“Islamophobia: a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.”
–Christopher Hitchens.
Today we have commentaries on the mid-term elections, the dangers of Islam and multiculturalism, and the inherent dangers in the decline of a nation’s culture. Please enjoy.
____________________________________________________________________
The real reasons
The consensus has started to form around the midterms debacle, and it’s nonsense.
BY: J.R. Dunn, The American Thinker (November 7, 2026).
The consensus has started to form around the midterms debacle: it was all economic issues, particularly gas prices spiking as a result of the Iran War.
This is nonsense. If it were true, there wouldn’t be a single Democrat politician left in this country. Gas prices and associated costs had an effect, but nowhere near as much as is being asserted.
Similarly, leftists and RINOs assert that the results mark a repudiation of Trumpism, which means a repudiation of lower taxes, a closed border, reduced crime, the liberation of Venezuela, along with securing U.S. energy supplies for the coming century and curtailment of the Iranian nuclear threat. This is not only mistaken, it’s insane.
In truth, the midterms were a perfect storm election: A number of unrelated factors coming together at once, some by happenstance, some by contrivance. Most of these elements are circumstantial and unlikely to repeat.
Trump’s mouth – Donald Trump’s rhetoric has always been part of his charm, but boy, did he go over the top with it this year. The rallies would have been an excellent idea if they hadn’t provided him with endless opportunities to trash talk. Listing his achievements and hurling insults would have been fine, but then he had to throw in the comments about Nikki Minaj’s ass, among other things. This served to scare off the middle-American, religious traditionalists, always the bedrock of GOP support. We won’t be hearing any of that again.
The Bushites – If Texas has gone blue – which is doubtful – the Bushes will be largely responsible. The Neil and Barbara program was to beat Ken Paxton – and likely others – with a larger agenda of taking over the party, which they think belongs to them. George W. has maintained silence, as he always does, but it’s a sure bet that Karl Rove is involved – he was almost giddy when discussing midterm results on Fox. But… nobody looks back on the Bush presidencies with affection. They are history – and dull history at that.
RINOS – John Thune set the pattern for Tuesday’s debacle with his refusal to work with Trump on anything at all following the Big Beautiful Bill. Mike Rogers, who did yeoman work, has had the grace to resign, but Thune hangs on, professing mystification as to what happened. But no matter – McConnell won’t last another year, Tillis has resigned, and Collins is finished. That makes Thune the last bump in the road. Too bad it didn’t happen eight years ago.
Perot MAGA – A critical element and one that’s never mentioned. A substantial portion – though not a majority, God forbid – of MAGA backed Trump for the same reason they did Perot – because they thought he was a bully who would express their worst impulses. Trump was no such thing. When he failed to immediately set up concentration camps for illegals or H-bomb Tehran, they abandoned him. Many sat out the election or even voted for Dems, to “teach Trump a lesson.” Lesson learned: don’t risk your life, your fortune, or your family to represent a nation of ingrates. Well done, all hands.
Cheating – Every last county in Fortress Texas went blue? Ya don’t say. I wonder how that could have happened? (See more in Kenneth Timmerman’s upcoming piece on Monday.)
Add those to the evergreen challenges of traditional midterm malaise, media bias, and the difficulty that GOP voters always have in getting up off their fat butts, and you’ve got 2026.
Trump won’t be running again. The Bushes will fade into nullity, with the RINOs following them. The Perot MAGA will turn their attention once more to MMF. Which leaves us with the problem of cheating. A couple of years of Islamosocialism should sober up the suburbanites. On to 2028.
____________________________________________________________________
Why Leftists Won’t Let Us Live
Leftism cannot succeed unless everyone fails together.
BY: J.B. Shurk, The American Thinker (October 26, 2026).
Why must leftists conquer entire nations? Why do they get so angry at anyone who resists their ideology? Why can’t they just build a new nation filled entirely with fellow leftists?
It really shouldn’t be this difficult for Marxist-socialists, communists, “green energy” fanatics, “diversity, inclusion, and equity” cultists, and bureaucracy-worshiping globalists to build a regulatory paradise based on the “woke” commandments of their secular faith.
There are more than enough power-hungry leftist politicians in the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States to construct the all-powerful central government that they desire. Career bureaucrats in the U.S. have filled the administrative state with so many sub-agencies, boards, working groups, and miscellaneous programs that nobody in Congress could create an organizational chart accurately diagramming the bureaucratic blob. The European Union — a supranational shrine to bloated bureaucratic incompetence — has so many committees within its ranks that there are surely a dozen such committees studying why the Union has so many committees!
There are more than enough lefty billionaires — including George Soros, Bill Gates, Neville Roy Singham, Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, and Howard Schultz — to put up the seed money for their communist utopia. Heck, Western central banks essentially exist to manipulate markets in favor of the left’s pet causes, such as how best to funnel taxpayer dollars into the bank accounts of leftist billionaires who lecture the world about “global warming,” “white supremacy,” mandatory COVID shots, and the need for open borders and online censorship. Wall Street and City of London firms are more interested in companies’ “social credit scores” and ESG bona fides than the traditional metrics of whether a business can generate profit and a return on investment.
There is a veritable glut of far-left scribes churning out propaganda for every prominent news publication in the West. Whether from the offices of state-funded propaganda networks such as the BBC and CBC or from the leftist-billionaire-subsidized propaganda newsrooms of The New York Times and The Washington Post, the leftist hive-mind controls the news.
Leftists have also taken over academia. It is rare to find a non-leftist intellectual on a prestigious university campus. Diversity of opinion is nonexistent. Just as is the case with “journalism,” academia has become a “safe space” for leftists to give each other awards and sinecures in recognition of their imaginary brilliance while producing nothing new.
With all these institutional forces at their disposal, it is a wonder why they can’t seem to seal the deal. How can you control the news, the universities, “woke” capital, the NGO network, the permanent government bureaucracy, and all the international agencies and not have already rebranded the United States as the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” or the “People’s Republic of America”? It’s embarrassing, really.
At the end of the day, there are just too many members of society who possess a modicum of common sense and refuse to buy what the commies are selling.
They know that women don’t have penises and that men can’t get pregnant.
They know that offshoring a nation’s manufacturing and industry makes that nation weak.
They know that governments do not protect free speech by censoring the public and mandating that social media platforms promote Establishment propaganda.
They’ve heard the “climate change” canard for so many decades — including the institutionally-hyped promises from “respected” political leaders and broadcast “news” anchors that we’d all be dead by now from “global cooling”…er…“global warming”…er…I mean, “extreme weather” — that the “green new deal” has been exposed as nothing more than a scam for centralizing government power and making Al Gore and his doomsaying fraudsters filthy rich.
They know that “white supremacy” and “systemic racism” are bunk because everybody is encouraged to discriminate against and demonize white people.
Leftism is, first and foremost, an ideology of grievance. Its devotees don’t have principles. They have targets. They tell their minions whom to blame for their miseries and failures. They encourage their brainwashed followers to steal what they want and to burn everything else down. As is currently visible amid the ruins of war-torn France, leftism is destruction.
That is why leftists can’t just relocate en masse to Canada or carve out a new nation in some scarcely settled part of Africa, South America, Australia, or Asia. Leftism doesn’t build; it takes. It doesn’t inspire; it blames. Without an “oppressor” to vilify, leftism devours itself. Leftism is philosophical cannibalism.
Non-leftists have trouble understanding this kind of mentality. Non-leftists often try to move away from leftists and build lives of their own. Yet wherever they go, leftists follow them.
It’s an infuriating dynamic. If leftism were capable of — to use one of its favorite words — “sustainability,” leftists would be okay with an amicable social divorce.
It would be possible for the people who want to build things to separate from the people who want to take or destroy things.
It would be possible for the people who believe in biological reality and the chemistry of hydrocarbons to separate from the people who want to castrate children and live in electricity-free grass huts.
It would be possible for the people who want to own private property to separate from the people who want to share communal property.
It would be possible for the people who want to marry and have children to separate from the people who think marriage is patriarchal, personal pronouns are sacred speech, and children are killing the planet.
It would be possible for the people who wish to educate children in the sciences, philosophy, history, literature, and the arts to separate from the people who wish to indoctrinate children with the noxious manure of permanent victimhood, grievance, identity confusion, and “global warming” angst.
It would be possible for the people who value a person’s character more than the color of a person’s skin to separate from the people who obsess about race and sexual proclivities.
It would be possible for the people who believe in free speech, freedom of religion, and the natural right to self-defense to separate from the people who believe that government agents should be empowered to criminally punish people for their beliefs and censor whatever leftists define as “disinformation,” “misinformation,” or “hate speech.”
It would be possible for the people who desire limited government to separate from the Big Government people who love bureaucracy and credentialed “expertise.”
It would be possible for the people who cherish liberty to separate from the people who cherish social control.
But peaceful separation is impossible because leftists cannot permit jurisdictions outside of their control to succeed. When free societies prosper, Marxist-socialist and communist societies are exposed as authoritarian, joyless, poor, and weak. Leftism is so at odds with human nature that its proponents cannot allow those they enslave to witness a reality free from misery.
Otherwise, leftism’s enslaved masses will risk their lives to climb over walls, trek through mountains, or cross oceans just to feel what it is like to be free. In the Soviet Union and East Germany, the communists built walls, not to keep illegal immigrants out, but rather to keep unhappy citizens in. Nobody breaks into the leftist “paradises” of communist Cuba or China; millions, however, have fled communist regimes. People escape from leftism and run toward freedom.
What this means is that leftists will never leave us alone. They will take from us, abuse us, censor us, persecute us, imprison us, and even kill us. But they will never peacefully separate from us. They cannot allow us to exist and flourish because any peace, prosperity, or happiness that we enjoy further reveals leftism’s evil, misanthropic, and destructive nature.
Leftism cannot succeed unless everyone fails together.
Defending Western civilization requires us to recognize Marxist-socialism and leftist-globalism, not as dangerous worldviews, but rather as deadly enemies.
____________________________________________________________________
So Goes Europe
Europe’s decline warns America what happens when a civilization loses the confidence to defend its culture, institutions, and national purpose.
BY: Allan J. Feifer, The American Thinker (October 9, 2026).
Britain is America’s mother country. Regardless of what one may think of the once-Great Britain today, much of America’s essence sprang from that island’s political philosophy, cultural inheritance, legal tradition, and national character. Our language, common law, conception of liberty, parliamentary instincts, and stubborn individualism all trace back directly to Britain. Britain may have declined, but the DNA of its greatness lives on in us. Its decline is therefore not merely a foreign story. It is a cautionary tale written in a language we understand because we inherited it. We ignore those linkages at our peril.
Margaret Thatcher represented perhaps the last great demonstration of Britain’s willingness to behave like a world power. The Falklands War was not merely a military victory; it was a psychological one. It proved that Britain still possessed the will to act decisively, defend its interests, and project power beyond its shores. For a moment, Thatcher restored something of the Churchillian confidence Britain had lost before that moment too faded away.
She could not reverse the forces already embedded in the country’s institutions. The political class increasingly embraced managerialism, the intellectual class fashionable self-doubt, and the bureaucracy technocratic caution. Britain turned inward, consumed by domestic demands and increasingly skeptical of the burdens of global leadership. Its decline was not simply imposed from outside. A nation that loses confidence in its own purpose eventually loses the political will to sustain it.
That is where the parallel to America becomes unavoidable.
Britain became increasingly burdened by internal social obligations that expanded faster than its economic capacity and political will. America has accumulated similar burdens for decades. However noble their original purposes, domestic obligations expand, demand resources, and rarely contract. A great power cannot be defined solely by what it redistributes. It must also be defined by what it builds, protects, and leads. When internal obligations consume the resources and political attention required for those purposes, national power begins to erode into irrelevance.
But Europe’s problem is not simply that its governments became more cautious or its welfare states ever more expensive. Europe also changed itself. Over the past several decades, large-scale immigration has transformed the demographic and cultural composition of countries built around relatively strong national identities and shared expectations.
Immigration becomes more difficult to absorb when it is large in scale, communities become concentrated, assimilation weakens, and governments become increasingly reluctant to insist on a common civic culture. Nations have always absorbed newcomers. The difficulty arises when newcomers can establish durable communities organized around languages, customs, religions, or social expectations distinct from those of the larger society — and when the state hesitates to insist that legal entry, assimilation, and adherence to common laws and institutions are the price of belonging.
France illustrates the scale of the transformation. In 2024, 7.6 million immigrants lived in France, representing 11.2 percent of the population. In 1968, nearly three-quarters of foreigners living in France were European nationals; by 2024, nearly half were African nationals and only about one-third were European.
Those numbers do not prove social failure on their own. They do, however, describe a profound demographic transformation. When that transformation occurs alongside concentrated communities, weakened assimilation, and the state’s reluctance to insist on a common civic framework, demographic change becomes a source of social and political friction rather than simply population growth.
And this is where immigration intersects with the larger problem of European decline. A confident state can absorb substantial change because it knows what it expects of those who enter it. A state that has lost confidence in its own culture, doubts its right to demand assimilation, and fears the political consequences of enforcing its laws has a much harder task. The question is no longer simply how many people a country can admit. It is whether the country still possesses the confidence and authority to insist that everyone living within its borders belongs to the same civic order — and what it must do when some refuse.
France may be showing us the next stage.
What makes the French crisis particularly dangerous is the convergence of three different pressures against the state: the red — economic grievance; the white — cultural conflict; and the black — violence and disorder. The red attacks its economic legitimacy. The white attacks its cultural legitimacy. The black attacks its monopoly on force. They are not a coalition or even a unified movement. Together, they constitute a stress test.
When those pressures erupt simultaneously, a parliamentary system built around compromise and negotiation becomes incapable of meeting the moment, hesitating when it must act and debating when it must decide. It fears backlash when it must assert authority.
The danger is not necessarily that the French state will be overthrown. It is that it will surrender functionally — by narrowing its ambitions, avoiding confrontation, tolerating disorder, and accepting that certain neighborhoods, groups, or behaviors are beyond its reach.
That is how decline accelerates, not through dramatic collapse, but through the quiet acceptance of limits that did not previously exist.
And, in the wings, our own Red, White, and Black forces are taking notes. America cannot simply watch Europe decline from across the Atlantic. The lesson of WWII is that geography no longer protects a nation from the collapse of the civilization to which it belongs. Had America simply assumed that events across the Atlantic could never threaten us, the history of the twentieth century might have been very different. Oceans provide distance, not immunity.
Europe is not simply another collection of foreign countries. It is the civilization from which we emerged. If Europe loses the capacity to govern itself, defend itself, assimilate newcomers, and maintain the institutions that made the West prosperous and free, America may eventually discover that it is next.
This is not a prophecy of America’s future, not yet, but it is a warning.
Great nations do not remain great by accident. They remain great because their people choose renewal over resignation, responsibility over retreat, and courage over comfort. America still has the economic, military, cultural, and political capacity to help Europe regain its footing and, in the process, ensure our own stability.
We should do so not out of nostalgia or charity, but self-interest.
Europe helped create the civilization that made America possible. As the elder child, America now has a responsibility to help preserve it — not because Europe is entitled to American protection, but because a weakened Europe ultimately weakens the West.
If Europe recovers, America’s foundations are strengthened. If Europe continues to decline, America will eventually discover that oceans are no substitute for civilization.
So goes Europe.
God Bless America.
____________________________________________________________________
Why does the Democratic Party give Islam special treatment?
Left attacks Christianity at home while excusing political movements that reject many of their stated values
BY: Don Feder, The Washington Times (October 25, 2026).
Why does a party that is so hostile to Western religion embrace the most toxic religion on the planet?
Is it a case of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”?
Democrats could hardly be more hostile to Christianity. The Biden administration’s Department of Justice targeted pro-life Christian demonstrators while ignoring attacks on churches. Christians were forced to swear allegiance to transgenderism to participate in the foster care system.
In a 2023 memo, the FBI’s Richmond field office warned that “radical traditional Catholics” were a domestic terrorism threat, unlike the infidel-friendly Muslim Brotherhood.
Democrats find Christian advocacy a threat to diversity, equity and inclusion, including its opposition to abortion and the mutilation of minors.
Yet they are down with the religion whose followers throw gays off buildings and hold that women are inferior to men.
Spokespeople for the Democratic Party include Rep. Ilhan Omar, Minnesota Democrat — whom the Department of Justice is investigating for immigration fraud, though no charges have been filed — Rep. Rashida Tlaib, Michigan (and Gaza Strip) Democrat, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, and Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdurahman Mohamed El-Sayed, who has faced accusations from political opponents regarding Muslim Brotherhood ties despite his explicit denials.
In the 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton received 81% of the Muslim vote.
The religion of peace and the party of plunder have a mutual admiration society going. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul wore a Muslim headscarf for a visit to the Islamic Cultural Center of New York in August. Ms. Hochul was comfortable with this garb, even though in Muslim countries, such as Iran, women are flogged for failing to cover their hair.
Under state legislation authorizing public schools to hold assemblies “acknowledging and celebrating” these Muslim holy days, blue-state California officially highlights Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha. Just like Easter and Passover, right?
Democrats and Muslims are in sync in so many areas. Both have an aversion to democracy. Of the 53 Muslim-majority countries, none has anything even approaching popular sovereignty.
Through lawfare and attempts to rewrite the Constitution, Democrats vow that even if they lose elections, they will never lose power.
Muslims see Israel as something unnatural: a Jewish state in the Middle East, the cradle of Islam. Under the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem — who supported Adolf Hitler during World War II — the Muslims were attacking Jews long before there was a Jewish state.
Opposition to Israel is now a defining characteristic of the Democratic Party. Per Gallup polling, 65% of Democrats are more sympathetic to the Palestinians than to Israel. Of Republicans, 70% favor Israel.
In an interview in Northern Ireland on Oct. 15, former President Barack Obama said Jews fleeing European persecution “took land off people and they were excessive.” In other words, Jews stole the Palestinians’ land. This is such a gross distortion of history that it could have come from a Palestinian Authority press release.
Last week, former President Bill Clinton said he was tired of all this Islamophobia. He claimed that his daughter read the Quran cover to cover when she was 15, and that it is indeed about peace and tolerance. Doubtless, she read the expurgated version.
Both the party and the cult oppose the war to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of medieval fanatics. Almost a quarter of Democrats in Congress voted against a resolution designating Iran a state sponsor of terrorism, which is akin to voting against a resolution condemning Nazi Germany for the Holocaust.
Both hate Western civilization. Islam holds that any culture that does not submit to Allah and Shariah is an abomination. Democrats believe that all cultures are equal — except the one that produced democracy, civil liberties and the highest standard of living in history.
Today’s Democrats are a far cry from the party of Presidents Truman, who provided crucial aid to Israel at its founding, Kennedy, who called Israel “a child of hope,” and Johnson, who backed Israel during the Six-Day War.
Today, it is the party of politicians who question Israel’s right to exist, claim that Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza Strip and charge that Israel is an apartheid state.
Mr. El-Sayed refuses to say which he considers more of a threat to America: Iran or Israel. He is unwilling to distinguish between America’s ally of nearly 80 years and a nation whose motto is “Death to America.”
Democrats and their Allah auxiliary are like the red-green alliance burning down France. How long before they are in our streets waving Palestinian flags and attacking synagogues in a 2026 version of Kristallnacht?
____________________________________________________________________
Multiculturalism divides what a common culture once united
Europe’s unrest revives old warnings about assimilation, civic identity and the glue that holds nations together
BY: Everett Piper, The Washington Times (October 25, 2026).
What if I told you that nothing happening in Europe should surprise you? What if I said the chaos in Paris, Milan and London was inevitable, that multiple political scholars and noted theologians have warned of this social collapse for decades and that they even identified its cause?
What if I said the root and branch of everything that ails us right now is multiculturalism and that Jesus himself even told us so?
Before we get into all the warnings that we have ignored about Western civilization’s collapse, let us first define our terms, starting with the root word of multiculturalism, “cult.”
The word “culture” comes from the Latin noun “cultus,” which derives from the verb “colere.” These are agrarian terms describing how rural people cared for the land and looked after it. Thus, to “cultivate” a field meant to plow it, plant the seeds and, ultimately, reap a harvest of a desired crop. Likewise, a farmer was called a “colonus” or “cultivator,” and a farm was called a “cultura” or colony.
This orderly, focused work of “cultivating” produced “cults” or “colonies.” In other words, cities and states grew up around such activity: “Cultivated” fields led to “cultured” communities.
As fields with orderly, parallel rows produced predictable food, so did the “culture” of each town and village produce a shared, orderly morality and ethical life among its people. The concepts of “tilling the soil” and “tilling the mind” were understood to go hand in hand.
To be “cultured” meant being educated in the values, religion and ideals of one’s own people, tribe, family or “cult”; to “cultivate” the soul through proper ritual, behavior and respect for God.
By and large, the pejorative definition of “cult” did not emerge until the early 20th century. It then came to mean a small, dangerous or heterodox religious group. These negative associations developed largely in American literature, apologetics and sociology in the early 20th century.
Evidence of this later evolution appears in older books on Christianity and religion, where “cult” often retains its neutral meaning. The cult of the saints, for example, is not nefarious at all. It simply refers to the veneration of the faithful, without any sinister implication of deviant or heretical practice and belief.
So the point is simple. It was not until the past 100 years or so that the word “cult” took on a negative meaning. Until then, people assumed nations and states were healthier and longer-lived if they shared a common “cult” or culture. Monoculturalism was better than multiculturalism, and homogeneity better than heterogeneity. People rightly thought every country, town and village needed a common glue to hold it together; otherwise, it would fall apart and fail.
Now, we come to the chaos in France, Britain and, yes, even here in America, in cities such as Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Philadelphia and St. Paul. Why is this all happening? The cause is clear: our foolish experiment with multiculturalism.
Neo-multiculturalism, by definition, emphasizes diversity over unity. It thrives on division rather than common cause. This worldview is the opposite of a “melting pot” of shared values. Its agenda of intersectionality is one of class warfare: us against them, you against me, Black against White, man against woman, Gentile against Jew, and Muslims against the entire world.
Multiculturalism’s goal is not assimilation. It seeks only to divide and conquer. It is the solvent that degrades the glue — the “cult” that once bound people together in the first place.
The list of those who have warned us of this is seemingly endless. Allan Bloom, in “The Closing of the American Mind,” sounded the alarm against cultural relativism. Arthur Schlesinger Jr., in his seminal work, “The Disuniting of America,” warned that “ethnic particularism was fracturing a shared civic identity.” Samuel Huntington, in “The Clash of Civilizations,” argued that civilizations are built on religion and shared meaning, not abstract universalism.
Thomas Sowell repeatedly attacked multiculturalism, saying that cultures are not interchangeable in their outcomes and that pretending otherwise serves no one.
In “The Strange Death of Europe,” Douglas Murray said clearly that mass immigration would inevitably erode European self-definition. Robert Bork told us in “Slouching Towards Gomorrah” that radical multiculturalism would end only with America joining this biblical city on the ash heap of history.
Jesus himself made it all clear: “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand.” (Matthew 12:25)
The moral of the story is obvious: Cultural suicide is inevitable without a shared national “cult.” Multiculturalism is the disease, not the cure.
GFK
