#Hirsi Ali

[secular-jew]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a national treasure and we are lucky that she emigrated to the US, barely fleeing her war-torn homeland of Somalia, and later, escaping woke political persecution in the Netherlands (yes, she was a Dutch Parliamentarian, forced to flee her own adopted Western country). One of her best friends, Theo Van Gogh (great grand nephew of Vincent Van Gogh) was assassinated by an Islamist in Amsterdam, right in front of his house. The 2 made a documentary together, one that focused on lack of rights for Muslim women and misogyny within Islam.

Ayaan Ali grew up a Somali Muslim, her family were devout Muslims, and she was forced to undergo genital mutilation at age 5. She escaped the grip of Islam at 23 by making her way to Netherlands in 1992, and 11 yrs later, in 2003, was elected to Parliament, where she served until 2006, at which time she suffered political persecution by Dutch islamists colluding with the left-wing political parties.

In 2005, Time magazine named Ali as one of the 100 most influential people in the world. In January 2006, Hirsi Ali was recognised as "European of the Year" by Reader's Digest,

Ali should not be ignored, as she knows more about Islam than 99.99% of us Westerners.

[eretzyisrael]

Source

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

Source

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Spiked

Published: Sept 16, 2024

The new UK Labour government has declared war on free speech. Within weeks of gaining power, it scrapped a law upholding free speech in universities. In early August, following rioting across England, it announced plans to tighten the regulations on online speech. Perhaps most troubling of all, Keir Starmer is also considering writing a broad definition of ‘Islamophobia’ into law, which would make it almost impossible to criticise Islam and even Islamic extremism.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali – writer, activist and author of Prey: Immigration, Islam and the Erosion of Women’s Rights – returned to The Brendan O’Neill Show last week to discuss the importance of free speech in the battle against Islamist extremism. What follows is an edited extract from the conversation. You can listen to the full thing here.

Brendan O’Neill: Why do you think politicians – even those who would define themselves as ‘liberal’ – are so willing to adopt a phrase like Islamophobia?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: I think it has to do with guilt about the past. When it comes to the Jews, many European countries did not protect them from Nazi persecution, so there’s definitely a sense that we don’t want to do the same to our Muslim minorities. When I was living in the Netherlands, this was a very potent argument. The Dutch felt extremely guilty about the fact that, in proportion to the Dutch population, more Jews were removed from their homes and sent to concentration camps, than in any other country in Europe. So there’s definitely a sense of ‘let’s not repeat history’. But this is also what makes me so angry, because the Islamists – and to a certain extent, the leftists – will exploit this. They will exploit what is essentially the goodness of human beings, a desire to ‘do right this time round’, in order to do wrong.

While the Islamists want to use democracy as a tool to win power and then abolish democracy, I think the woke left also wants to do something similar. I think this is part of why the far left does rely on the Islamists to vote for them. This is then compounded by the fact that the white working class, which was traditionally the group of people the Labour Party relied on, has faded. So instead, these parties rely increasingly on migrants. This is their new demography. They think they can harness their vote to come to power. People talk about the ‘great replacement’, but it’s actually a ‘great realignment’. The parties which used to represent the working classes now no longer do so. Instead, they now just represent capital.

O’Neill: So what do you make of this idea of the ‘Muslim vote’ in the UK, particularly in relation to the new Labour government?

Ali: I see Keir Starmer as a front for the radical left. He needs the Muslim vote, and the Muslim vote can be relatively easily gained because Islamists can skillfully organise their communities to vote. But the question that Keir Starmer, and other leftist parties across Europe, should ask themselves is this: ‘What are they demanding in return?’ Because the Islamists do have many demands in return. First and foremost, they want censorship. They want ‘Islamophobia’ to be made illegal. And the way they define Islamophobia is any form of criticism of the political agenda of Islam.

If you talk about the radical views being preached in the mosques or the schools, that’s Islamophobia. If you question the fact that some imams are telling their congregations not to assimilate and to distance themselves from ‘the infidels’, that’s Islamophobia. If you talk about the recent examples of sexual abuse against women and girls, some perpetrated by Muslim immigrants, that’s Islamophobia. If you highlight that there is a kind of soft Sharia law in Britain – which is well established in many Muslim communities when it comes to marriages, divorces and inheritances – that’s Islamophobia. The same goes if you want to talk about the fact that there are Muslim women in Muslim households being beaten, curfewed, removed from school, forced to marry and then raped. If you want to expose any of this, you’re committing Islamophobia. And so, all of a sudden, you can’t fight sexual violence against women perpetrated by men.

That is what banning Islamophobia is going to ban, if you allow it. It will ban discussing these issues in the name of human rights and equality. If you question this and ask, ‘Do we really want this parallel society?’, you’ll be called Islamophobic.

These days, the Islamists are less and less secretive about their agenda. This can be seen recently in the blatant anti-Semitism in some Muslim communities. But if you bring this stuff up, and try to get politicians to discuss it, you’re again accused of Islamophobia. This is the question that we have to ask governments, particularly the leftist governments that are trying to outlaw Islamophobia. It is criticism of Islam that’s going to be banned. Journalists and newspapers will no longer be able to exercise their free-press rights to investigate crimes that are being committed.

O’Neill: The unwillingness of the woke left, even the moderate left, to ever criticise radical Islam is extraordinary. We really are in a difficult situation, aren’t we?

Ali: Absolutely. We’re emboldening them. The woke left is the enemy of civilisation, and they say so themselves. They’re deconstructing everything. On the other hand, the Islamists are also clearly an enemy of civilisation – our Western civilisation in particular. We’ve got to stand up to these two forces now. The silent majority has to stand up and stop this before they stop us. And the only way to do that is through freedom of speech, which is exactly what they want to take away from us.

As voters, we still have the capacity to organise, vote, find new leaders and reject what is being imposed on us. In the decay of the universities, alongside the censorship in schools, there’s definitely a concerted effort to silence us. Most worryingly of all, I think, is what we’ve seen after the riots and how the government has responded. Whereas previously you might be cancelled or piled-on online, now the elites are using the law. British prisons, which are effectively full, are clearing out convicted criminals, some of whom have done all sorts of horrible things, to put people in prison for putting words and images online. They’re using the awesome powers of the state to censor and to silence us. Soon we could be banned from saying things that are, in this very sinister phrase, ‘legal but harmful’. This should be met with the greatest opposition of all time. All of us need to go out into the streets and say, ‘stop right there’.

--

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was talking to Brendan O’Neill on The Brendan O’Neill Show. Listen to the full conversation here:

==

A modern Islamic insurgence is no longer conducted with swords on horseback, but with the aggressors using the language of victimhood.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

BANKSY

* * * *

It felt right. There was no pain, but a real clarity. The long process of seeing the flaws in my belief structure and carefully tiptoeing around the frayed edges as parts of it were torn out, piece by piece—that was all over. The angels, watching from my shoulders; the mental tension about having sex without marriage, and drinking alcohol, and not observing any religious obligations—they were gone. The ever-present prospect of hell fire lifted, and my horizon seemed broader. God, Satan, angels: these were all figments of human imagination. From now on I could step firmly on the ground that was under my feet and navigate based on my own reason and self-respect. My moral compass was within myself, not in the pages of a sacred book.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali · Infidel (2007)

[gothicprep]

i haaaaate when survey data about religious affiliation lumps atheist and agnostic together. the difference is between someone who's "not religious, but spiritual" or believes in ghosts (read: some sort of afterlife) and someone who has really sat with the idea of godlessness, and this life being the only thing there is. the french existentialists are a good example of that latter thing, although i'm assuming a lot of the people who hold to this are a bit less... dramatic than that.

if anything, it makes more sense to lump agnostics in with the "none" category. but that's just my gloss on a lay observation. i'm not telling anyone how to do their job lol.

[sole-e-acqua]

The Muslim plan to 'bring the world under Islam dominion' | Ayaan Hirsi Ali

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Cathy Young at The UnPopulist:

When Donald Trump sensationally accused Springfield, Ohio’s Haitian immigrants ofstealing and barbecuing their neighbors’ household pets during his presidential debate with Kamala Harris, the story was already national news. The day before the debate, Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, who had already been murmuring about the community in the months prior, catapulted the new allegations into the national spotlight. While these claims have been thoroughly debunked, the story refuses to go away—largely because Trump supporters keep trying to spin the fiasco in his favor. In the most recent chapter, Trump surrogate Vivek Ramaswamy showed up in Springfield for a town hall meeting where he brushed aside questions about the racist hoax spread by Trump and Vance and pushed a subtler xenophobic narrative blaming immigration-friendly policies for local problems.

From the Bowels of Far-Right Discourse to GOP Talking Points

It started with an X hatefest I happened to catch at the outset. On Sept. 7, a full three days before the debate, I saw left-wing-crank-turned-right-wing-loon Naomi Wolf share a post from misinformation superspreader End Wokeness (an account that may be run by far-right troll and Pizzagater Jack Posobiec), containing what seemed like an obviously made-up story: “ducks and pets” in Springfield, Ohio being gobbled up by Haitian migrants. The evidence: an anonymized Facebook post about a “neighbor’s friend’s daughter” who had seen her lost cat being carved up by the Haitians next door. I decided to post a sarcastic comment, unaware that I was wading into a dumpster fire.

Some users tried to “own” me by sharing a video of an Ohio woman apparently killing and partially eating a cat in August. Relatively big names like anti-woke obsessive Wesley Yang and right-wing anti-immigration crusader Nate Hochman (the guy who got fired by the Ron DeSantis presidential campaign for sharing a video prominently and favorably featuring a Nazi “sonnenrad”) rebuked me for not acknowledging the video as corroboration. Never mind that the cat-eating incident happened in Canton (some 175 miles from Springfield) and involved a lone, clearly mentally ill woman, not a family calmly carving up a kitty carcass in its front yard. (X user Alice From Queens lampooned this discourse by pointing to a white, native-born American killing and trying to eat a dog in New York, implicitly daring anti-Haitian posters to extrapolate from that case onto white people in general.) Oh, and also: there was no evidence that the woman was Haitian or an immigrant. In fact, she was later confirmed to be a Canton native.

What I didn’t know is that “They’re eating pets!” was just the latest in far-right attempts to whip up an anti-Haitian panic. As Robert Tracinski points out for The UnPopulist, “It is no coincidence that there was an online rumor mill ready to amplify any social media posts about Springfield because [the neo-Nazi group] Blood Tribe has been targeting the town in an effort to stoke racial resentment against ‘subhuman’ Haitians for a year now.” Enter JD Vance, boosting the rumors that “people have had their pets abducted and eaten by people who shouldn’t be in this country” (consistently rebutted by Springfield police and the Republican city government) in an obvious ploy to harness anti-immigrant animus for electoral gain. “Vote for Trump to save the cats” memes proliferated, shared by prominent Republicans including Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. And then Trump himself picked up the cause before a national TV audience with the now-infamous, “In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats, they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”

[...] Both Williamson and investigative journalist (and The UnPopulist contributor) Radley Balko have done deep dives into the story of Springfield’s Haitians. They haven’t been “shipped to” or “dropped on” the city by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris—language that drips with contempt for the agency and humanity of migrants. Mostly, they came, often from other locations in the U.S. such as Florida, after learning that jobs were available and rents were low; Springfield had been actively trying to attract employers and workers, including immigrants, since 2014. 

[...]

Lessons from a Hoax

By now, the cat-eating story has collapsed as completely as a story can collapse. The woman who made the original Facebook post about someone’s cat being eaten by Haitian neighbors has deleted and retracted, saying it was based on garbled fourth-hand rumors. The photo of the man with the goose which appeared in the same viral X post as the Facebook screenshot was taken in Columbus, not Springfield; the man is not a migrant, and it turns out he was removing two geese that had been hit by a car.

What about the Springfield woman who called the cops about a missing cat which she thought might have been eaten by her Haitian neighbors—and whose report was cited by Vance as evidence? She found the kitty in her basement, alive, well, and uneaten. Also, it turns out that when Vance amplified the pet-eating rumor, the Springfield city manager had already told him the claim was baseless. Yet the GOP presidential candidate, his running mate, and many other high-level Republicans have used it to unleash a hate-storm more blatantly and disgustingly racist than anything seen in national American politics in decades. Not only were Haitians explicitly targeted as a group: the label of Haitian migrant was readily slapped on any black person who fit the narrative, such as the Columbus man with the goose and the mentally-ill cat eater in Canton.

Some Trump supporters are still trying to keep up the spin. Maverick-liberal-to-MAGA convert and The Free Press commentator Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for example, has blamed the bomb threats that have shut down schools, government offices, and other institutions in Springfield in recent days on a shadowy “they” who are trying to make “the Springfield/Haiti story … go away,” because it exposes “Kamala Harris’s border ideology.” But in the end, it’s Trumpian populism that stands exposed by this story as a hateful and essentially fraudulent brand of identity politics. After Springfield and the cat memes, the GOP ticket looks ridiculous, bigoted, mean-spirited. Vance’s insistence that he will continue calling the legal immigrants in Springfield illegal—is just plain weird and vicious. But that ticket could still have the last laugh if Trump wins in November, carries out his pledge to deport those immigrants, and continues to make the Glenda Baileys of this world feel that their repugnant views represent America.

Cathy Young wrote in The UnPopulist how MAGA influencers pushed the racist Haitian cat-eating hoax in Springfield, Ohio into the mainstream.

[tail-feathers]

Wonderful conversion journey by Ayaan Hirsi Ali .

[postersbykeith]

[mokeymokey]

I love finding out about things that happened just days ago from reading about them on wikipedia. Like the surprise when you're reading along and suddenly there's a mention of the current month

[secular-jew]

Real Muslims know

[mithliya]

Hot take: Rahaf Mohammed is a truer atheist heroine who makes more sense than Ayaan Hirsi Ali who's still calling for military intervention against her home country to this day.

i view them as different bc ayaan hirsi ali places more importance on stuff like FGM but also caters a lot more to conservatives. that said, i generally prefer rahaf mohammed because unlike ayaan, shes not allowing herself to be used by conservatives for their racist agendas. both are ultimately very strong and admirable women and i dont doubt that their hearts are in the right place even if they go about it in questionable way

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

"Multiculturalism should not mean that we tolerate another culture's intolerance. If we do in fact support diversity, women's rights, and gay rights, then we cannot in good conscience give Islam a free pass on the grounds of multicultural sensitivity."

-- Ayaan Hirsi Ali

It would be one thing if those who posture the most on these topics went silent when the subject of Islam comes up. But it's worse than that. Instead, these same people are likely to scold you as a bigot and racist for even daring to suggest that Islam is a complete inversion of their purported values. Complete with obvious lies functioning as thought terminating cliches.

[nicklloydnow]

“If you wonder why I—a woman of color, an African, a former Muslim, a former asylum seeker, and an immigrant—look at the antics of today’s anti-Israel, anti-American protesters with such fear and trembling, allow me to explain.

I was born in Somalia in 1969. The country had achieved independence nine years before. But less than a month before I was born—on October 21, 1969—a junior member of the brand-new Somali armed forces seized power with the help of the Soviet Union. The first two decades of my life were shaped by the upheaval that followed that coup.

(…)

For me it is all captured in the earliest memories of my youth: statues of Mohamed Siad Barre, our dictator, sprung up across Mogadishu, flanked by a trio of dark seraphim: Marx, Lenin, and Engels. This particular communist experiment plunged Somalia into bloodshed, mass starvation, and a 20-year period of suffocating tyranny. I recall my grandmother and mother smuggling food into our house. I also remember the whispering: we felt the state was omnipresent. It could hear everything.

My father was thrown into prison. His friends—those other pioneers in pursuit of a democracy modeled on America—were either jailed like him or, in many cases, executed.

By the time I was eight, my family knew we needed to escape. We left in 1977. By 1990, the country had descended into a civil war from which it has never fully recovered.

I never stopped longing for the kind of freedom my father had taught me about. And at the age of 22, I fled to the Netherlands seeking it. There—and later, in America—I discovered what we’ve come to call “Western” values.

The West’s inheritance springs from a peculiar confluence of habits and customs that had been practiced for centuries before anyone branded them as “ideas.” But they are principles—radical ones—that have given us the most tolerant, free, and flourishing societies in all of human history.

Among these principles are the rule of law, a tradition of liberty, personal responsibility, a system of representative government, a toleration of difference, and a commitment to pluralism. Each of these ideas might have been extinguished in their infancy but for the grace of God and the force of their appeal.

(…)

Right now, so many Western nations are under grave threat from the twin forces of cultural Marxism and an expansionist political Islam familiar to me from my youth.

For a time, many refused to believe that anything was actually wrong. The tide of populism was, they insisted, a momentary manifestation of frustration. The decline of each of our institutions was viewed in isolation, as a problem of poorly selected leadership, which could be corrected after the next election or with a changing of the guard. The sense of hopelessness that people felt was explained away as the temporary consequence of the rapid transition away from industrialism and the ushering in of the digital age.

(…)

When the omni-breakdown burst forth in 2020 with the crises the Covid-19 pandemic and the draconian controls that governments imposed, and the George Floyd riots, most of us awoke from our slumbers and behaved like the blind men, ping-ponging around theories with the tremulous (sometimes furious) chatter that heralds the turning of an age.

As one of those blind men—and surely I, too, am encountering only part of the elephant—my perception is that we are a society subverted. By this, I do not mean that we are subverted in the sense that a few spies and saboteurs are conducting covert operations, blowing up a bridge or an airfield. I mean we are subverted in a more systematic and totalizing way.

(…)

Living in the West in 1983, Bezmenov gave a lecture in which he explained “Psychological Warfare, Subversion, and the Control of Society.” It begins:

Subversion refers to a process by which the values and principles of an established system are contradicted or reversed in an attempt to sabotage the existing social order and its structures of power, authority, tradition, hierarchy, and social norms. It involves a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system, often carried out by persons working secretly from within. Subversion is used as a tool to achieve political goals because it generally carries less risk, cost, and difficulty as opposed to open belligerency. The act of subversion can lead to the destruction or damage of an established system or government. In the context of ideological subversion, subversion aims to gradually change the perception and values of a society, ultimately leading to the undermining of its existing systems and beliefs.

(…)

When, on October 8, protests erupted across the Western world in support of Hamas—and not the democracy that had been overrun by terrorists—I saw the revolution. When I look at the recent spectacle at Columbia or Yale or UCLA or Harvard or Stanford—students tearing down American flags and raising Palestinian ones; or chanting in Arabic “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”—it is hard not to see the fruit of this long process. I hear the same when, week after week, the streets of London, Amsterdam, Brussels, and Hamburg ring with cries of “intifada” or open demands for a caliphate or Sharia law in the heart of Europe.

How did it happen?

Bezmenov described the subversion process as a complex model with four successive stages, a diagram of which I have provided. These are, in order: demoralization, destabilization, crisis, and finally, normalization.

Demoralization is the first stage and requires the subverters’ greatest investment of time and resources. Bezmenov claims the process of demoralization can take between 10 to 30 years, because that is the amount of time it takes to educate a new generation.

The demoralization process targets three areas of society: its ideas, its structures, and its social institutions. The targeted institutions include religion, education, media, and culture. In each realm the old ways of thinking, the old heroes, are discredited. Those who believed in them come to doubt themselves and their ability to discern reality itself.

(…)

The ultimate intended outcome is that the afflicted willingly embrace self-destructive behaviors and ideas. Thus, all moral constraints can be eschewed in the pursuit of “just” and “virtuous” causes.

(…)

Next, the fundamental structures of society—like the rule of law and social relations—are targeted. For example, demoralization in the rule of law would entail undermining our trust in legal institutions and eroding the basis for legal authority. This could be accomplished by presenting the justice system as corrupt or illegitimate and by sowing distrust in the mechanisms of law enforcement. Think of the movements to “defund the police” because of “systemic racism.” Or the conviction last week of the front-runner presidential candidate on 34 counts of obvious political charges.

As a consequence, citizens lose confidence in the administration of justice, paving the way for untold social disorders, including legal nihilism, where people disregard the law en masse.

(…)

The third area—which Bezmenov called “life”—includes core social institutions such as family, health, race, population, and labor. Demoralization of the family is probably a familiar concept to us all. It involves promoting ideas that weaken the bonds between members of the family, promoting narcissistic individualism over family unity, creating financial stressors that discourage family formation, acrimony between the sexes, and the replacement of parental authority with the state.

Thus, the retrograde practice of polygamy is rebranded as polyamory. The natural human urge to create and nurture new human life is treated derisively by “DINKS” with slightly more latte money, or, more seriously, as an irresponsible and selfish choice to make because of climate change. Meantime, parents are told at every turn that they don’t know what they’re doing—and to defer to the experts instead.

The result is that not only do individuals feel less attachment to family, the fundamental unit of a healthy civilization, but they even end up detached from society itself. As we now know, the breakdown of family is strongly correlated with the epidemic of mental health crisis and explosive rise in violent crime: 85 percent of American youth in prison come from fatherless homes.

The goal of demoralization is to gradually degrade the foundations of a healthy society across all domains by erasing moral lines and exploiting preexisting discontents. What a society used to call abnormal and pathological, subversion normalizes. Just consider, for example, our culture’s attitude toward pedophiles, now rebranded as “minor-attracted persons.” By hijacking the legacy and language of the civil rights movement, nearly any “marginalized” group has a vehicle to try to “mainstream” deviant behavior. Consider the fact that across civilized societies it is not just “wrong” to say that a man cannot become a woman. It is thought to be cruel. So cruel that the Scots have made it illegal.

(…)

Even in the cases where subversive activity is clearly illegal, such as with destruction and violence during the 2020 riots and at many anti-Israel protests today, crimes committed in service of some larger goal—like “decolonization”—are presented as righteous. Decolonization is a word that’s become as common these days as social justice. But what does it mean? Gal Beckerman of The Atlantic has written about the Marxist origins of this concept and one of its chief proponents, Frantz Fanon. Fanon, Beckerman writes, is “the patron saint of political violence,” and his “concepts have provided intellectual ballast and moral justification for actions that most people would simply describe as terror.” Listen to Fanon himself: “whatever may be the headings used or the new formulas introduced, decolonization is always a violent phenomenon.”

When young people say “resistance is justified,” many—if not most—of them believe they are simply standing up for the downtrodden. But the deeper implications of that statement are about justifying the morally reprehensible. How else to explain that at our most prestigious college campuses, students can be found glorifying Hamas terrorists and openly praising North Korea?

(…)

We have also come to a place where it is difficult for anyone to dissent for fear of incurring the wrath of the adherents—witting or not—of subversion. So people go along, keep their heads down, and try not to make a fuss.

Destabilization is the next phase. This process is considerably shorter, taking anywhere between five months to two years. With demoralization now reaching its full maturity, society is increasingly paralyzed by harsh domestic turmoil across all sectors. Democratic politics take on the character of a vicious struggle for power. Factionalism takes hold. Economic relations degrade and collapse, obliterating the basis for bargaining. The social fabric frays, leading to mob rule. Society turns inward, leading to fear, isolationism, and the decline of the nation-state itself, leading to crisis.

It is important to understand that, at this stage, the process of subversion is largely self-propelled. What once required active involvement on the part of a subverter has now taken root and grows organically. Then, society ruptures all at once in a rolling series of crises as the full extent of the cancer manifests.

Finally, says Bezmenov, a subverted society enters the normalization stage, which is when the subversive regime takes over, installing its ideology as the law of the land. By then, the enemy has totally conquered the target society—without ever firing a shot.

(…)

The question, of course, is who is doing the subverting. Who is trying to unravel America and the West?

The first: American Marxists. This category includes old card-carrying communists, red-diaper baby socialists, antifa anarchists, and many of whom we now call woke. Though the Soviet Union collapsed decades ago, the Soviet worldview has found familiar proponents: young Americans and their professors. They are no longer advancing their cause merely through class struggle, but through the fusion of racial, class, and anticolonial struggles. Theirs is now a cultural communism; they lead subversion through the institutions with the ultimate aim of overthrowing the West.

(…)

The second force is the radical Islamists, who are riding the coattails of the communists to power. A good example is the Muslim Brotherhood and its many tentacles. Of these tentacles, some are openly religious, like the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim Students Association, each with chapters in nearly every American university. Other organizations don a secular mask, like the so-called Students for Justice in Palestine. These groups have become increasingly confident over the past months. Anti-Israel Muslim candidates recently won elected seats in countries like England, where imams talk openly about reestablishing the caliphate in Europe.

The third force is the Chinese Communist Party. The most obvious avenues through which the CCP has spread subversion in America is through its numerous Confucius Institutes. These organizations have been vehicles for Chinese espionage within major American academic institutions. Then there is TikTok, an addictive social media app controlled by the CCP, which presents Chinese children wholesome, educational content while wreaking havoc on American kids—polarizing them and feeding them anti-American propaganda.

(…)

The widespread acquisition of useless, aggressively ideological degrees in gender and race, or the claims of the possibility of an unlimited number of genders, or the total racialization and “decolonization” of our political discourse, or the demands to defund the police, the toppling of statues, the defacing of art, the “spontaneous” protests to dismantle our structures, and much else, I now understand as acts of subversion rather than mere expressions of discontent or youthful energy run amok.

(…)

Orwell said that “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” Everyone with eyes to see is now scrambling to do just that.

What is at stake in our ability to see plainly? Everything. What is at stake is nothing less than the preservation of our way of life.

Now is the time for all of us blind seekers to come together. To restore what we have lost will be the work of our lifetimes. Can there be a more important project?”