student Henry Nowak on December of last year by 23-year-old Vickrum Digwa with a traditional Sikh knife. Bodycam footage released earlier this week showed an officer handcuffing the teen as he pleaded that he could not breathe and that he had been stabbed. In response, an officer was heard saying, “I don’t think you have, mate”, as Nowak lost consciousness.
In the trial that concluded last week, the Southampton Crown Court heard that the police had uncritically believed the false narrative promulgated by the Digwa family that Nowak had been racially abusive, a claim that was thoroughly debunked.
However, according to The Times of London, despite having evidence that Vikrum Digwa was apparently a serial liar, the police force had initially sought to cast Nowak as the aggressor in the incident, releasing a statement implying that he had started the fight and assaulted Digwa and his brother. This was later dropped by the force after pushback from the Nowak family, the paper of record reported.
Nevertheless, the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary also reportedly sought to publicly intervene to warn the public about supposed “misinformation” about the case during the trial, a rare intervention from a police force.
While there are strict reporting restrictions in Britain during many criminal cases, international commentators, including X owner Elon Musk, had publicly discussed the killing of Nowak, apparently prompting the police force to attempt to make the rare move to make a statement mid-trial.
A spokeswoman for the Constabulary told the Times: “Following the opening of the trial and the media reporting that followed, a significant amount of mis- and disinformation was circulating online. This included requests for information to be shared that had not been fully examined as part of the murder trial.
“The intention of the statement was to remind the public that there were ongoing legal proceedings and that the law is clear that nothing could be published which could prejudice the trial.”
Ultimately, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) shot down the idea of the force making a public statement, over concerns that it would damage the “integrity” of the case.
“The CPS highlighted to the police that protecting the integrity of the ongoing trial was essential, and of the risks of referring to any aspect of the evidence before it had been heard by the court and the case had been summed up by the judge to the jury,” the prosecution service said. “However, it was made clear that whether a statement was released was ultimately a police operational decision.”
It comes as the political establishment in London is seeking to use the case to push for more censorship powers to combat so-called misinformation.
Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said in the wake of the riots in Southampton following the release of bodycam footage of Nowak’s death that she was “very concerned” about social media amplifying false narratives during times of unrest.
“I definitely think, particularly during moments of crisis and disorder and when public safety is important, we need to look at what more we can do,” she said per The Guardian.
She cited a report from the science, innovation and technology committee of the House of Commons, which found that “misleading and hateful messaging proliferated rapidly online, amplified by the recommendation algorithms of social media companies” during the aftermath of the Southport mass stabbing, which left three young girls dead at a Taylor Swift dance party in 2024.
While supposed misinformation was blamed for the riots that ensued, the initial government narrative that the killer was merely a teenager from Wales proved to be lacking. It was later revealed that the killer, Axel Rudakubana, had immigrated to the country from Rwanda and that he had engaged with Islamist terror material before the mass stabbing.
Regardless, Kendal said the government is “looking at not only boosting trusted sources of information, which I think is extremely important and there’s probably more we could do there. But also, you know, enabling people to reset their algorithms.”
Manifestos are, by definition, bold statements of personal belief.
The only ones that get attention these days, though, are the ones written by horrible people trying to justify evil acts, drawing way more attention than they deserve — the San Diego mosque shooters, the Nashville trans Christian school shooter, the killer of the healthcare CEO, two of the losers who tried to assassinate President Trump, the Unabomber, and Karl Marx spring to mind.
But the Founding Fathers liked manifestos, too, so please indulge me in that spirit and tradition. Instead of evil, I seek what’s good.
Consider the following to be my officialmanifesto:
*Today’s Democrats are dead set on destroying the United States and therefore must be stopped … and held accountable. This should be obvious, but apparently isn’t to somewhat more than half the electorate … or perhaps significantly less if cheating is as rampant in our recent elections as I fervently believe to be the case.
*I despise bullies of any sort. Always have. Today’s biggest bullies are “progressive” Democrats as well as governments in general. The bigger the government the greater the bullying. The corollary is: the more pro-big government a politician is, the bigger the bully he or she is likely to be. I am singularly and inextricably drawn to fight these tyrannical behemoths … even if there is no real chance of prevailing.
*Today’s Republicans, save for a relatively few MAGA types, are utterly uninterested in stopping Democrats … or holding them accountable. For anything. Some may be daft. Some may be pathological liars. Some may be closet Democrats. Most are likely bought and paid for … and /or threatened.
Democrats literally foster and celebrate sloth, degeneracy, crime, abortion, and other evils … and far too many Republicans are kinda okay with that. (See above.) I am not. Feel free to call me intolerant, unwelcoming, Islamophobic, and anti-crime. Our standards have not just slipped, but collapsed. To everyone’s detriment. Don’t think so? Compare air travel today to that of the 1950s and 1960s. Or even the 1980s and 1990s. In days of yore, stewardesses were attractive and attentive. Passengers were generally well-dressed, many men in suits and ties, many women in dresses. There were no pajamas, no butt cracks showing, no support animals, no loud swearing, etc., etc. Respect, manners, and dignity were valued and therefore folks felt more comfortable, not less. People felt safer because some behaviors were not tolerated, let alone celebrated.
*Intelligent people typically realize how little they know, dumb folks often think they know everything. That is a universal truism. I don’t know what I could add to that assertion.
*Islam is utterly, inarguably, diametrically opposed to — and incompatible with — a free democratic republic. Period. End of story. Full stop. (See also Sharia law.)
*All cultures aren’t the same. Or even nearly so. Some are clearly better, more advanced, more just. As Ben Shapiro might say, facts don’t care about one’s feelings.
*It is one thing to welcome folks from nations that share your values and work ethic, who only want a chance to succeed, and whose most cherished wish is to become American citizens, with all the obligations that entails. It is quite another to usher in low-IQ and highly aggressive folks from nations that have no history of liberty or just government — of the people with the rule of law and social capital — who simply want to come to the U.S. to take advantage of its ridiculously generous social programs. This is a recipe for societal disaster and must be stopped.
*Tragically, the vast majority of public schools — and the teachers’ unions that effectively control them — are utterly uninterested in facts, the truth, and unbiased instruction. Quite the opposite. For all their espoused openness, tolerance, and inclusion, they are the least tolerant people on planet Earth. They are all about indoctrination … and worse. If it doesn’t fit their narrative and advance their power it doesn’t get mentioned, let alone taught. Public schools, particularly those in “higher education,” are the most destructive entities in our society today. Deliberately so. Leftists don’t build. Most are incapable of doing so. They destroy. And a great many revel in that destruction.
*Speaking of destructive entities, you can never disdain the mainstream media enough. All the words recently written about this fall short. The legacy media is the Enemy of the People because it gaslights them, lies to them, mocks them, belittles them and hides the important things from them. Today’s “press” does the opposite of what a free press was intended to do. It is a figurative cancer infecting America … and the West in general. Most of today’s “journalists” are faux people. Like many in Hollywood, there is no there there. They are controlled by a few large corporations and possessed by an insane hatred of the truth, decency, honesty, and America.
*Words matter. Eloquent ones arranged properly can be powerful. Some can spur action. Some can change minds. Some can even move others to tears. Myself included. But they aren’t, and can never be, violence. Conversely, violence for violence’s sake can never be “free speech.” Burning down a business or shooting up a synagogue is never comparable to Shakespeare’s “Othello” or the Declaration of Independence. We used to know this in our marrow. Schoolchildren used to mockingly (but accurately) state, “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me.” In that sense, children of the ’50s, ’60s, and ’70s were wiser than many adults today.
*Isaiah 5:20 states: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” Yet that is precisely what is happening today. And the elites — and many of their white, liberal, ignorant, self-hating sycophants — continue to mock Christianity and cheer on the devil. Madness.
So, there you have it. My manifesto. Make of it what you will.
Democrats excel at several tactics, among them: cheating in elections and projection. One can be certain that whatever Democrats are accusing Normal Americans of doing or intending to do, they’re already doing or are planning to do. A particularly common bit of Democrat projection these days is the assertion that political violence is a Republican tactic. Mostly peaceful but fiery Democrats are merely helpless bystanders and victims.
We’ve seen plentiful evidence of this sort of projection in the Minneapolis anti-ICE protests, and most recently in the New Jersey anti-ICE protests. We’ve seen it in the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the three attempted assassinations—there have likely been more of which we’re not aware—of President Trump. We saw it in the disruption of worship services in St. Paul. We see it in the lunatic rhetoric of Democrat “it” boy, Hasan Piker, justifying all manner of violence, including the murder of insurance CEO Brian Thompson by Luigi Mangione (allegedly). Piker justifies that murder, as well as shoplifting and looting, by claiming “social murder.” Anyone doing anything Democrats don’t like, such as making legal profits, may be justifiably killed, and become an object of female Democrat lust.
In the meantime, Normal Americans—largely but not exclusively Republican—go about their lives. They don’t have the time or inclination for protests, and they know very well that breaking the law for any reason will surely put them in prison. They adhere to Christian morality, so they’re not going to engage in political, or any other kind of violence.
At PJ Media, Aaron Hanscom reports Franklin Carmargo of Prager U interviewed denizens of Los Angeles about political violence. The results are as unsurprising as they are disturbing:
The college students he interviewed sounded like so many Western officials do after an Islamist terrorist attack, when they dismiss the ideology and blame it on mental illness. One young man said: “It’s like they’re just crazy people, and that’s the thing that unites these people who try to kill people. It’s not left or right. It’s just crazy.”
Another student said that he’s currently seeing more violence on the right. When asked by Camargo to name some examples, however, he fell silent. A young woman, after hearing the list of recent incidents attributed to leftist political violence, was asked whether she could identify comparable examples from the right. She at least managed an answer: “Not really.”
This interview was particularly chilling:
Another student said that he’s currently seeing more violencee on the right. When asked by Camargo to name some examples, however, he fell silent. A young woman, after hearing the list of recent incidents attributed to leftist political violence, was asked whether she could identify comparable examples from the right. She at least managed an answer: “Not really.”
This interview was particularly chilling:
Camargo then moved to a pro-communism rally in downtown Los Angeles. He first interviewed a man of senior citizen age and wearing a Che Guevara shirt. When asked by Camargo if there’s too much political violence, he chillingly answered: “Perhaps not enough.”
A Che T-shirt. Must have been one of those violent Republicans.
Camargo then mentioned his shirt and asked if he knows Che was a murderer. His answer sounded like something Luis Mangione groupies might say when justifying the assassination of Brian Thompson: “No, Che Guevara was a revolutionary who attacked the forces of the ruling classes.” He proceeded to claim that Guevara “did not execute a lot of people.” The truth, as told by Mary Grabar in a 2011 PJ Media article, is quite different: “Che’s delight was in shooting 240 defenseless victims, some as young as 15. Political prisoners say the real number is much higher. Che also delighted in having people and their children rounded up off the street and forced to watch executions.”
Projection. This is classic:
As would the next man interviewed by Camargo — also of senior citizen age — who wore a box on his head marked with pro-Palestine, pro-Cuba, and pro-Maduro messages. He offered his opinion on political violence: “I don’t think it’s coming from the left. I think it is something embedded in the society at the right.”
But this must have been cherry-picked editing, right? Not so much. This was downtown Los Angeles. OK, one is likely to find a preponderance of this kind of non-thinking in LA, and in much of California, but the point is one need not work very hard to find this kind of projection and communist/anarchist thinking in any Blue state, and certainly in portions of Red states.
There’s no justification for violence, not unless in lawful self-defense. Republican men, reviled by Democrats as toxic, know one of the essentials of manhood is the ability to use violence when necessary while always keeping it otherwise under tight control. Political violence is particularly unjustified because it violates the social contract and strikes at the rule of law. It pushes us ever closer to civil war and the dissolution of Western Civilization. Who, trying to raise a family and pay their mortgage, wants that?
People wearing Che t-shirts and boxes on their heads, apparently.
Become a subscriber and get our weekly Friday newsletter with unique content from our editors. These essays alone are worth the cost of the subscription.
Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer, and high school and college English teacher. He is a published author and blogger. His home blog isStately McDaniel Manor.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth urged European leaders on Saturday to remain vigilant against the threat of what he described as “dangerous ideologies” coming to the continent, invoking the lessons of D-Day to warn about modern-day immigration.
“In the years since these beaches, much of the West, in some places, in some quarters, and in some capitals grew comfortable, we forgot that freedom is not free,” Hegseth said during remarks at Normandy American Cemetery in Colleville-sur-Mer, France.
The Pentagon secretary was in France to commemorate the 82nd anniversary of the Allied invasion of Normandy during WWII, which ultimately enabled the U.S. and its allies to liberate western Europe from Nazi Germany.
“Sadly, today different European beaches are stormed by different dangerous ideologies,” Hegseth said, adding that “boats and men” were arriving on the shores of Spain, Italy, Greece and Bulgaria.
“When will European capitals do something about that invasion, or is it too late? I pray not, and I believe not,” he continued.
His tone echoed the Trump administration’s sharp criticism of European nations for their handling of migration, which senior officials have argued poses an existential threat to the continent’s survival.
Vice President JD Vance railed against mass migration in his first major international speech at the Munich Security Conference last February, saying that “no voter on this continent went to the ballot box to open the floodgates to millions of unvetted immigrants.”
Vance, on Friday, blamed the death of an 18-year-old British student by a Sikh man on what he called civilizational decline and the failure to stop a “mass invasion of migrants.”
One of the most important things the Trump administration has proven to the world is that stopping the flow of mass migration and defending national sovereignty is a matter of political will and leadership,” Vance wrote on social platform X. “Anything else is an excuse.”
The Trump administration warned in its 2025 national security strategy that Europe could become “unrecognizable in 20 years or less” if the European Union (EU) allows permissive migration policies to continue.
The EU’s three main institutions —the European Commission, the European Council and European Parliament — reached a deal this week to ramp up deportations and build detention centers abroad, according to The Associated Press, though it quickly faced pushback.
One of the most important things the Trump administration has proven to the world is that stopping the flow of mass migration and defending national sovereignty is a matter of political will and leadership,” Vance wrote on social platform X. “Anything else is an excuse.”
The Trump administration warned in its 2025 national security strategy that Europe could become “unrecognizable in 20 years or less” if the European Union (EU) allows permissive migration policies to continue.
The EU’s three main institutions —the European Commission, the European Council and European Parliament — reached a deal this week to ramp up deportations and build detention centers abroad, according to The Associated Press, though it quickly faced pushback.
“This deal will give governments much broader powers to detain and deport people,” Marta Welander, a spokesperson for the International Rescue Committee, a humanitarian organization, told AP.
“It looks set to normalize immigration raids, expand the use of detention in prison-like facilities outside EU territory that are essentially legal black holes, and increase the risk of people being deported to countries where they could face persecution, torture or worse,” Welander added.
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 