But who is in this class? It’s a surprising answer. The people who might be in the most trouble are not the ones you’d expect. According to this new way of thinking, the group most at risk is the college-educated. That’s right. The people who have spent years in school and have expensive degrees might be the ones who get replaced first.

Why is this? The problem starts in college itself. For many years, colleges have been giving out more and more A’s. It used to be that a “C” grade was average. Now, it feels like almost everyone gets an A or a B. This is often called “grade inflation.” It means that a college degree doesn’t always mean what it used to. It’s harder to tell who really worked hard and learned a lot, and who just got by.

But the bigger problem is what students are actually learning. Many college graduates today have not read many full books. They might read summaries or chapters, but not entire texts. They also write very few long papers. And when they do write papers, it is very tempting to use AI to do the work.

You can type a rough idea into a program, and it will spit out a well-written, organized paper in seconds. It’s very hard for students to resist this. After all, the AI makes your writing sound much better.

Now, to be fair, you can’t just tell the AI to “write a paper” and get a good grade. You still need to do the research. You need to understand the topic. You need to have the raw facts and ideas to feed into the AI in the first place. The AI is a great tool for polishing a draft, but you have to provide the raw materials.

However, to do that research, you need to be “literate.” You need to know how to read and understand complex information. You need a basic understanding of math and statistics. You need to know the difference between things that are connected (correlation) and things that actually cause each other (causation).

If you don’t have this basic understanding, the AI won’t save you. It will just create more “slop”—meaningless, poorly argued nonsense. It will just produce a different kind of bad paper. For people who are functionally illiterate, meaning they can read words but can’t understand complex ideas, the AI is just a tool to create more confusion.

This creates a scary situation. College is incredibly expensive, and most students have to take out loans to pay for it. Here’s the worst part: most of that college debt can never be wiped away, even if you go bankrupt. If you start a business and it fails, you can declare bankruptcy and get rid of that business debt. But you can’t do that with student loans. This was a deliberate law passed a long time ago.

It was designed so that students couldn’t just graduate, get a great job, and then declare bankruptcy to erase their debt. Politicians sometimes talk about forgiving student loans, but the law makes it extremely difficult to do so on a large scale. This means that millions of people are stuck with huge monthly payments for decades. They are trapped.

So, the college-educated person has a degree that might not mean much; they might not have learned the deep skills needed to analyze information, and they are trapped under a mountain of debt. They are being squeezed from all sides. This is the group that might be most vulnerable to being replaced by AI.

The New American Dream: Working with Your Hands

Now, let’s look at who is not going to be in this AI underclass. The new hero of the economy is the blue-collar worker. These are the people who work with their hands. Think about a plumber. When your toilet is overflowing and water is spilling all over the floor, you don’t call a computer program. You call a plumber. A plumber has to come to your house, look at the pipes, figure out the problem, and fix it with their hands and their tools. AI can’t do that.

What about an electrician? When a storm knocks out the power in your neighborhood, AI can’t climb a pole and fix the wires. When you want to add a new outlet in your kitchen, you need someone who knows the building codes, can work safely with high voltage, and can run wires through your walls. That’s a skilled trade.

Carpenters are the same. They build houses, frames, cabinets, and decks. They use saws, hammers, and their knowledge of wood and design to create real, physical things. Dental hygienists are another great example. They are the people who clean your teeth at the dentist’s office. They use special tools to scrape plaque and polish your teeth. They have to interact with you, be gentle, and know exactly what they are doing in your mouth. Again, a robot or AI is a long way from being able to do that.

It even includes the person at the car wash who takes your keys, drives your car into the tunnel, and then wipes it down at the end. They vacuum the seats and scrub the floor mats. This job requires human hands, human judgment, and human interaction. An AI can’t look at your car and see that a spot was missed.

Why are all these jobs safe from AI? It comes down to two things: physical labor and human interaction.

First, these jobs require physical movement. You have to be there, in person, to do the work. You have to move around, lift things, and use your hands to build, fix, or clean. AI is information. It exists on a screen. It can’t install a new water heater or wire a new ceiling fan.

Second, these jobs are constantly changing. Every house is different. Every plumbing system is unique. Every patient has different teeth. A carpenter has to deal with wood that might be warped. A plumber has to figure out pipes that were installed incorrectly by the previous owner. This kind of “hands-on problem solving” requires a human brain. You need to look at the situation, figure out what’s wrong, and figure out the best way to fix it. This is a type of thinking that AI is very, very bad at.

The best part is that these jobs pay very well. A master plumber or electrician can make a fantastic living. They often make more money than college graduates who are sitting in an office. And they don’t have the same kind of debt. Instead of spending four years in college and $100,000 on tuition, they spent time in an apprenticeship. They learned on the job, they earned money while they learned, and they ended up with a highly valuable, lifelong skill.

This is the new American Dream. It’s a dream where you build a stable, middle-class life not with a fancy piece of paper from a university, but with a strong back, a smart mind, and a good set of tools. It’s a life where your value comes from being able to solve real-world problems for real people. And in a world where computers are getting smarter and smarter, the people who can do things that computers can’t will always be in demand.

The Future is Skilled

In the end, the AI revolution is not just about robots. It’s about the value we place on different kinds of intelligence. For a long time, we told our kids, “Go to college, or you’ll end up working with your hands.” We made it seem like a trade school was a second choice.

But the joke is on us. It might be that the people we are encouraging to go to college and get into debt are the ones who will be left behind. The future belongs to the tinkerers, the fixers, and the builders. The future belongs to the people who can not only think with their heads but also work with their hands.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Antisemitic trends in America are a relatively recent phenomenon.

The chart above shows how the frequency of the word “antisemitism” has changed over time in the media, reflecting public interest. It provides a helpful measure of how much attention this topic has received over the last 20 years.

Antisemitism in America has multiple causes, reflecting the diversity of cultural and social views in our country. Researchers, Jewish organizations, political analysts, and law enforcement generally point to a mix of political polarization, social media dynamics, conspiracy thinking, spillover from international conflict, and broader social instability.

There are at least 8 different drivers acting in the United States.

1. Political polarization and extremism - On the far right, classic antisemitic ideas — Jewish control of finance, media, government, “globalism,” demographic replacement theories — have re-entered public discourse. Violent incidents like the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting and the Poway synagogue shooting were tied to white nationalist ideology.

On the far left, intense anti-Israel activism sometimes crosses into antisemitic tropes or collective blame directed at Jews broadly rather than criticism of the Israeli government specifically. Many Jewish groups distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from rhetoric that demonizes Jews as a people.

2. Social media amplification - platforms reward outrage, emotional content, and conspiracy narratives. Algorithms rapidly spread conspiracy theories, historical distortions, Holocaust denial, “hidden elite” narratives, and emotionally charged political content.

3. Declining historical literacy - surveys show that many Americans — especially younger generations — know less about the Holocaust, Jewish history, and the historical consequences of antisemitic propaganda. This weakens social resistance to recycled stereotypes and misinformation.

4. Scapegoating during periods of instability - Historically, antisemitism has risen during periods of economic anxiety, cultural change, political distrust, and social fragmentation. Jews have often been cast as symbolic “insiders” or blamed for complex societal problems by both the left and the right. This pattern has recurred across centuries and political systems.

5. Spillover from the Middle East conflict - Tensions surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict strongly affect antisemitism levels in the U.S. After major events such as the wars in Gaza, terrorist attacks, and military operations, reported antisemitic incidents often spike. Jewish institutions may become targets regardless of individuals’ political beliefs. Many American Jews report feeling pressured to answer collectively for the Israeli government’s actions.

6. Mainstreaming of conspiracy culture - General conspiracy thinking has grown in American culture, marked by distrust of institutions, anti-elite narratives, secret cabals, and “deep state” thinking. Antisemitism has historically adapted easily to conspiracy culture because Jews are often cast as the alleged hidden force behind events.

7. Normalization through public discourse - Ideas once considered socially unacceptable now appear more openly in online commentary, protests, fringe media, and occasionally mainstream politics. Repeated exposure can desensitize people to antisemitic language or symbols.

8. Identity politics and tribalism - Modern politics increasingly organizes people into competing identity groups. In highly polarized environments, minorities can become symbolic stand-ins for larger ideological battles. Jews occupy a complicated position because they are seen differently across racial, religious, economic, and political frameworks.

Antisemitism existed in Germany before the Nazis, and was expressed through conspiracy theories, nationalist resentment, and claims that Jews caused Germany’s defeat in World War I. The Nazis did not invent these ideas. They unified them into a total ideology tied to race, nationalism, and authoritarianism.

The Nazis were historically distinct because they moved beyond earlier persecutions by other groups, which often included exclusion, forced conversion, segregation, or expulsion, to total racial categorization, continent-wide persecution, mechanized mass murder, and the deliberate elimination of every Jew they could reach.

Let’s take a minute and look at the similarities and differences between America today and Nazi Germany in the 1930s. The similarities include conspiracy thinking, portraying Jews as outsiders, economic and social anxiety fueling scapegoating, and ideology spread through mass communication.

The differences are substantial, however, and include the following.

1. The U.S. government does not have an inherently antisemitic structure. Currently, antisemitism is not recognized as the official government stance. Jewish individuals have complete legal protections, antisemitic acts are prosecuted, and Jewish Americans are actively involved in politics, academia, business, media, and civic spheres.

2. American society is far more pluralistic, with strong traditions of religious freedom, constitutional protections, independent courts, diverse media, and civil society organizations. Organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, universities, religious groups, and law enforcement openly monitor and combat antisemitism.

3. Antisemitism in America is fragmented, not centralized. In America today, antisemitism emerges from far-right white nationalism, some far-left anti-Zionist movements crossing into antisemitic rhetoric, extremist religious ideologies, and online conspiracy ecosystems.

4. Violence exists, but not industrialized persecution. The U.S. has experienced serious antisemitic attacks, including synagogue shootings, harassment, vandalism, and threats. This violence is not state-supported or state-driven.

You may recall my discussion of Hannah Arendt’s views in my last article. That article discussed her views on political equality. She also had strong opinions about antisemitism, which partly reflect her own experiences while avoiding capture by the Nazis.

Arendt labeled the Jews a “pariah” people, because of their dual characters: the parvenu or the assimilated Jew trying to enter elite society by downplaying Jewish identity, and the pariah, the outsider who accepts marginality and may develop moral or intellectual independence from it. She believed many talented Jewish intellectuals occupied a “conscious pariah” role.

Arendt believed the Jewish assimilation into modern society was incomplete and fragile. The emancipation in 19th-century Europe gave Jews legal rights but not genuine political security. They could become wealthy, cultured, and professionally successful, while remaining socially vulnerable because acceptance depended on unstable social moods rather than durable political belonging. Jews believed that success meant safety, but they didn’t understand that safety was dependent on antisemitism being controlled.

According to Arendt, the collapse of the traditional nation-state created a catastrophe. She asserted that minorities without secure national protection become vulnerable when states fail to protect them. She argued that Jews exemplified this vulnerability most clearly because they were dispersed across Europe, lacked sovereign protection, and often depended on fragile legal arrangements. This made them symbolic targets during social crises.

Arendt coined the phrase “banality of evil” during the 1960 Eichmann trial in Israel. Eichmann was a high-ranking Nazi accused of murdering thousands. In his defense, he claimed he was simply doing what he was told. The banality of evil describes a person who acts as a bureaucratic administrator, uses shallow clichés, and obeys without weighing the consequences. She concludes that great evil can be committed by ordinary people who stop thinking critically about morality.

Share

If the Iran war and the Gaza conflict can be resolved, the fever of antisemitism in the United States will subside. The left’s antisemitic behavior is tied to their oppressor-oppressed ideology, and that rage will be dampened if they believe oppression has subsided. On the extreme right, there is no hope for cooler heads, because racial persecution is built into their authoritarian ideology.

The Jewish people are victims of their uniqueness, which is a constant excuse for targeting them.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

The left still controls academia, including the universities, the mainstream media, and the deep state. The right controls the Supreme Court and Congress (by a small margin).

The second-most-important election is this fall. If the Democrats take the House, the Trump agenda takes a hit, and the impeachments will begin again. There is no scenario in which tribalism will abate so that the Democrats will bring back their neoliberal/progressive agenda, and most of what Trump has accomplished will be lost. The Republicans have to have eight more years in power to halt the progressive agenda fully.

Here we will take an early look at the Democratic race for the presidential nomination and see what it tells us.

According to Mark Halperin’s reporting, which I trust to be reasonably objective, Democrats line up as follows: Gavin Newsom, Josh Shapiro, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Rahm Emanuel, AOC, Mark Kelly, J.D. Pritzker. In his opinion, all of the candidates are weak for one reason or another.

Mark’s ratings are based on intelligence from insiders, not polls. He separates electability from popularity, and one of his strongest metrics for electability is whether the candidate has a vision for themselves and the country. Most of the people on this list do not have a vision they can articulate.

Gavin Newsom, Governor of California – His strengths are an elite communicator, very comfortable on a national stage, a strong fundraising network (Hollywood + donors), and he’s already running a shadow national campaign. His weaknesses are California liability (crime, homelessness narratives), and he can come off as overly slick. Newsom is a progressive hybrid, the most presidential-looking, but also the easiest Republican target.

Josh Shapiro, Governor of Pennsylvania - His strengths are winning big in a swing state, a pragmatic, moderate tone, and a strong executive image. His weaknesses are lower national name recognition and a less charismatic persona than Newsom. Shapiro is a center-left candidate to the right of the progressives, and Halperin treats him as the most dangerous general-election candidate. Dangerous in the sense that if his competitors overlook him, they will be making a mistake.

Pete Buttigieg, former Transportation Secretary. His strengths are that he is extremely disciplined, a strong communicator, strong in media and debates, and he appeals to educated voters. His weaknesses are a limited executive record and his weakness with Black voters (historically). We could label him a technocratic reformer. He’s always competitive, but still needs to create a broader coalition.

Kamala Harris, former Vice President. Her strengths are a strong national infrastructure, support among key Democratic constituencies, and a first-in-line position if Biden fully exits the scene. Her weaknesses include low approval ratings and messaging inconsistency. She is an institutional coalition candidate. Kamala is the default front-runner if she runs well, but she is very beatable.

Rahm Emanuel, former Chicago mayor and ambassador. His strengths are deep political experience, and he’s a strong operator and strategist. His weaknesses are that he is polarizing and seen as an old-guard establishment figure. You could label him a hard-nosed centrist. He is probably more influential behind the scenes than as a candidate.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, current Congresswoman. Her strengths are her marketing ability and the base of followers she has developed. Her weakness is that she is a polarizing personality. She will influence the race if she runs.

Mark Kelly, Arizona senator, astronaut. His strength is his strong general-election profile. His weaknesses are that he has only moderate appeal and weak primary energy.

J. B. Pritzker, Governor of Illinois. His strengths are his massive personal wealth (which allows him to self-fund), strong progressive credentials, and executive experience. His weaknesses are low national charisma and the fact that Illinois doesn’t scream “electability.” He is a progressive establishment candidate, but he’s not a serious player if money and organization dominate.

You can place these candidates into four lanes: Shapiro and Kelly are electable; Harris and Newsom are part of the national machine; Buttigieg is a next-generation politician; and AOC and Pritzker are in the progressive ideological lane.

Share

Of course, the central battle within the party is between the progressive and more traditional wings. The progressives want to change more and don’t care if that makes them less popular along the way. Elections, unlike primaries, are usually won by centrist candidates because they have to attract independents to vote for them.

The energy in the Democratic Party lies with the progressives for several reasons: their zeal makes them activists; primaries are ideological contests; institutions that generate new ideas (universities) are progressive; and the progressives have greater cultural influence through the media and cultural institutions.

Moderates still have significant money influence, however. Contributions from East Coast and West Coast sources are approximately equal, so Silicon Valley/Hollywood doesn’t control things on its own. Blue state identity matters too. Strong blue states will nominate progressive candidates, while swing states must nominate moderates to increase their chances of winning the nomination.

How does the general election look from our long-distance position? The Polymarket betting line has Newsom ahead of AOC in the nomination race. On the Republican side, Vance defeats Rubio in the primary and goes on to win the general election over Newsom.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

It’s been said that humans and chimpanzees are the only species that kill their own, but that statement is only partially true. Many species may kill their own for a variety of reasons, including survival, procreative advantage, or rivalry. But none kill as ferociously as chimps and humans.

Male chimps patrol the borders of their territory. If they encounter an isolated male from another community, they may attack and kill him. They also engage in territorial raids using a typical pattern that includes a silent coordinated patrol, searching for a numerical advantage, a sudden overwhelming attack, and repeated attacks over time against the same group.

Chimp aggression also happens inside a community, where there can be dominance fights between males, attacks on lower-ranking members, occasional infanticide, and coercive aggression related to mating.

Humans raise the ante on Chimp behavior. They engage in organized coalition violence, which includes planning and coordination, warfare-like behavior between groups, and killing on scales far beyond immediate survival needs. The developed human brain has transformed human violence through tools and weapons, ideology and politics, large-scale cooperation, and abstraction (“nation,” “religion,” “class,” etc.).

Like all behaviors that come under scrutiny these days, attitudes towards violence are subject to one’s political ideology – left versus right. Each tribe is attached to views on violence that align with its political beliefs.

On the political left, violence is viewed through a structural lens, framed as something embedded in systems (poverty, racism, inequality). Reducing those conditions is seen as key to reducing violence overall. The left prefers nonviolent protest. Traditions influenced by figures like Martin Luther King Jr. emphasize civil disobedience and mass protest. The left is skeptical of state force and is more concerned about police brutality, mass incarceration, and military interventions. Some fringe or historical movements on the left have justified revolutionary violence, but that’s not the dominant modern mainstream position.

On the right, the emphasis is on order and deterrence. Violence is often viewed through the lens of maintaining order and discouraging crime (strong policing, harsher penalties). The right believes in the legitimacy of force for protection, greater acceptance of self-defense rights (including firearm ownership), and the use of force to protect property or the nation.

The right is more supportive of military strength and more likely to support robust defense and, in some cases, preemptive or assertive use of military force. The exception on the right is the libertarian and religious conservative strands that stress restraint, non-aggression, and just-war limits.

The tribes do have overlapping beliefs. A vast majority of Americans condemn violence by individuals (crime, terrorism). Both sides generally accept some legitimate use of force (e.g., self-defense, policing, national defense), but disagree on scope, oversight, and thresholds.

There is a strong break generating different positions on what counts as “violence” and direct physical harm vs. broader societal “structural” harms. The tribes have different levels of trust in institutions, especially the police, courts, and the military. The debate over dealing with violence gets more complicated when it comes to risk trade-offs, such as civil liberties vs. security or prevention vs. punishment. Historical experience and group identity shape perceptions of threat and protection.

One large population study found that about 3.9% of people had at least one conviction for a violent crime. It also found that roughly 1% of the population accounted for over 60% of violent crime convictions.

In the U.S., annual violent crime rates are also relatively low compared to the total population. FBI data typically show around 350–400 violent crimes per 100,000 people per year (about 0.35–0.4% annually), that’s crimes, not unique offenders.

It makes sense to conclude that there is a small percentage of people who commit violent crimes by nature, and it’s unlikely that these crimes can be prevented.

Many can be rehabilitated, though the success rate varies a lot depending on the person, the type of violence, age, mental health, substance abuse, social environment, and whether treatment is intensive and sustained. Research shows that most violent offenders do not remain highly violent for life. Violent behavior tends to peak in the late teens and 20s and decline with age (“aging out” of crime).

Some offenders respond especially well to comprehensive treatment: younger offenders, people whose violence was impulsive rather than predatory, people tied to drugs, alcohol, trauma, or unstable environments, and people with strong family/community support. Others are much harder to rehabilitate, including chronic repeat offenders, highly psychopathic individuals, organized/sadistic offenders, and people with entrenched antisocial personality traits.

One of the strongest findings in criminology is that certainty of structure and opportunity matters more than harshness alone. Countries and systems focused on reintegration often achieve lower repeat-offense rates than those focused solely on punishment.

In the U.S., recidivism (repeat crimes) rates are generally higher, partly because former inmates often return to unstable environments with poor employment prospects and fragmented support.

There’s also an important distinction that needs to be mentioned. Reducing future violence is often achievable; completely changing personality or eliminating all aggressive tendencies may not be. The evidence suggests that many violent offenders can become nonviolent members of society, some improve partially, and a smaller core group remains persistently dangerous despite intervention. This evidence supports government programs that address offenders driven by innate psychological factors.

Even though we can understand the causes of violent crime and the behaviors that lead to it, little is being done because of the close-mindedness of America’s political tribes. Each side holds tight to its ideology and won’t compromise. The left believes that most guns should be banned because they cause violence. The right believes in gun ownership as a right, so any law that curtails that right is inappropriate.

Those are the official ideological positions, but public opinion is more nuanced. A majority of Americans generally support stricter gun laws, though not overwhelmingly. Recent Gallup polling found that about 56% favor stricter laws, while roughly a third want laws kept as they are, and a small minority want them loosened.

Share

The devil is in the details, however. Keeping guns away from the mentally ill and implementing a tight process for buying and owning guns are very logical approaches that should deter some crime. Still, the gun lobby will have no part of what they see as the restriction of an inherent right.

Human violence will never end because it’s built into human nature. Like any societal issue, if the problem of violence in America is not addressed, the public suffers for it. If tribalism does not end, American democracy cannot survive.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Moyn’s opinion piece, titled “Older Americans Are Hoarding America’s Potential,” conveys its basic premise in its title. He has a book on the same subject coming out soon.

Moyn expresses concern about aspects of elderly life, such as the lack of long-term care options, but, on the whole, he thinks the damage that the age group inflicts on American society is worse than any mistreatment they receive.

As you will see later, Moyn is guilty of overgeneralization because he lumps several issues together as consequences of elder behavior when, in fact, they are not. Moreover, his neoliberal beliefs heavily influence his views. Let’s step through his points and see what you think.

He states that America is a gerontocratic society in which the “old” exercise increasing power and wealth, leading to overrepresentation in political life and unequal power in American society. He asks whether older people should be required to give more to younger Americans and national priorities, which he sees as critical to the future of our democracy and society.

He believes they do not deserve the stranglehold over it they currently enjoy through overrepresentation in elections, which produces too many regressive policies and too many seniors in the highest offices. Regressive to him is any policy that doesn’t support the neoliberal/globalist agenda.

He sees some elder power as detrimental to society, blocking its progress in areas like environmental remediation, immigration policy, and tax fairness. He doesn’t mention that half of the American public rejects his neoliberal position on these issues.

Conservatives in general are against them, no matter what age. And what about the older liberals, who support the ideas he supports? They’re already on board. Polls show the elderly split almost evenly on party affiliation. Does he want to penalize his ideological brethren?

Moyn asserts that our presidents are too old, as is our political class. A large majority of Americans would certainly agree with that, but the elites and politicians are the people who block the problem from being fixed. Ignoring that group in the argument, he goes on to state that the hidden depth of gerontocracy lies in the advanced age of voters and the concentration of wealth in this country.

Many in the elderly population have reached a point in their lives where they can live comfortably because of the careful watch they kept over spending and the amount of money they were able to save. In America, they were admired for their conscientiousness and for serving as role models for sound fiscal management.

Now, however, Moyn and his friends have defined this as anti-social behavior. Meanwhile, politicians and Wall Street professionals keep creating new investment vehicles to enrich themselves, such as subprime mortgages and junk bonds, which can disrupt the economy and cause recessions. They made the quick buck, and when their wonderful products failed, the middle class had to bail them out by paying more taxes.

He criticizes seniors for their high election participation, as if they’re doing something wrong. I thought we lived in a democracy where, in theory, government can be controlled by informed voter choices. What don’t young voters go to the polls and vote rather than just complaining?

Moyn discusses the growing wealth gap in America, which I agree is a real problem. Its cause is mainly the fact that wealthy people and politicians have rigged the system for their own benefit. Money grows faster when you have a lot of it, so the wealthy accumulate more. The money-making opportunities they have are closed to the rest of us.

Moyn wants us to believe that the elderly couple on Social Security is the villain. For that reason, he proposes a set of changes in the way elderly people live their lives.

He would start with putting age limits on politicians, something the whole country would applaud. This issue barely touches on the concept of genontocracy because the group of politicians is small. Put that issue in a different bucket with the other reasons for ineffective government.

His second proposal is to make voting easier, a core policy of the left. Most likely, that will only increase the number of registered voters who don’t vote. Civic-minded citizens don’t mind the steps they have to go through on election day, because they see voting as a privilege. The old line about showing an ID to vote being a barrier to voting is a lie. Ask any constituent in one of the “oppressed” classes in America, and they will tell you the truth.

Moyn’s third recommendation is to institute a mandatory retirement age, to open up those jobs to young people. About 20% of Americans over 65 are still working, 40% of them part-time. That’s 7 million people. The 60% who are full-time add up to 4.2 million people.

So the elderly make up 2.5% of the workforce in the United States. About 40% of those with higher education work in white-collar positions, and a large share of the remaining take jobs with flexible hours and/or provide health care. It’s hard to see how these folks can be ruining the careers of young people.

As many as 35% of Gen Y age people are being supported by their parents. It’s time for the men to shut down their game consoles in the basement and get going on their careers. The women need to stop posting so many photos on Instagram and start interviewing.

Moyn’s fourth recommendation is to impose a progressive tax on the elderly to force them to sell their homes. Like the job market, he sees the elderly as exceeding the acceptable limit of home ownership. Of course, such a tax could never be passed because it’s unconstitutional, and as a lawyer, Moyn knows that, but he must have needed another grievance to make his list longer, so he added this one.

The behavior of the elderly regarding staying in their homes is way down the list of factors affecting housing availability. The prime factors include interest rates, new construction, local regulations, demographics, and economic conditions.

Share

I draw the following conclusions from the Moyn article. Writing an op-ed in the New York Times before a book launch is a marketing tactic aimed at selling books. Its publication in a progressive newspaper validates the author’s bona fides as a neoliberal/progressive. Surprisingly, though, his academic rigor is lacking, as one can easily prove by looking up the statistics supporting his assertions and seeing them fall apart.

That doesn’t matter to him, however, because he gets to add another book to his CV, and he also provides another Ivy League stamp of approval to the neoliberal ideology he discusses with his friends at cocktail parties.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Let me start with my own story so you understand why I know about this. I survived the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. My cousin, Tommy Ferino, was a New York City fire captain. He died on 9/11. We buried an empty coffin for him. He was going to be promoted to battalion chief. I am writing this to keep people safe, not to scare them.

What Happened in the Ukraine War

If you have been following the war in Ukraine, you know that both sides use drones. The Russians try to jam the drones with powerful radio signals. They use jammers that work in the 2.4 to 5.2 gigahertz range. (A gigahertz is a billion radio waves per second. That is very fast.)

The Russian jammers are so strong that they sometimes jam their own equipment. They jam their own GPS. They jam their own radios between soldiers. They jam almost everything.

But here is the interesting part. Some Ukrainian drones still work even when jammed. Why? Because they use AI (artificial intelligence) to see where they are going, they follow preset images of the terrain, or they use fiber optic cables. Fiber optic cables carry light waves, not radio signals. You cannot jam light waves inside a cable.

How Safe Is Airport Security?

Let me be clear. The security you go through at the airport is very good. They check your bags. They check your shoes. They use metal detectors. They look for bombs and flammable materials. It would be very hard to sneak a bomb onto a plane today.

But that is not the biggest threat anymore.

The real threat is something called electromagnetic spectrum attack or radio frequency jamming. I wrote an article for a military magazine(MCPA) called “The Poor Man’s EMP Nuke.” I was later told that the White House reviewed my article. That is not bragging. That is just to show you that I know what I am talking about.

How Do Planes Land in Bad Weather?

To understand the danger, you need to know how planes land when they cannot see.

Good weather landing (Visual Flight Rules): When the weather is clear, pilots can look out the window. They see bridges, rivers, and landmarks. They know where they are. They can also use GPS, which is very easy to use.

Bad weather landing (Instrument Flight Rules): When there is fog, heavy rain, or snow, pilots cannot see. They have to use instruments. Those instruments depend completely on radio signals. The system is called ILS, which stands for Instrument Landing System.

The ILS is so accurate that planes can actually land themselves in bad weather. But here is the problem. The ILS runs on radio frequencies. And radio frequencies can be jammed.

The Terrorist Threat Nobody Is Talking About

What if a terrorist hides near an airport with a 100-watt radio jammer? That is much more powerful than a home Wi-Fi router. They would only need to turn it on for 15 or 30 seconds. Just enough time to block the signals when a plane is trying to land in heavy fog.

Airports are very vulnerable because of where they are located. Think about JFK Airport, LaGuardia, or Newark. There are places nearby where someone could hide with a small device.

You do not need to be a genius to build a jammer. An amateur radio operator could do it. Someone who took physics in high school could do it. An electrical engineer could do it. A computer hacker could do it.

Why Isn’t Anyone Stopping This?

The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) is in charge of airplane safety. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) is in charge of radio frequencies. Both of these agencies are good at their jobs. But they are not thinking like creative hackers.

They are not ignorant because they are stupid. They are ignorant because they have not been trained to think about this specific threat. It takes a different kind of thinking, like a computer hacker trying to find a weakness in a system.

What Needs to Happen?

People need to know about this danger. Airports need to be aware of radio jamming, not just bombs. There may be ways to counter this threat. I’m working on thought experiments of what can be done to ameliorate this situation. That brings some ideas, but I have a 72-year-old hacker brain, not a 25-year-old hacker brain. But first, people have to understand that the threat exists.

Final Thoughts

I am not trying to make you afraid to fly. The security at airports is very good against bombs and weapons. But we need to think about the next threat. The people who want to hurt us are also thinking about the next threat. We need to stay ahead of them.

I survived one terrorist attack at the World Trade Center in 1993. I lost my cousin on 9/11. I do not want more families to go through what my family went through. Please share this information. Tell people about the danger of radio jamming near airports. The more people know, the harder it is for terrorists to surprise us.

God bless everyone. Stay safe.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

.

The second-most-important election is this fall. If the Democrats take the House, the Trump agenda takes a hit, and the impeachments will begin again. There is no scenario in which tribalism will abate so that the Democrats will bring back their neoliberal/progressive agenda, and most of what Trump has accomplished will be lost. The Republicans have to have eight more years in power to halt the progressive agenda fully.

Here we will take an early look at the Democratic race for the presidential nomination and see what it tells us.

According to Mark Halperin’s reporting, which I trust to be reasonably objective, Democrats line up as follows: Gavin Newsom, Josh Shapiro, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Rahm Emanuel, AOC, Mark Kelly, J.D. Pritzker. In his opinion, all of the candidates are weak for one reason or another.

Mark’s ratings are based on intelligence from insiders, not polls. He separates electability from popularity, and one of his strongest metrics for electability is whether the candidate has a vision for themselves and the country. Most of the people on this list do not have a vision they can articulate.

Gavin Newsom, Governor of California – His strengths are an elite communicator, very comfortable on a national stage, strong fundraising network (Hollywood + donors), and he’s already running a shadow national campaign. His weaknesses are California liability (crime, homelessness narratives), and he can come off as overly slick. Newsom is a progressive hybrid, the most presidential-looking, but also the easiest Republican target.

Josh Shapiro, Governor of Pennsylvania - His strengths are winning big in a swing state, a pragmatic, moderate tone, and a strong executive image. His weaknesses are lower national name recognition and a less charismatic persona than Newsom. Shapiro is a center-left candidate to the right of the progressives, and Halperin treats him as the most dangerous general-election candidate. Dangerous in the sense that if his competitors overlook him, they will be making a mistake.

Pete Buttigieg, former Transportation Secretary. His strengths are that he is extremely disciplined, a strong communicator, strong in media and debates, and he appeals to educated voters. His weaknesses are a limited executive record and his weakness with Black voters (historically). We could label him a technocratic reformer. He’s always competitive, but still needs to create a broader coalition.

Kamala Harris, former Vice President. Her strengths are a strong national infrastructure, support among key Democratic constituencies, and a first-in-line position if Biden fully exits the scene. Her weaknesses include low approval ratings and messaging inconsistency. She is an institutional coalition candidate. Kamala is the default front-runner if she runs well, but she is very beatable.

Rahm Emanuel, former Chicago mayor and ambassador. His strengths are deep political experience, and he’s a strong operator and strategist. His weaknesses are that he is polarizing and seen as an old-guard establishment figure. You could label him a hard-nosed centrist. He is probably more influential behind the scenes than as a candidate.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, current Congresswoman. Her strengths are her marketing ability and the base of followers she has developed. Her weakness is that she is a polarizing personality.

She will influence the race if she runs.

Mark Kelly, Arizona senator, astronaut. His strength is his strong general-election profile. His weaknesses are that he has only moderate appeal and weak primary energy.

J. B. Pritzker, Governor of Illinois. His strengths are his massive personal wealth (which allows him to self-fund), strong progressive credentials, and executive experience. His weaknesses are low national charisma and the fact that Illinois doesn’t scream “electability.” He is a progressive establishment candidate, but he’s not a serious player if money and organization dominate.

You can place these candidates into four lanes: Shapiro and Kelly are electable; Harris and Newsom are part of the national machine; Buttigieg is a next-generation politician; and AOC and Pritzker are in the progressive ideological lane.

Of course, the central battle within the party is between the progressive and more traditional wings. The progressives want to change more and don’t care if that makes them less popular along the way. Elections, unlike primaries, are usually won by centrist candidates because they have to attract independents to vote for them.

The energy in the Democratic Party lies with the progressives for several reasons: their zeal makes them activists; primaries are ideological contests; institutions that generate new ideas (universities) are progressive; and the progressives have greater cultural influence through the media and cultural institutions.

Share

Moderates still have significant money influence, however. Contributions from East Coast and West Coast sources are approximately equal, so Silicon Valley/Hollywood doesn’t control things on its own. Blue state identity matters too. Strong blue states will nominate progressive candidates, while swing states must nominate moderates to increase their chances of winning the nomination.

How does the general election look from our long-distance position? The Polymarket betting line has Newsom ahead of AOC in the nomination race. On the Republican side, Vance defeats Rubio in the primary and goes on to win the general election over Newsom.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

You flip on the television at night, exhausted from the day, and there it is again. Another segment on FOX News about “inner-city chaos” and skyrocketing crime. CNN rolls out experts decrying systemic barriers that keep Black men locked in cycles of poverty and punishment. On Newsmax or OAN, the tone is often even harsher, conveying the same message of danger, failure, and inner-city crime.

Scroll through social media (X, Facebook, TikTok, Truth Social, and even Instagram), and the algorithm serves up an endless buffet of outrage clips, fights, viral memes, and cherry-picked tragedies exploiting black violence and crime. Black men in America, the story goes, are either victims or villains. Rarely anything in between. This is what so many depict now as “Black Culture.”

But here’s a number that never makes the chyron: there are over 400,000- 500,000 more Black men in college than in prison. Let that sink in. Not a talking point. Not a spin. Data from the National Center for Education Statistics and the Bureau of Justice Statistics has shown this reality for years.

Back in 2009, roughly 1.4 million Black men were enrolled in postsecondary programs, while about 840,000 were behind bars. The gap has fluctuated with enrollment trends and declining incarceration rates, but the fundamental truth remains: more Black men are hitting the books than the cell block. And yet you’d never know it from the nightly news or your feed.

One of the main reasons why this isn’t common knowledge is that outrage pays, while nuance and boring truth don’t. Media outlets on both the left and right run-on engagement. Fear keeps eyes glued. Hope doesn’t trend.

A police encounter gone wrong in a major city is prime-time and will headline news cycles for a week, if not more. A young Black man graduating from Howard, Morehouse, Tuskegee, the University of Michigan, Clemson, or Texas Tech with a degree and landing a good job or starting an innovative business will hardly ever get mentioned unless he is a star athlete. It doesn’t fit the script.

For progressive networks, acknowledging educational gains might undercut the narrative of perpetual systemic failure. For conservative ones, highlighting Black success stories risks softening the tough-on-crime message that resonates with their base. Social media algorithms are engineered to hack your dopamine, feeding on outrage, anxiety, and tribalism to keep you hooked. Statistics about Black college enrollment barely get mentioned, and when they do, it gets buried under the latest culture-war land mine.

This isn’t a conspiracy. It’s business. Cable news ratings soar during racial unrest. Social media companies profit when tribal users contribute to their echo chambers. Politicians on both sides raise money off the divide. This has led to a distorted mirror held up to Black America that reflects only the broken pieces.

I’m not saying these problems don’t exist. They definitely do. Black men are still overrepresented in the criminal justice system relative to their share of the population. Poverty, fatherlessness, and failing schools in some neighborhoods are real problems. Crime statistics paint a horrific and sad picture of reality for many Black Americans, and ignoring them helps no one. But the same honesty demands we acknowledge the other side of the ledger.

Incarceration rates for Black Americans have dropped sharply since the peak of the war on drugs. College enrollment, despite recent dips among Black men specifically, still outpaces imprisonment. Black-owned businesses are growing faster than the national average in many sectors. Homeownership rates have ticked up over the past two decades.

These aren’t miracles. They’re the product of individual grit, family sacrifice, mentorship, community churches, athletic organizations, HBCUs, and yes, policy shifts that reduced mandatory minimums for nonviolent offenses. Yet the coverage gap is glaring.

Search any major outlet’s archives for stories on Black male college graduation rates. You’ll find a handful that are usually tied to some crisis or protest. Now search for stories on prison populations, bail reform failures, or urban violence. You’ll come across page after page and link after link. The imbalance isn’t accidental. It’s purposeful curation. Media gatekeepers decide what “matters,” and positive Black achievement rarely clears the bar unless it serves a larger ideological point.

I remember talking to a friend. He is a Black father of two sons. He put it bluntly: “They want us mad, not motivated.” He wasn’t wrong. When every headline screams crisis, young men internalize it. They see the world as rigged against them before they’ve even tried.

That’s the quiet poison of selective storytelling. It doesn’t just inform; it shapes expectations. Tell a generation that prison is their destiny, and some will live down to it. Show them the thousands walking across stages in caps and gowns every spring, many of whom are the first in their families, and you plant a different seed.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not calling for feel-good propaganda either. Truth requires both the bad and the good. The incarceration rate for Black men born in 2001 is still far too high. Some estimates have shown that one in five Black men born in 2001 is expected to serve time in prison during their lifetime. That’s unacceptable. But so is pretending that the needle hasn’t moved.

Since the early 1990s, Black male college enrollment has exploded before recent headwinds. HBCUs, once written off, have produced leaders in every field. Black men are earning degrees in engineering, business, and health sciences at rates their fathers could only dream of. These aren’t exceptions. They’re patterns hidden in plain sight.

This matters beyond Black America. Every group gets the selective treatment. Immigrants are either all criminals or all saints, depending on the outlet’s bias. Rural whites are either salt-of-the-earth or dumb rednecks. The game is the same: simplify, polarize, and repeat. But when it comes to Black men, the stakes feel higher because the stereotypes have such deep roots, and there is very little “either” for us. The “thug” trope sells papers. The “scholar” doesn’t. Yet many scholars are out there. Many of them are quietly rewriting the story one diploma at a time.

Imagine if the media treated this like the achievement it is. Front-page features on first-generation graduates. Profiles of Black men mentoring at-risk youth while finishing night classes. Data-driven segments on how family structure, school choice, and personal agency drive outcomes more than pundits admit. Ratings might dip initially. But trust could be rebuilt. Viewers might feel something besides anger and prejudice, maybe even hope.

Until that happens, the responsibility falls on parents, teachers, pastors, uncles, coaches, bosses, mentors, and anyone with influence. We all have to be responsible and take accountability. Tell the young men in your life the whole truth. Yes, the world can be unfair. Yes, some systems need fixing. But no, prison isn’t inevitable. College, trade school, and/or entrepreneurship paths are possible and increasingly traveled. Data proves it.

Share

The next time you catch yourself doom-scrolling or glued to the 24-hour outrage machine, pause. Ask: What aren’t they telling me? Then go find out. The numbers don’t lie, even when the headlines do. There are more Black men in lecture halls than prison yards.

That’s not spin. It’s reality. And it’s time the rest of the country heard it-unfiltered, untwisted, and unapologetic. Because propaganda makes for lousy education. Truth, messy as it is, builds better futures.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

The right’s criticism of the left’s view of science is more narrowly focused. The right believes the left puts its own extreme ideology above science. For example, the multiple genders argument turns upside down basic biological principles in favor of identity politics.

Conservative positions hold that addressing climate change involves weighing trade-offs rather than panic over predictions that may not be reliable. A third area of conservative concern is crime. Conservatives reject the left’s notions that all criminals are rehabilitatable and that their crimes should be mitigated by their oppressed status. They believe the foundation of any stable society is law and order, so the public needs to know that its safety is protected by law enforcement.

An analysis of right and left positions on denial of science shows that both conservatives AND liberals can be science deniers. Why? Because scientific skepticism is a human trait, not a political one.

Science is a child of the Enlightenment, when mankind realized he could control his environment through technologies that were developed using scientific principles. Early in the Enlightenment, scientists believed that the world could be understood through the acquisition of absolute knowledge. This idea was debunked by the philosopher David Hume, who asserted that perceptions of reality can be mistaken. In other words, there was no absolute way to know reality.

The solution to Hume’s obstacle was Fallibilism, a philosophical principle holding that human knowledge is never certain and is always open to revision. Our beliefs may be false or mistaken. The important conclusion is that not knowing for certain about the world is an acceptable reality, as long as we continue to test what we believe to be the truth. That practical approach to understanding the world is the scientific method. Scientific theories arise when evidence supports a hypothesis, using observable laws (e.g., the law of gravity). Theories can be revised or discarded if the data no longer support them.

Given its remarkable track record, we should be aware of threats to science and its continued progress. One such threat is science denial: the groundless rejection of well-established scientific conclusions. Scientists themselves have been especially keen to sound the alarm about this widespread tendency, while social scientists have begun to investigate.

One common assertion is that science denial is primarily an issue on the political right. Consistent with this idea, right-leaning individuals are more likely than their left-leaning counterparts to deny various pivotal scientific claims.

Why do conservative people deny science? According to many psychologists, it’s because people on the right have certain cognitive tendencies that make science denial more tempting for them. These include a strong need for verifiable knowledge, rigidity in their worldview, and a tendency toward system-justifying beliefs. People on the left are less prone to these cognitive foibles and thus less likely to engage in science denial.

These ideas seem plausible enough at first glance, but they have to be tested. A problem with testing at the outset is that most psychologists and social scientists are themselves on the political left. This creates potential problems for research on science denial.

First, because most psychologists lean left, they may be more inclined to characterize people on the right as having behavioral biases that explain why they get everything wrong - and to portray themselves as having various traits that explain why they get everything right. Because there are relatively few right-leaning researchers, these conclusions may receive less attention than they should.

Second, psychologists may be quick to identify science denial on the right but slower to spot it among themselves. Although we’re less likely to hear about it, the left does have certain blind spots when it comes to accepting scientific findings.

Left-leaning individuals are often highly skeptical of the idea that genes help shape individual differences in mind and behavior. Many reject evolutionary psychology, thereby denying the evolution of the mind. Many deny the validity of IQ research. Many downplay or deny evolved differences between the sexes. And some even deny that the sex binary is one of the best-established findings in biology.

A study was conducted in 2016, and the resulting paper was titled “Science Denial Across the Political Divide: Liberals and Conservatives Are Similarly Motivated to Deny Attitude-Inconsistent Science,” by Anthony N. Washburn (awas hbu1@uic.edu) and Linda J. Skitka, Social Psychological and Personality Science, Volume 9, Issue 8, September 14, 2017.

The authors tested two main hypotheses:

1. The Uniquely-Right-Wing-Pathology Hypothesis: the idea that the right is more prone to science denial than the left.

2. The Symmetry Hypothesis: the idea that right and left are equally likely to reject scientific claims that clash with their political preferences.

Washburn and Skitka randomly assigned more than 1,000 participants to review scientific findings on various political topics. The topics included immigration, gun control, carbon emissions, health-care reform, nuclear power, and same-sex marriage. There were two versions of each reading: one with findings more aligned with the left, and one with findings more aligned with the right.

After completing their assignment, participants were asked which conclusion was supported by interpreting a set of numerical results included in the reading.

The findings largely supported the symmetry hypothesis over the uniquely right-wing hypothesis.

People on both sides of the political aisle were more likely to interpret the findings in ways that supported their pre-existing views than in ways that refuted them. After choosing an interpretation, participants were told the correct answer. They were then asked whether they agreed with it, whether they thought the researchers were knowledgeable, and whether they trusted the researchers’ interpretation. Finally, participants were asked for their own views on the issues covered in the study.

A twist was also added. For each reading, there was a simple but incorrect interpretation of the result, and a complex but correct interpretation. This was done to test the theory that, if the simple interpretation fit people’s pre-existing views, they’d be more likely to stop there. In contrast, if it didn’t fit, they’d be more likely to keep thinking until they arrived at the more complex - and correct - interpretation.

The findings largely supported the symmetry hypothesis over the uniquely right-wing or uniquely left-wing pathology hypotheses. People on both sides of the political aisle were more likely to interpret the findings in a way that supported their pre-existing views rather than in ways that refuted them.

Science denial is often construed as an ideological issue that is typically a problem for those on the political right (e.g., conservatives are anti-climate change science). The data suggest that this conceptualization is incorrect. When scientific conclusions conflict with people’s ideological stances and attitudes, people on the left and right are motivated both to perceive the evidence in a way that supports their preferred conclusions or to deny the validity of the findings when provided an interpretation that is inconsistent with their preferred conclusions.

Share

Explanations for ideologically motivated reasoning, however, go beyond simple attitude preferences and most likely indicate inherent psychological differences between conservatives and liberals that account for ideological differences in science reasoning.

The description of the study above includes excerpts from a Substack post titled “Who Engages in More Science Denial, Left or Right?” By Steve Stewart-Williams.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Participants weren’t all there for the same reasons, but common themes include: concerns about authoritarian leadership (too much executive power), immigration policies and ICE enforcement, U.S. involvement in conflicts (especially Iran), voting rights and civil liberties, and cost of living and economic issues. Of course, it’s much easier to produce large numbers of protesters if there are multiple causes to protest.

Americans have every right to protest about whatever they want, but it’s also important to look under the covers and see who’s funding the protests and what their motives are. The citizenry of a society is never an important tool for change or revolution, because they are a disorganized mass. Still, the public is often used to influence public opinion.

As Anna Ahrent wrote in her book The Origins of Totalitarianism, the drivers of revolution (the wealthy who want change, plus the intellectuals) use two groups from the public to assist them. The first group is the dedicated ideologues who want to see their chosen system implemented. Judging from the size of the socialist and communist organizations in America, that group isn’t large enough to matter.

The second group is people who want to be part of something big. They sign on for the thrill of participating. Often, there is a third component, the scapegoats. They help generate momentum for change because they are a handy target for blame for the current conditions. The Nazis’ use of the Jews as scapegoats was a historically important example. We are reminded of 1930s Germany by the antisemitism that is on the rise in the United States today.

The left blames Israel for the misfortunes of the Palestinian people, made a current issue by the Hamas attack on Israel and the subsequent Israeli invasion of Gaza. More recently, a group of conservatives, who lean libertarian, have turned against Israel. They have embraced nationalism and see Trump’s relationship with Israel as a violation of their ideological dogma. It’s a slippery slope from here to Jewish censorship and worse.

Movements such as the “No Kings” rallies or the 50501 Movement typically aim to signal public opposition, influence media coverage, pressure politicians and institutions, energize supporters, and build networks.

Public protests can shift public opinion by making an issue feel urgent, moving undecided people, and changing what’s socially acceptable to say or support. For example, the Vietnam War protests gradually shifted public sentiment in the 1970s. Specifically, protests are designed to influence elites (indirectly) by affecting polling, creating media pressure, and signaling voter intensity. That might influence legislative priorities, executive actions, and court awareness of public climate.

They seek to build long-term movements. Many protests are really about organization-building to recruit volunteers, grow email/text lists (like MoveOn), and connecting local activists.

They want to affect elections by increasing turnout among supporters, framing campaign narratives, and highlighting issues candidates run on.

The No Kings protest was funded by major left-wing groups, most notably Indivisible, MoveOn, The 50501 Movement, labor unions, and civil rights groups.

Indivisible is a nationwide grassroots political organization formed after the 2016 election. Its main funding sources include small-dollar donors (a very large share) and foundations such as the Open Society Foundations, the Ford Foundation, and the Democracy Fund. They are heavily grassroots-funded, but also receive millions in foundation grants for civic engagement work. The Open Society Foundation is George Soros’s. The Ford Foundation does not explicitly label itself as “left-wing.”

Still, its focus areas overlap heavily with progressive priorities, and its funding choices often support organizations on the left side of the policy debate. The Democracy Fund is a philanthropic grantmaker focused on U.S. democracy, funded by a single billionaire (Omidyar), not by governments. It spends tens of millions of dollars per year on elections, media, and civic organizations. Like similar foundations, it indirectly supports activism, but that’s only a small part of a much broader portfolio.

MoveOn (often called MoveOn.org) is a progressive political advocacy organization in the United States, founded in 1998 during the impeachment of Bill Clinton. MoveOn focuses on mobilizing public opinion and political action, especially among left-leaning voters. Its key activities include petitions and email campaigns, political ads and fundraising, organizing protests and rallies, supporting candidates (mostly Democrats), and increasing voter turnout.

The 50501 (50 states, 50 protests, 1 day) movement is a loosely organized protest movement that aims to coordinate demonstrations across all U.S. states on the same day around shared political concerns. It is grassroots and decentralized, focused on pro-democracy themes, often tied to opposition against perceived threats to democratic institutions, election-related issues, and specific political figures or policies.

The left does much more protesting than the right, so they receive more airtime for their activities. The reason? The left is more dedicated to fundamentally changing our society, and they have to work harder to attack the status quo. Of course, the socialists and communists are part of the Democratic big tent, and they want our current system to be discarded.

The identity politics folks, for their part, want our culture radically changed to embrace the full expression of the human experience. To them, any law, behavior, or custom that places limits on individual behavior is immoral and must be changed. Their effort does not apply to white people.

Conservatives work as individuals because that’s their nature. They affect change through voting or becoming members of organized groups. It takes issues that strike at the core of conservative thinking to get them to protest; a prime example was the Equal Rights Amendment fight in the 1970s, which they won.

Share

The stakes are very high this year, and liberal passion is at its peak. The No Kings protest was a manifestation not of public opinion but of how money from left-wing sources is being spent. They are going to have to regain the support of those who flipped to the Republicans in 2024 to win in 2028.

Meanwhile, the evil Hitler Trump is sidelining their agenda to remake American culture. Instead, he is embracing the core principles our Republic was founded on, the principles the left seeks to destroy. Even though the 2024 election went badly, they believe that they have a chance to right the ship in 2026. If they take the House, the Trump agenda will be thwarted, and theirs will be reestablished. The impeachments will begin again.

Will this cycle of retribution ever end?

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

I traveled to Israel in 1981 on a business trip, stopping in Paris on the way back. It was a two-week journey that began the last week of December and ended in early January 1982. I had just left academia and moved into the private sector when a friend called to tell me he had recommended me for a consulting assignment in Israel. He was acting as a consultant for the State Department and was not available for the assignment.

The Israeli Health Ministry had asked the State Department to send someone to advise them on IT deployment and network communications. It was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and I jumped at it even though I knew nothing about the project.

The year 1981 saw the Iran-Iraq War raging and increasing unrest in Lebanon. Israel attacked Lebanon in 1982, marking the beginning of the Lebanon War. Israel’s attack was launched to destroy the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) fighters operating there. Then in 1983, the American Barracks in Beirut were bombed, and 241 Americans were killed. I knew what was going on in the Middle East, but I wasn’t concerned that I would be harmed.

I flew from Detroit to Frankfurt as the first leg, then on to Tel Aviv. The first leg was uneventful, but our departure from Frankfurt was an experience I will never forget. Instead of waiting in the gate area, the other passengers and I were taken to a private room with our luggage.

A team of airport employees was there to open and search the bags. After that was completed, we sat and waited for a bus to take us to our plane. After we boarded it, the bus took us to a remote part of the airport. There our Lufthansa plane sat, by itself, encircled by a group of soldiers armed with automatic weapons. Seeing those soldiers made the Middle East feel like a hotbed for me.

The plane departed Frankfurt on time for our four-hour flight. During the flight, I kept looking around, trying to identify the Mossad agents who were undoubtedly on the plane. They did a good job of disguising themselves. The flight was uneventful, and we arrived in Tel Aviv on time. Walking down the stairway, I noticed serious-looking men at the bottom. I guessed they were Mossad agents who had memorized the faces of every terrorist in the Middle East, and I appreciated their thoroughness.

I spent three or four days in Tel-Aviv, ushered around by health ministry personnel. The main event was a visit to Sheba Hospital, the city’s largest medical facility. We looked at the computer room and discussed how the equipment was being utilized.

That was when I was told of the reason for my visit. The Israeli hospitals at that time operated as isolated islands of information processing. The National Health Ministry saw this as a problem due to its obvious inefficiency. They wanted to consolidate their data and share it across the different locations.

When I wasn’t busy with Health ministry officials, I was on my own, which meant doing some exploring. I visited the beachfront area and had dinner there. Tel-Aviv appeared to be a modern version of Jerusalem.

On my last day in Tel Aviv, I was given a tour of the northern part of Israel, including Haifa, about an hour to the north. While there, I was taken to a place where we could observe the Golan Heights, a strategically important plateau of land, which was occupied by the Israelis in 1981. Before the Six-Day War in 1967, Syrians had used the heights to attack the north of Israel with artillery, so its occupation was strategically important to Israel.

The next day, I was driven to Jerusalem. My time there included an immersion in the region’s history. I visited Bethlehem, Jericho, and all the holy sites in the city.

It was fascinating to walk through the old walled city and imagine the events that took place there. I was taken on a tour of the famous Hadassah Hospital, probably the best-known medical facility in Israel. On New Year’s Eve, I sat in the hotel lobby for a while watching TV. It was an odd experience because there were no festivities. The Western New Year means nothing in Israel, which celebrates Rosh Hashanah in September.

On the last day, I was invited to a senior staff meeting at the Health Ministry to share my thoughts on their concerns. That meeting was an eye-opening experience, given the contrast with the kind of meetings we have in the States. All of the attendees were dressed casually, and the table where we sat was filled with bottles of various juices, water, and fruit.

During the meeting, the participants argued and interrupted one another, each seeking to prove that their ideas offered the best solution to the problem. It was like a big free-for-all. They may have expected me to join the melee, but it was hard for me to get a word in edgewise.

I’m afraid I was a disappointment to them because I couldn’t offer a magic solution. The internet did not exist, and data processing sites had to rely on phone lines to transfer information. The Israelis told me their phone systems were unreliable and subject to frequent disruptions.

Without an ironclad method of sending data, they couldn’t be sure of the data integrity at the other end. I told them that they had to continue with the “islands of data” model until their phone systems became more reliable.

I departed Israel for a weekend in Paris, which I had never seen. It was snowy and cold there. I visited the Eiffel Tower and Notre Dame, climbing up to the roof of the great cathedral.

The trip had a profound impact on my understanding of Israel and how it has to deal with threats every day. I will never temper my admiration for a people who have had their traditional homeland returned to them and ferociously defended it against their adversaries in the Middle East. Every Israeli would die for their homeland if the need arose, which is why all eligible young people are required to serve in the Israeli Defense Force (IDF).

Share

The zeal of the Jewish people matches that of their ancestors who fought the Romans. In 70 CE, a Jewish militia attacked the Roman fortress at Masada and killed every Roman soldier in retribution for the Roman burning of Jerusalem. It took the Romans two years to prepare for an assault to retake the impregnable rock. When they finally broke through during the final assault, all the Jews had committed suicide.

Today, in the United States, Israel is being attacked from the left and right. To the left, they are oppressors of the Muslim people, who must be condemned. To the right, they are an unnecessary distraction from the implementation of an America First, nationalist identity in America.

The suffering of the Jews over the last two thousand years and their continued resilience deserve our respect and support, not our condemnation.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Recently, I watched a podcast in which the host attempted to explain Trump’s foreign policy thinking. The speaker did not claim insider knowledge, and his credentials were questionable, so I approached the discussion cautiously. Still, the underlying theory was interesting enough to examine further.

Any discussion of American strategy begins with identifying the nation’s major rivals. Today, those rivals are clearly China and Russia, along with aligned or dependent states such as Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and Syria.

China has spent the last two decades steadily expanding its influence through economic, technological, diplomatic, and military means. Rather than direct confrontation, it favors gradual, long-term leverage.

Its primary strategy has been economic expansion through the Belt and Road Initiative, which finances infrastructure projects across Asia, Africa, Latin America, and parts of Europe. These investments increase dependence on China and expand its influence over trade routes and strategic resources.

Militarily, China has strengthened its position in the South China Sea while modernizing its armed forces. Diplomatically, it presents itself as an alternative to Western leadership, particularly in the developing world. Beijing emphasizes “non-interference” in domestic affairs and avoids attaching human rights conditions to economic assistance, which appeals to many governments.

China has also invested heavily in technology and supply-chain dominance. Through its “Digital Silk Road,” it exports telecommunications infrastructure, surveillance systems, and smart-city technology. Countries that adopt these systems often become dependent on Chinese technology and manufacturing.

In addition, China uses media organizations, cultural programs, and information campaigns to promote the image of Chinese stability and Western decline. Its broader objective is not simply territorial expansion, but the creation of a China-centered economic and political order that reduces reliance on Western systems.

China has achieved major gains in parts of the developing world, though distrust of Beijing has grown in many advanced economies.

Russia’s goals differ somewhat from China’s. Moscow’s primary objective is rebuilding a sphere of influence in the former Soviet region, with Ukraine at the center of that effort.

Russia also sees itself in long-term competition with the United States and Europe. It seeks to weaken Western unity through cyber operations, propaganda, political disruption, and pressure campaigns.

A third goal is maintaining great-power status despite Russia’s relatively weak economy. To compensate, Russia relies heavily on military power, nuclear deterrence, and advanced weapons systems.

Russia’s economy remains deeply dependent on energy exports, particularly oil and gas, which it uses as a tool of influence. At home, nationalism and external conflict help reinforce support for Vladimir Putin’s government.

Russia has demonstrated resilience despite sanctions and continues exerting influence in parts of Africa and Eastern Europe. However, the Ukraine war has exposed military weaknesses, increased Russia’s isolation from the West, and strengthened NATO rather than weakening it.

How do China and Russia fit into Trump’s larger foreign policy approach?

The first element is energy independence. Trump argues that the United States weakened itself by restricting domestic energy production in pursuit of climate goals. While sustainability is important, he believes economic and strategic stability require abundant domestic oil and gas production.

The second element is recognizing how oil shapes global power.

The United States imports most of its foreign oil from Canada, with additional imports from Mexico and a handful of other countries. Because the U.S. also produces massive quantities of shale oil, exports offset much of what is imported.

China, however, is heavily dependent on imported oil. Russia is one of its largest suppliers, while major volumes also come from the Gulf states, Brazil, Iran, Angola, and Venezuela. This dependency creates a strategic vulnerability.

From this perspective, Venezuela becomes highly important.

Trump’s supporters argue that pressuring or influencing the Maduro government gives the United States leverage over Venezuelan oil exports. If Washington can limit China’s access to Venezuelan energy, China becomes more vulnerable economically and diplomatically.

There is also a secondary effect involving Cuba. Cuba relies heavily on Venezuelan oil, so disruptions in Venezuela place additional stress on the Cuban economy. Supporters of Trump’s approach believe this creates opportunities to influence political developments inside Cuba.

Iran represents the next major piece of the strategy.

Supporters of a hard line against Iran argue that Tehran destabilizes the Middle East through proxy groups, terrorism, and regional intimidation. Weakening Iran would therefore reduce threats to U.S. allies and potentially reshape the regional balance of power.

In this interpretation, pressure on Iran also creates indirect pressure on China and Russia. China depends partly on Iranian oil, while Russia and China both maintain strategic relationships with Tehran, including military cooperation.

If Iran were weakened economically or politically, several potential outcomes could follow.

First, China could lose another major energy supplier, increasing American leverage in trade negotiations.

Second, Russia and China would lose a Middle Eastern partner that often challenges Western interests.

Third, Gulf states might feel more secure, lowering tensions in the region.

Finally, the United States could shift more strategic focus away from the Middle East and toward the Pacific, where competition with China is increasingly central.

Supporters of this worldview believe such a strategy could only emerge from a populist administration willing to challenge both globalism and traditional foreign-policy assumptions. In their view, previous administrations focused too heavily on diplomacy without integrating economic leverage into broader geopolitical strategy.

Trump’s approach attempts to combine politics, trade, energy, and security into a single framework. Rather than separating economics from foreign policy, the theory is that economic dependence itself can become a strategic tool.

Critics would argue this framework oversimplifies global politics and risks escalating conflicts abroad. Supporters, however, see it as a recognition that geopolitical rivals increasingly use economics, energy, and technology as weapons of influence.

Share

Whether one agrees with Trump’s methods or not, the underlying concept is understandable: reduce America’s vulnerabilities, increase leverage over adversaries, weaken rival power structures, and reposition the United States for long-term competition with China.

Ultimately, the argument is not that every individual action is disconnected, but that many of them are linked by a larger strategic objective centered on energy, economic leverage, and great-power competition.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Referring to European Union member nations, he stated, “For we in America have no interest in being polite and orderly caretakers of the West’s managed decline.” There’s a strong argument that were it not for the policies of the Trump administration, “we in America would have become the polite and orderly caretakers of our own managed decline.”

“Managed decline” is an outgrowth of a philosophy that employs sympathy as the basis for establishing policy and prioritizes weakness over strength as a means of dealing with social issues. That philosophy has caused a number of European countries to throw their borders wide open to immigrants from nations with autocratic governments that force their populations into the virtual prisons of poverty, oppression and slavery.

The Biden administration justified its open border policies as being a humanitarian action. That was nothing more than diversion from the true reason. The open borders policy was nothing more than an exercise of inhumanity as it facilitated the deaths of thousands of immigrants, condemned thousands of children to being sex-trafficked and welcomed criminals.

The top priority of the Biden administration seems to have been gaining a political advantage by using illegal immigrants to increase the populations of specific districts as a means of gaining seats in the House, and electors in the electoral college. If a few thousand Americans were killed, raped or otherwise victimized as a result. That’s no big deal- if you believe the end justifies the means.

Historically, people escaping nations with oppressive governments were seeking freedom and opportunity. Until recently, that was the case. But many recent immigrants seek to create an equally oppressive culture under which they are the oppressors as opposed to being the oppressed. Their next step is to impose that culture on the citizens of the country to which they have “escaped”.

The assault on Western values comes from many directions, but the most virulent are the attacks from proponents of radical Islam. With respect to that, retired Lieutenant Colonel Allen West explains, “It’s not a religion, it’s a totalitarian, theocratic political system that is rooted in tyranny, that says you either convert, you subjugate or you die. That’s in their own words.”

That is not a condemnation of Islam, it’s a recognition of the goals of radical Islam which is to subjugate the “infidels” in the countries to which its proponents have emigrated.

If you don’t believe that uncontrolled immigration can lead to cultural and physical genocide, you probably think history is based on fairy tales. But look no further than the destruction of Native Americans and their culture, by the masses of European immigrants, to see that the life- and culture-killing effect of uncontrolled immigration is not a fairy tale.

For entirely different reasons, Native Americans shared the open border policies of the Biden administration and Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren. With nothing to stop them, Europeans flooded the Native American homelands. Many came to North America in search of religious freedom or economic opportunity. Irrespective of individual reasons, all were escaping nations with oppressive governments.

And they brought their culture with them- one that did not share the values of Native Americans. As the number of Europeans grew, they displaced the original residents. Slowly at first, but as one generation was replaced by the next, Europeans became Americans who claimed the continent as their own. Native Americans’ culture did not harmoniously blend with that of the European-based American culture. Native Americans were a clear impediment to American expansion and were either forcibly removed or killed.

It’s unlikely immigrants could crush a Western nation’s civilization to the degree Europeans crushed that of Native Americans- unless their efforts were assisted by allies already in the country. Unfortunately, the reality is “inside” help already exists.

It arrived through the open border policies of previous administrations. The result of such policies is especially evident in numerous European countries which are now facing serious challenges to their existing cultures with over 15% or their populations are non-native and a significant percentage of those immigrants have no desire to assimilate.

Fortunately, the United States does not yet have such a high percentage of immigrants who would seek to destroy our existing culture. But the illegal immigration surge of the past few years supercharged the quest for self-destruction within the United States.

That quest originated several years ago under the leadership of elected officials and bureaucrats who have infested American government at all levels. It isn’t just Democrats, who have doubled-down on illegal immigration; in the past, many Republicans were complicit because for years, they took no action to improve border security.

The quest for self-destruction continues. Although the Trump administration is actively taking action to eliminate the threat created by anti-American immigrants, liberals still pursue the quest for self-destruction as Democrat-run cities and states continue to protect illegal immigrants with “sanctuary” policies. Obviously, their priority is to stack the deck against Republicans during elections.

Irrespective of their ethnic or religious background, the end goal of America-haters is to move local, state and ultimately federal governments to operate under socialist, communist- or Sharia principles. New York City is a case in point.

Share

The current socialist mayor is pushing an increase in the corporate tax rate along with tax-the-rich/tax-the-white schemes to fund such things as; universal free childcare, city-owned grocery stores, free public transit, subsidized public housing and rent-freezes. The question is, what’s next?

Time will tell whether the majority of voters wake up and reject the agendas of Democratic socialists like Mamdani, Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders. If they do, the Democrat party will have been successful in its quest for self-destruction. If they don’t, the Democrats will have been successful in their quest for the self-destruction of the American republic.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

In the case of President Truman, we note his decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. That decision was certainly controversial and was strongly criticized. I believe Truman made the correct decision for two reasons: it induced the Japanese nation to surrender and bring an end to the war, and it scared the world by having them witness the power unleashed by atomic weapons. That fear has kept us safe from nuclear weapons for 80 years.

Truman made another controversial decision three years later, to recognize Israel as a nation. The British mandate, which gave Britain control of Palestine, was to end on May 14, 1948. Truman knew that Israel would declare its independence, so he had to decide how America should proceed. Supporting the recognition were the Jewish lobby, humanitarian pressure resulting from the holocaust, and some members of Congress.

Opposing recognition were General George Marshall, the Secretary of State and author of the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe, and most of the State Department’s senior members. The leadership at the State Department believed that recognition would turn the oil-producing states in the Gulf against the United States and disrupt oil shipments to the United States. Some believed Truman was fishing for the Jewish vote in order to try to win the election.

In the days and weeks preceding decision day, the Arab countries in the region were amassing armies at Israel’s borders. Egypt from the south, Jordan from the east, and Syria and Lebanon from the north were ready to strike the new Jewish state at the appropriate moment.

The Israelis announced their independence at 4 PM Tel Aviv time, eight hours before the British mandate expired. President Truman announced America’s recognition of Israeli independence 11 minutes later. The next day, the Arab countries attacked simultaneously. The Israeli defence force at that time consisted of holocaust survivors and native Israelis, roughly organized into an army called the Haganah, as well as a group of small independent militias. By their strong will and dedication, the Israelis resisted the attacks and eventually pushed the invaders back beyond the borders set prior to the start of the war.

In the November election that year, Truman squeaked out a win despite expectations that he would lose. The statistics show that Truman received strong Jewish support, but the number of Jewish votes did not determine the outcome.

Later, Truman stated that his decision was based on the moral imperative to provide a permanent home for the Jewish people. He told friends he was Cyrus, recalling the Persian king who allowed the Jews to return to their homeland.

Now we move forward in time to the present day and Trump’s attack on Iran.

YouTube is full of speculation about Trump’s motives. Much of it is designed to create controversy, because that produces clicks. Many know-it-all establishment types opine on what’s going on under the covers. I, for one, think it’s not that complicated. Trump sees Iran as a serious threat to the world, based on its stated goal of achieving threat-level ballistic missile and nuclear capability.

The previous residents of the White House did not seriously address the “Iran” problem, which has reached its 57^th year. It’s a Democratic Party tendency to be passive on foreign policy, and this was born out during the Obama presidency. Obama believed in “shared responsibility” with allies, multilateral leadership, and avoiding unilateral U.S. military action when possible.

The problem with that approach is that Western Europe, under neoliberal ideology, was also passive. Obama’s “leading from behind” strategy was just kicking the can down the road.

Obama believed that diplomacy was better than war, so he set out to bring Iran to the table. His administration negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015. It was reached between the United States. Iran, and other major powers (UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, plus the EU).

Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program, including cutting uranium stockpiles by about 98%, reducing centrifuges, and allowing international inspections. In return, the U.S. and others lifted nuclear-related economic sanctions. The goal was to ensure Iran’s nuclear program stayed peaceful and far from weapons capability.

In 2018, Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement. Critics had warned from the outset that some key restrictions were temporary (expiring after 10–15 years), and the deal did not eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability—only restricted it. This raised concern that Iran could later legally expand its program. It also didn’t address other concerns, such as Iran’s missile program and support of its regional proxies (Hamas, Houthis, Hezbollah, etc.). Opponents argued that this allowed Iran to create force multipliers to achieve its objectives.

The Hamas attack on Israel resulted in the neutering of Hezbollah and attacks on Iran, along with the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. The weakening of its partners and Iran’s continued bellicosity regarding Nukes convinced Trump that the problem needed his full attention. Diplomacy was tried without success, which moved Trump to act militarily.

The attacks began on February 28, and a rift emerged immediately within the conservative base. I do not believe this rift is mainstream; it is concentrated among the ideologues and pundits, who reflect growing anti-semitism in the United States.

In 2026, American public sympathy regarding the Middle East shows a widening divide, with 41% sympathizing more with Palestinians compared to 36% with Israelis, as found in a recent Gallup poll. The left has embraced the Arab point of view as an oppressed race and become more anti-semitic. A piece of the right has joined the opposition because they feel Trump is putting Israeli objectives above America’s interests.

Share

Trump will not allow the Iran invasion to become a “forever” war, so he is not going against his beliefs. As a person who hates war, Trump wants to stop Iran before they have a chance to start one. Like Truman, he made a hard decision. If the endeavor against Iran is successful, it will be the most important accomplishment of his presidency.

Trump knew that an attack could put the fall elections at risk if the Iran situation is not resolved by then. By Trump’s calculus, the threat Iran posed, their vulnerability, and confidence in a successful outcome outweighed the downside.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Democrats have been mostly silent since their attempt to put a leash on the president failed. They hope the effort will fail and bolster their chances of success in November. Short of that result, they hope for an economic impact that will strengthen their “affordability” campaign for the fall. Keeping the government closed is part of their calculus. The inpass is not about ICE, since ICE is already funded. It’s about a way to damage the president, given their limited ability to do so. Of course, no one really knows what will happen with the war.

Republicans are also silent, probably to remain on Trump’s side and because they believe in the cause.

What I get from the mass media is a nothing burger. They don’t really know anything, so they speculate and advocate for one side or the other. The Strait of Hormuz is trending because 20% of the world’s oil supply goes through there. Iran has declared the Strait closed, and the U.S. has to figure out how to keep it open so oil prices don’t skyrocket.

Some pundits have us returning to the 1979 oil embargo, which is fear-mongering nonsense. Trump knows the stakes of the game he is playing and will play his cards as he sees fit, but even he can’t predict when the Revolutionary Guards will surrender, if and when the Iranian people will rise and take their country back.

Here is a sampling from the New York Times: UD bombs Iranian oil hub. Why was so little done to head off the Strait of Hormuz problem? Trump and Rubio’s vision of war: The art of destroy and deal. Trump’s alliance with Israel is reshaping the Middle East.

The crown prince Reza Pahlavi, son of the Shah, deposed in 1979, is now communicating directly with the Iranian people. He has told them to prepare for the regime’s collapse and to stay safe until then.

Frustrated by the political coloring of content, I started looking for alternative sources of information. What follows are some points of view I discovered.

1. There are daily updates on the YouTube channel Tousi TV, which is an online political news and commentary channel, mainly distributed through YouTube, social media, and its own subscription platform (Tousi TV+), all broadcast from the UK. It focuses on geopolitical news, politics, and commentary about current events.

Mahyar Tousi, the channel host, is an Iranian who provides updates on political events in his country and also speaks to the Iranian people around the world. He has 1.4 million followers. Tousi has shown videos of mass protests inside Iran demanding the return of the crown prince, and people taking control of police stations in some cities, where the police stood down and joined the celebration. Revolutionary Guard food distribution locations were taken over by the people and looted. Mahyar appears to have enough connections inside his country to provide an accurate picture of what’s happening on the ground.

2. I listened to Rafaela Siewert of the Free Press interview Elica LeBon, an Iranian lawyer and activist living in the United States, who talked from an Iranian point of view.

Elica made a strong point about the negative reaction to the war in the United States, as reflected in recent polls. The reality for people living in the U.S. and, generally, in liberal democracies is that they are never threatened. The force the U.S. is exerting to suppress threats from the outside and keep Americans safe also creates a paradox: people don’t see why we need to take any action against an enemy because THEY don’t feel threatened.

“The Iranian regime has enshrined in its Constitution from its inception, death to America and Israel. It has promised to eliminate both those forces, and it has acted on that intention significantly over the past 47 years. Some people push back on this contention because they don’t believe that the Iranians have nukes. Regardless of nukes, the Iranian regime is motivated to destroy the United States using any means possible.

The removal of this regime is absolutely the best thing for the American people, for the Iranian people, for the people of the Middle East. I can’t. I can’t guarantee that it will happen this way, but. We’re hoping.”

3. I listened to The Mishal Husain Show on Bloomberg. She interviewed Iranian scholar Vali Nasr from The Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. I am very skeptical of scholars these days because politics has negated the value of their expertise. Deep establishment thinkers are largely anti-Trump because he doesn’t possess the gravitas they have.

“And now this war has gone out of his control. It’s far longer, far messier, and is actually exacting costs across the United States, both in terms of damage to its bases and the impact on energy markets and the global economy as a whole. So, I think it’s signaling that he wants to end it, but I don’t think Iran is ready to quit.

But I think they calculate that this is not a munitions count. This is not about who has a bigger bond. This is about who has a higher pain threshold. And they think the United States and Israel can Dash a lot faster, but they’re not really long-distance runners. And so, I think they’re prepared to absorb this for far longer.

And so if the president was looking for a quick political uprising in Iran, it’s not going to happen. It will not happen until the dust of this war settles. So for now, the Iranian public is not a factor in this war (false), and this was something that both Israel and the United States had been counting on, that the war would pave the way.

I was in India recently, and it’s very clear that, outside the United States and the West, Iran is enjoying widespread support for standing up to Donald Trump and Standing Tall. Also, they are actually inflicting pain on the United States.

When I was with the Obama administration, we pursued a path of Engagement. Mishal: If Donald Trump hadn’t ripped up the Iran deal, would it have resulted in a better present, or is your description of the regime too entrenched? For that, you know, I think it could have ended up better (false).”

4. Mohamad Faridi, an Iranian living in the United States (his parents are still in Iran), was interviewed on the Dave Wood podcast. Here are a few quotes from him.

“The regime, with all its brutality and all the evil that came down on the Iranian people, shut down. Protests killed thousands of Iranians throughout the years, and then the most horrific one of them was last month, in January, and now it’s actually March. About five weeks ago, they say, they killed, upward of 90,000 people.

I have spoken to my family in Iran. All of my family is in Iran. They told me that any relatives, any, anybody that they know they have lost, or one or two members of their families to this? Regime, you know, savagery? Many of the people were detained, arrested, in prison, tortured, raped, and they kept their backs against these evil people.

This regime is one evil, weird thing. I mean, from evil to unimaginable evil that they have ruled in this nation for 47 years. In 2009, we had the green movement, when Obama betrayed the Iranian people and sent pallets of money instead of jets. Just imagine how stupid a president could be negotiating with terrorists. That didn’t work.

In 2023, we had Masa Amini, the girl who didn’t wear her hijab, and she was killed. Iranians came, and we had the same situation, and Biden was in power, and we were thinking God, if Trump were in power, something such as this would have happened.

Share

And now, we see the difference. Trump told them that if they killed the Iranian people, the guns would be locked and loaded. Help is on the way.

But, thank God, finally. Thank God that they have arrived, and then they killed the head of the octopus that was in Tehran. I promise you, upwards of 90 percent of the Persian population in Iran and the diaspora are rejoicing in it. This has been the best news for them.”

The best place to get information about Iran is from the Iranian people. They are the ones with a stake in the game. They are the ones who want their country back. Comments from here from academic elites or journalists with a political axe to grind are useless.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

In college, I never read for pleasure; instead, I focused on subjects related to my field of study. I observed that my friends were reading for pleasure and noted what they were reading. Still, I was not interested enough to read those books myself.

After my undergraduate years, and while I was in graduate school, I decided to read the great literature and plowed through the works of American and English writers. I also found Dostoevsky and other Russian authors to be a revelation.

A couple of years ago, I decided to tackle the books my college friends had read. I respected them as friends and figured they were reading the books for a good reason. No doubt, those books addressed issues related to my generation, most importantly the counterculture movement and the Vietnam War, which were significant events in recent American history.

I went through my book list with an open mind and quickly found myself transported back in time. These books reflect common themes of the time: rejection of 1950s culture, alienation, longing for a perfect world, peace rather than war, drugs as a tool to expand the mind, and the evil of the establishment. Reading them helped me understand the frustration of my generation, which I had ignored while pursuing a technology career.

I will discuss my book list in chronological order by year of publication. It will be immediately apparent why these books were embraced by the counterculture movement and 60s intellectuals in general. What’s more important is their impact on us today, because the concerns of the counterculture movement have not been addressed 60 years later.

Walden, by Henry David Thoreau (1854), explores Thoreau’s assertion that most people live overly complicated, distracted lives. By simplifying possessions, work, and habits, a person can gain freedom, clarity, and deeper awareness of life. Thoreau suggests we focus on what truly matters, reduce unnecessary labor and consumption, and observe nature and human life more clearly.

Steppenwolf, by Herman Hesse (1927), explores the personality of Harry Haller, a middle-aged intellectual living alone in a German city, who feels completely alienated from bourgeois society and thinks he has two opposing identities: a refined, thoughtful human, and a wild “steppe wolf” who despises society. Haller explores these two natures and discovers that his personality is more complex than he believed.

By leaving his mind open, he found he could discover new experiences of value. Themes of the book include alienation from society, the search for meaning, individuality versus conformity, and the need for humor and play in life. The rock band Steppenwolf took its name from the book, and the group’s best-known song, “Born to Be Wild,” became an anthem for motorcycle riders in the 1960s.

Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley (1932). The novel is set in the World State, a global civilization in which humans are genetically engineered in laboratories rather than born naturally. People are designed to belong to five castes: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon. From infancy, they are conditioned through hypnopaedia (sleep-teaching) to accept their social roles.

Citizens are kept content through entertainment, casual sex, and a mood-altering drug called Soma. The novel explores: the dangers of technological control over human life; consumerism and pleasure as social control; the loss of individuality; and the conflict between happiness and freedom. Huxley’s vision differs from that of other dystopias, such as 1984, in that its characters are not controlled by fear but by comfort, pleasure, and distraction.

The Hobbit, JRR Tolkien (1937). This book needs no introduction as it remains popular today. It explores courage in ordinary people, the corrupting power of greed, friendship and loyalty, the value of home, and the value of a simple life.

1984, George Orwell (1949). Unlike Brave New World, 1984 presents an ugly dystopian world in which elites control society through fear and intimidation. Major themes include: totalitarian control, propaganda and manipulation of truth, surveillance and loss of privacy, the corruption of language (Newspeak), and psychological domination of individuals. Sound familiar? The book should be required reading for anyone who admires the agenda of the WEF/WHO/UN/World Bank and can’t see the danger we would face with them in power.

Siddhartha, by Herman Hesse (1951), is a philosophical novel about a man’s lifelong search for spiritual enlightenment in ancient India. It explores the search for enlightenment, the limits of formal religious teachings, the unity of all life, and the value of learning through experience rather than doctrine.

Doors of Perception, Aldous Huxley (1954). This book had a direct impact on the drug culture because it tells the story of Aldous Huxley’s experiments with the drug Mescaline. In the book, he introduced “his reducing valve” theory, which asserts the universe contains far more information than we can normally perceive, the brain filters most of it out so we can function practically, and so psychedelic substances may temporarily open the “doors” of perception, allowing access to a broader awareness. This book prompted drug experimentation by those interested in exploring a widened state of perception.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Ken Kesey (1962), is about a man placed in a mental institution for misbehavior rather than mental illness. He tries to enlighten his fellow patients in the ways of the world, only to be crushed by the institution and its masters. Central themes are individual freedom vs. institutional control, conformity and rebellion, the abuse of authority, and the restoration of personal dignity.

Cat’s Cradle, Kurt Vonnegut (1963). Vonnegut became a countercultural icon because his novels combined anti-war sentiment, distrust of powerful institutions, satire of modern society, and a humane moral outlook, all delivered in a witty and unconventional style. He used dark humor to explore themes he saw as reprehensible in American society. Cat’s Cradle explores the irresponsibility of scientific innovation, the dangers of technology without ethics, humanity’s need for comforting beliefs, and the absurdity of political power and religion.

Dune, Frank Herbert (1965). Dune is a science-fiction epic set thousands of years in the future, in a vast feudal interstellar empire. The novel explores several big ideas: Power and politics – rival houses and imperial intrigue; Religion and mythmaking – how belief systems can be engineered and used politically; Ecology – the fragile desert ecosystem of Arrakis; Human potential – training, genetics, and consciousness; and the danger of charismatic leaders.

The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test: Tom Wolfe (1968). After writing One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Ken Kesey became involved in government-sponsored experiments with LSD while working at a veterans hospital in California. The experiences convinced him that psychedelic drugs could radically expand consciousness, so he gathered a group of friends who shared his beliefs and formed the Merry Pranksters, dedicated to exploring new forms of perception, community, and culture. The group bought an old school bus, painted it, and traveled across the United States.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, by Hunter S. Thompson (1971), is a wild, semi-fictional account of a drug-fueled trip to Las Vegas that became a satirical exploration of American culture and the collapse of the 1960s counterculture. Its themes included the illusion of the American Dream, media and journalism satire, drug culture and altered perception, absurdity, and alienation in modern America. The book became a defining work of Gonzo journalism, blending reporting, personal experience, exaggeration, and fiction.

The Greening of America, Charles Reich (1971), is an analysis of the cultural revolution that occurred in the United States during the late 1960s. The book argues that a profound transformation in American consciousness was underway, led largely by young people and the counterculture. It argues that this shift cannot be stopped by political force, will gradually transform American institutions, and represents a peaceful revolution through culture rather than politics. Its assertions are hauntingly prophetic.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig (1974), is a philosophical novel that combines a motorcycle journey across the United States with a deep exploration of philosophy, particularly the concept of “Quality.” The book blends travel narrative, autobiography, and philosophical inquiry around themes including the nature of quality and value, the split between science and art, technology and human meaning, sanity, the limits of rational thought, and the importance of careful attention to everyday activities.

The themes and narratives in all these books remain relevant today. Challenge yourself to read one or more of them.

The impact of the counterculture was not what it intended. It took on the establishment, hoping to tear it down and replace it with a new system, but it never had the power to do that. Plan B became infiltrating the academic system and changing the culture through indoctrination. In that endeavor, it was highly successful.

The problem that occurred along the way, however, was its alignment with socialism, which was used as a bolt-on ideology. That alignment precipitated its 50-year attempt to destroy America’s institutions and traditions, which has now come far enough to reach the point of absurdity and has generated significant resistance among a large segment of the American population, who do not accept left ideology.

The youngest boomers are 62, and the oldest are 80. Their descendants are taking control of American society and do not have the same life experience. Let’s hope they proceed down a different path.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Let’s unpack this problem and explain what’s going on. We begin with a short list of turncoats.

Tucker Carlson, formerly the most influential host on Fox News. After leaving in 2023, he moved to independent media on X and other platforms. Increasingly critical of Republican foreign policy, corporate power, and parts of the GOP establishment. Often described as “post-conservative” or nationalist but anti-establishment.

Glenn Greenwald, a co-founder of The Intercept who is not originally a conservative, has broken with much of the progressive media establishment, collaborates frequently with conservative audiences, and is a strong critic of U.S. foreign policy, intelligence agencies, and corporate media.

Candace Owens rose to prominence through Turning Point USA and The Daily Wire, split with Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire in 2024 over Israel policy and rhetoric, and now operates independently and often criticizes establishment conservatives.

Steve Bannon, former strategist to Donald Trump and former head of Breitbart News, now promotes a “national populist” movement through his War Room show, and often criticizes the Republican establishment and even parts of Trump’s circle.

Dave Smith, libertarian comedian and host of Part of the Problem, is associated with the Libertarian Party (United States) and a critic of conservatives for foreign intervention, surveillance, and government spending.

These individuals fall into four separate camps: National populists – e.g., Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon; Libertarian critics of the GOP – e.g., Dave Smith; Independent media conservatives – e.g., Candace Owens; and cross-ideological anti-establishment figures – e.g., Glenn Greenwald.

The splitters are now anti-MAGA.

This discussion is about people splitting from Trump. There was also a split that created Trump. If you look at the history, you’ll understand how we got here.

William F. Buckley, by his own willpower, created a conservative ideology in the 1960s. Prior to that time, conservatism was seen as nothing more than honoring traditions and resisting change. Buckley welded together three disparate groups: traditional conservatives, libertarians, and former communists, who had rejected the failed Soviet Union. That alliance got Reagan elected in 1980. The new conservative alliance included Irving Kristol, the so-called founder of Neoconservatism. Neocons believe in an interventionist foreign policy, including forcing regime change if necessary.

By the end of Reagan’s second term, some conservatives, most notably Pat Buchanan, were predicting an ideological split. Buchanan, himself, was one of the founders of Paleoconservatism, which is basically the Buckley ideology without the Neocons. Buchanan accused the Republican Party of becoming too globalist, pro-immigration, and interventionist. He promoted economic nationalism, immigration restriction, and non-intervention abroad. Trump later embraced these ideas.

Irving Kristol, for his part, predicted there would be growing tensions between economic libertarianism (small government and individual liberty) and social conservatism (moral order and cultural stability) within the right. The split is:

Establishment Right - global markets, immigration friendly, interventionist foreign policy, and Elite institutions.

Populist / National Right - economic nationalism, immigration restriction, non-intervention, and America First anti-elite populism.

The fusionist coalition that Buckley created lasted until 2015. At that point, the legacy of a single event broke it. That event was the Iraq War. The end of the Cold War in 1990 removed a uniting factor among the conservatives, but the Iraq War caused the final break. The break came when several political ideas became reality: trust in conservative foreign-policy elites collapsed, populist conservatives began attacking the “neoconservative establishment,” and libertarians and nationalists began cooperating politically.

This shift created the intellectual groundwork for populist momentum.

Many conservative intellectuals realized the break was permanent on February 13, 2016, at the Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, when Donald Trump directly attacked the legacy of George W. Bush over the Iraq War, while standing next to Bush’s brother, Jeb Bush. During the debate, Trump said, “Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake.” He went further and blamed the Bush administration for destabilizing the Middle East, saying the war had made the region worse rather than better.

This comment cemented in place the difference between the conservative establishment and MAGA, leading to outrage among the Republican establishment over Trump. This outrage birthed the resistance to Trump in his first term, including The Lincoln Project, and the Never Trumpers like Liz Cheney.

Fast-forward to the present day, and we now see a fragmentation in the populist coalition. Tucker Carlson has become an anti-establishment nationalist. He heavily criticizes Israel and accuses Trump of being Netanyahu’s stooge. Carlson opposes Trump’s foreign policy because it draws our attention away from the country. His “cult of personality” behavior is evidenced by his ridicule of Ted Cruz during an interview and his embrace of Nick Fuentes, who is an antisemite and an admirer of Hitler.

There is no explanation for Candace Owens, who went from Democrat to conservative to conspiracy theorist. Some recent titles from her podcast include JD Vance’s Mysterious Past, Elon Musk, Secret Underground Bases, and UFOs, Shocking: The Sinister Group Behind Your Grocery Items, and How We Faked the Moon Landing. Most recently, she has been attacking Erika Kirk. She reveals what she calls Erika’s “shady past” and says Erika might be a psychopath.

When I notice a behavior change in those I listen to for content, a shift from politics to the weird and unusual, that ends it for me. The correlation between controversy and clicks is used to foster the cult of personality, rendering their discussions useless.

Share

The populist fragmentation we’ve been discussing is damaging to the conservative movement, and the behavior mimics what the Democrats do. They’re better at dealing with it, however, because they have to live with it all the time.

The conservative movement is breaking down into competing identities, each vying for airtime. The lack of unity and obsession with ideology bodes ill for this November’s election, and the left is giddy at its prospects. Building unity out of the ideological splinters of our populist movement is like herding cats when the cats only care about themselves.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Iranian people around the world are celebrating the death of the Supreme Leader, hoping the theocracy can be overthrown. It remains to be seen how, and whether, the people inside Iran can rise and create a new government. Revolutions are tricky things, and they fail as often as they succeed. People on the street are a gauge of dissent, but contribute nothing to revolutions. The outcome depends solely on the intentions of the wealthy; will they see a benefit in the change? It also depends on the intellectuals who must sanction the process.

Unfortunately, Iran, like many Arab states, is struggling with factional politics. Four groups are competing for power there: conservatives who strongly support the theocratic model, reformists who support social reform within the theocratic system, moderates who focus on economic and managerial competence rather than ideological overhaul, and the opposition, which seeks to tear down the theocracy. The first two groups have the power, and it may be difficult to wrest it away from them. Another possible outcome is the implementation of reforms, which may cool the public enthusiasm for change.

From an American interest standpoint, any outcome that stops Iran’s support and encouragement of terrorism around the world would be great. The world would truly be safer if that happened.

The remaining leaders of Iran contacted Trump and asked for a meeting. He told them he would take their call after the mission was complete. This message cuts off any notion they had about getting a quick ceasefire. For 47 years, the Iranian Islamic state has been lying to the world about its nefarious intentions and its willingness to discuss solutions, making an absolute fool of Obama, along the way.

This instance is classic Trump. Negotiate if you can, and give the opposition time and reasons to agree. In the business world, running out of time means the deal is off. In our conflicts between nations, time running out means that, if you’re evil enough, you will be attacked.

For 47 years, Iran has threatened its neighbors in the Middle East. It has funded proxy groups, Hezbollah, Hamas, and others, who create instability and seek the destruction of Israel. It killed our Marines in Beirut, killed sailors on the Cole, and threatened to kill our presidents. In the last two months, it had killed 32,000 of its own citizens who were protesting the economic conditions in their country. Enough is enough.

The Congress had its typical reaction. The Democrats accuse Trump of waging war without their permission. A Democratic politician said, “Trump used the word ‘war’ in his attack announcement, so it must be a war.”

This is an old complaint we have seen many times.

Long ago, Congress gave up its authority to initiate war, ceding that power to the president. Formal declarations of war have gone the way of the buggy whip, used at a time when nations were more polite than they are now. “Oh, you declared war on me? Alright, I will now declare war on you.” The following list shows some of the undeclared “wars” since the end of World War II.

Vietnam War (1965-73). U.S. fatalities: ~58,220 Johnson

Korean War (1950-53). U.S. fatalities: ~36,574 Truman

Iraqi War (2003-11). U.S. fatalities: ~4,550 Bush 43

Afghan War (2001-2021). U.S. fatalities: ~2,461 Bush 43

Gulf War (1990–1991). U.S. fatalities: ~294 Bush 41

Lebanon (1982–1984). U.S. fatalities: ~241 Reagan

Iraq & Syria (ISIS campaign, 2014-) U.S. fatalities: ~100 Obama

The Democrats can tout the fact that the resistance to Trump’s attack on Iran is bipartisan because they include the two “useful idiots” from the Republican side, Thomas Massie and Rand Paul. Both are libertarians, the most idealistic and impractical political ideology ever conceived by man.

I cite two examples and rest my case. Number one, libertarians believe in open borders. Number two, they support the legalization of marijuana. They are small-government advocates, a concept that became obsolete in the 1930s.

I would gladly trade Massie and Paul for John Fetterman, who puts America’s interests above politics.

What do the 2028 Democratic candidates say about the attack?

Former Vice President Kamala Harris condemned President Donald Trump’s decision to launch large-scale military strikes on Iran, calling the operation a “dangerous and unnecessary gamble” and urging Congress to intervene before the United States is drawn deeper into what critics are describing as a war of choice. (Prediction: the attack may end before Congress addresses it.)

“It stems from weakness masquerading as strength,” Gavin Newsom told a San Francisco audience while promoting his new memoir. “It stems from the complete failure of this administration, this president who’s historically unpopular.”

In these examples, candidacy adds a layer of hyperbole to Trump hatred because they must try to outdo their competition by offering raw meat to the base.

On the other hand, Moj Mahdara, head of the Iranian Diaspora Initiative, appeared on CNN on Sunday and said, “As a Democrat, I am not with my party right now.” She sees them as being on the wrong side of this issue.

Twenty-seven percent of Americans surveyed approved of the strikes, 43% disapproved, and nearly three in 10 were not sure. But there’s a partisan divide, with Republicans supporting the military action by a 55%-32% margin. The vast majority of Democrats, 73%, disapproved of the strikes, with only 7% saying they approved.

A plurality of independents, 44%, disapproved of the military attack, with 19% supportive and nearly four in 10 unsure. In this tribal time, one can expect no “atta boys” from the left, and we see the usual mixed bag from the independents.

Most of our European allies condemned the counterstrikes by Iran against its neighbors while avoiding criticism of Trump over the U.S./Israeli attacks. An odd exception was Keir Starmer, of the UK, who condemned our attacks as a breach of international law. Does he think Iran never violated international law? His position spells the end of Starmer’s relationship with the U.S., which his successor will have to repair.

Share

President Trump will carry this attack to its logical conclusion, and then it becomes a waiting game to see whether the Iranian government will change. We hope for at least a softening of its belligerent stance against the world, which would be a positive outcome.

Democrats are the party of peace, which also means they are the party of submission. They continue to believe that if you are nice to tyrants, they will be nice to you. No matter how foolish and naïve that idea is, it remains a fundamental component of their equality ideology.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

On the other side, you have other members of the general public and press who paint a completely different picture, saying the US has achieved a near-total military victory and that it is the Islamic Republic that is desperate for the war to end while attempting to save face with its own supporters.

So which side is to be believed, and how can we know who to trust?

In this age of social media algorithms and ever increasingly polarised opinions, it’s little wonder that the sources we rely on for information tend to confirm the viewpoints we hold, rather than challenging them. But this makes it tricky when we come across differing worldviews and opinions, when the choice must be made to either disregard the claim, question the motives or information behind it, or to take it seriously.

I suspect most people reading this will have a view on the conflict, and that this view will likely be shaped by whether or not they were pro or anti-Trump, Israel, and the Islamic Republic of Iran before it started.

But for those of us who like to comment upon such things, what is it that drives us? Are we seeking the truth and that alone, or merely confirmation of our own worldview?

This is a question I’ve long been asking myself, even once considering starting a news agency with this exact goal in mind - to report dispassionately - before concluding that any such endeavour would still come with a bias; it would just be my own, as opposed to someone else’s.

But what are journalists for, if not to seek out and report on the truth? I find myself increasingly considering this question, as I grow frustrated by what I believe to be flawed reporting of the current conflict, including from storied journalists such as the BBC’s Lyse Doucet and Jeremy Bowen.

Question marks have also been raised about the visits of certain journalists, including Doucet, to Iran in the wake of the January massacre, when reports seemed to focus on pro-regime gatherings - Doucet was especially lambasted for describing them as having a “family feel” - while neglecting to visit the mortuaries in which the bodies of thousands of protesters had been piled, or seeking out bereaved family members.

Among the others welcomed to Iran’s streets in the wake of the massacre were Muslim activist Bushra Shaikh and the co-founder of Palestine Action-US, Calla Walsh, and I suppose I don’t need to tell you whose narrative their reports sought to bolster.

One of the greatest achievements of the Islamic Republic has been its ability to control the narrative, both at home through state TV, but also through a network of well-known and lesser-known apologists in the West.

As someone whose work has focused on Iran for the last seven years, I’ve become well accustomed to seeing seemingly credible journalists and even activists labelled as apologists. At times, the claims have surprised me, but for the most part, there has appeared to be some truth behind the claims.

The group most frequently tarnished by its alleged association with the Islamic Republic is the National Iranian American Council, or NIAC, whose “experts” have long been decried by many an Iranian as nothing more than the puppets of the regime. But the accusations have gone much further, including journalists at the BBC, CNN and New York Times, all of which leads one to wonder how the regular non-Iran expert is supposed to make sense of it all.

An additional complexity is the skill with which the mouthpieces of the Islamic Republic twist the truth. It is all so carefully choreographed, as is always the case with the Islamic Republic of Iran, for whom propaganda and oppression go hand in hand.

Take Mohammad Marandi, whom you may well have come across on talk shows like Piers Morgan’s, and who is so skilled at lying that even as someone who disagrees with almost everything he says, I sometimes find myself wondering if there’s some truth to it.

They’ve even tried rebranding Hitler of late, with posters hung on Iranian streets, showing pictures of Adolf alongside the new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, and a quote attributed - apparently falsely - to the Nazi leader, stating that “betraying the homeland is the same as enabling your own mother’s rape”.

In the case of the current conflict, the question of who wins the war may even be disputed long after it has finished, as all sides will no doubt attempt to claim victory, unless the regime in Iran is actually overthrown.

Failing that, you can almost guarantee that the Americans will claim a military victory and that the Iranians “begged” them for a deal; that the Israelis will say they’ve put back Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear ambitions by over a decade; and that the Islamic Republic will claim that merely surviving proves no outside force can defeat them.

One Iran analyst, Karim Sadjadpour, wrote recently that “Tehran wins by not losing; Trump loses by not winning”, and I agree.

But in the meantime, how can the average Joe know whether to believe that the US has completely “obliterated” Iran’s military, navy, and air force, as it has claimed, or whether, as the Islamic Republic would wish us to believe, the desperate calls are coming from the other direction.

It increasingly appears to me that what the world needs most is someone, or some entity, that can help people make sense of all the differing perspectives out there, from a truly neutral and dispassionate position - journalists who seek to report the truth and the truth alone, however much it may grate against their own preconceived positions.

Since the conflict, during which Iranians have once again been almost completely cut off from the Internet, there has been an outcry from Iranians against the reporting of journalists from Sky News and CNN, whose coverage from inside Iran has seemed entirely one-sided.

But my question is: what motivates such journalism? Is there malign intent, or are the journalists simply seeking to present the facts as they see them, through their own anti-Trump and Israel lenses?

I suspect the latter is true, and that, like all of us, they are so steeped in their particular worldview that they wouldn’t even recognise, let alone accept, the criticism that they are only aiding the Islamic Republic in its bid to cover up the massacre that led us here and instead to present itself as the chief resistor against imperialism.

But what of my own bias? I recently spoke to a valued colleague at a partner organization whose viewpoint I found challenging but also difficult to dismiss out of hand. Essentially, the argument this individual was making was that the regime in Iran was unlikely to fall, and that those who believed it will were romantics, rather than realists.

I found it a difficult message to accept, but was this because I did not believe the assessment to be true - one Iranian friend of mine suggested this individual had watched too much CNN - or because I feared that it might be, but that to accept this would be to put a dagger through my own dreams of an Iran finally freed from the Islamic Republic.

Share

It is certainly true that I find it easier to welcome reports and comments that suggest the Islamic Republic is weakening and even on the verge of collapse, than those that suggest Trump is already looking for a way out, and that this will enable a hollowed-out and embittered regime to remain.

I dearly hope - and believe - that it is the truth that I seek more than simply confirmation of my own biases, but perhaps that just confirms that, truly, I am more of a romantic than a realist.

I suppose time will tell, but in the meantime, good luck to all of us as we attempt to make sense of it all.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

The notion of open borders and climate change hysteria is now encountering strong resistance from populist movements across the Western world, because the public sees its rights being taken away by unelected bureaucrats.

It is also possible for those new actors to serve as transition agents, pushing the Democratic Party in a new ideological direction. Abigail Spanberger, the newly elected governor of Virginia, will likely be taking one of those two roles.

Spanberger declared herself a moderate during her campaign, although it appears her use of the term was a strategy to get her elected. Her first act was to rescind the previous governor’s order to cooperate with ICE. That’s straight blue ideology.

Governor Spanberger also signed ten executive orders focused on affordability, healthcare, housing, education, and government preparedness. They direct state agencies to identify ways to reduce costs for Virginians (e.g., housing, health care, energy, groceries).

These ten orders have a dual purpose. They highlight the Democratic Party’s 2026 campaign theme: that Trump can’t fix America’s affordability problem because he doesn’t care enough about the people, and is angling to claw back the loyalty of the historical constituencies they abused during recent years.

Lunch box issues are always attractive to political parties because they sound good, even though they’re impossible to achieve. Later, they can campaign on the fact that they tried. Politics is always about touting the imaginable, especially if it creates an advantage for the next election.

Spanberger indicated that Virginia would rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a regional climate collaboration. Ten Northeastern states are members, and they will try to save the climate initiative for the next Democratic president, but the issue may be on borrowed time.

The governor has replaced some members of the VMI (Virginia Military Institute) governing board with individuals more in line with her governing philosophy. Virginia lawmakers are now advancing a proposal that could reshape VMI’s future, raising fresh questions about governance, accountability, and whether the state should continue funding an institution that does not comply with the Democrat DEI rulebook.

Spanberger opposes defunding of police, which makes sense considering her background, but she won’t take a position on transitioning teenagers. She can’t afford to gamble her popularity by upsetting feminists, who are a vital constituency.

The governor is the daughter of a career law enforcement officer, who served in law enforcement herself before joining the CIA. While at the CIA, she was a case officer, working to find, recruit, and build relationships with foreign nationals who could have had information of value to the U.S. government. She left the CIA and was elected to the House of Representatives in 2018.

Is she trying to turn her state more blue or attempting to set a middle course between traditional Democratic ideology and the radical progressives? The latter makes more sense because her party has to move to the right to win future elections. Still, Spanberger will have to feel her way toward the right because the majority of the House Democratic coalition is progressive and wields significant power. Woke is dead, so it’s easy to ignore. DEI is fading, but many Dems want to reverse that trend. ICE in blue states is the hottest issue.

Women are now governors in 14 states; 10 are blue, and 4 are red. In one case, a Republican governs a blue state (New Hampshire), and in another case, a Democrat governs a red state (Kansas). Overall, Democrats control 24 states, so women represent 41% of the blue governor states.

These are aggressive smart women who stand in stark contrast to the radical feminists I wrote about previously. These are practical Democratic women with power who are trying to chart a new course for the Democratic Party. Of course, the feminists are a vital constituency that the politicians can’t ignore.

Share

As the Democrats try to redefine themselves, the Republican Party is in a state of paralysis. It is beholden to Trump and Trump policies, so there will be no redefining until Trump is gone. Trump’s monumental task of tearing down the deep state in order to level the playing field for conservatives cannot yield results quickly because of the resistance by Democrats and the strength of the bureaucracy itself.

Without a better strategy, a House victory for the Democrats this November looks likely, and that will further stifle progress for the Trump agenda.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.