The activists have long been screaming and yelling. They’ve been heckling in person and posting online. Yet nothing changes. The mob is impatient.
They’ve held conferences in Detroit, banged drums in the street, organized sit-ins and campus walkouts. Yet few of the policies they demand have been enacted. The mob is impatient.
The crowds find succor online. They read the manifestos of both killers and their favorite radical group. The hashtags keep trending, the slogans keep coming — yet the news cycle feels the same. The mob is impatient.
They interact with their heroes on social media. It feels like they have a direct connection in their hands and ears. They know the message. They know the orders. Doesn’t everyone? Where is the revolution? The mob is impatient.
It is easier to complain than to enact. It is quicker to destroy than to build. It is more satisfying to heckle than to speak clearly. To tweet and reteweet than to contemplate and deliberate. The mob is impatient.
The last ten years have proven that anyone can gain fame — or infamy. The louder and more outrageous, the greater the clicks. The calls to fellow travelers echo louder and the ranks grow. Not over years, but instantly. The mob is impatient.
Democratic Socialists for America stating that there are no innocent civilians
Political violence is not new. Presidents and senators have been assassinated before. But today, an army of lone soldiers is running toward their neighbors — convinced by the pandemic that everyone is a threat and trained by the Twitterstorm that outrage works.
The mob is impatient.
And, as it grows larger and closer, more people are turning to guns for self-defense. They see a government that appears weak, unable or unwilling to confront the rage.
The next step has arrived. The broken healthcare system was not addressed via advocacy but a bullet into the back of the CEO. To cheers. A splinter group from Jewish Voice for Peace has birthed a new violent Antizionist Jewish Student Front. When debate failed, when they could not best Charlie Kirk on the stage, they decided to silence him permanently. The People’s Conference for Palestine and the DSA have given them the language, the chants, the charge: Escalation.
A polite society is a beautiful thing when at peace. But politeness collapses when mobs take power. When debate is replaced by doxxing, when protest becomes arson, when manifestos become murder plans — the social contract frays. If the state cannot protect citizens from ideological violence, people will arm themselves and take matters into their own hands.
The question is no longer whether our institutions can withstand the mob — but whether they will act before the mob makes the next move, or allow a societal “resistance” movement to rise to replace dormant laws to revive trampled norms.
On October 28, 2011, Lord Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of England, came to New York City and sat with Rabbi Meir Soloviechik at Yeshiva University. Their hour long talk touched on Lord Sacks’ book The Home We Build Together, and the role of religion in society, focusing on the United States and the United Kingdom, in particular.
Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks Speaks at Yeshiva University with Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, October 2011
In the opening remarks (3:10), Rabbi Soloveichik shared a story about Senator Joseph Lieberman, who once observed that on Simchat Torah, Jews dance with the Torah in the streets with joy, yet often fail to carry that Torah into the world during the rest of the year. It was a reminder that religion cannot remain confined to ritual but must be brought into society.
Lord Sacks followed with a story of his own. Prime Minister Tony Blair once teased him that he had reached the “boring part” of the Hebrew Bible—the lengthy passages about the building of the Mishkan (Tabernacle). Why, Blair asked, does the Torah devote hundreds of verses to it, compared to just 34 for the creation of the universe?
Lord Sacks replied:
Prime Minister, it is not difficult for an omniscient, omnipotent, infinite God to create a home for human beings. But for finite, fallible human beings to create a home for the infinite God, that is difficult.
The Mishkan, Sacks explained, was not just architecture—it was a project that united the people. More than what God does for us, it is what we do for God that transforms and binds us together. “If you want to take this diverse, fractured culture of Britain and turn it into a united nation,” Sacks said, “you have to get them to build something together.”
Rabbi Soloveichik and Lord Sacks went on to describe that the decline of religious life and secularization of Europe was tied to fewer children being born. A self-centered focus weakens families, weakens faith, and weakens society. In contrast, raising children—caring for someone more than oneself—provides both the foundation of belief and the roots of charity: “having somebody whose life you care about more than yourself, that could actually be the foundation of faith for many of us.”
Washington (D.C.) and Rembrandt
Nearly fourteen years later, on September 8, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump held an event at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C. He invited members of the newly established (May 1, 2025) Religious Liberty Commission to hear how he was advancing the centrality of religion in American public life. He said “When faith gets weaker, our country seems to get weaker. When faith gets stronger… good things happen for our country…. To have a great nation, you have to have religion.”
One of the members of the Presidential Committee on Religious Liberty is Rabbi Meir Soloveichik. He was unable to attend the speech by the president in Washington because he was giving a day long-lecture in New York City at the home of Mem and Zalman Bernstein and the Metropolitan Museum of Art for the Tikvah Fund about art, religion and western society.
Rabbi Solveichik focused on Rembrandt’s two versions of the Sacrifice of Isaac. He contrasted Abraham’s devotion to God’s command to offer his son Isaac, to the investment of love and devotion he had made in his son. The angel broke the conflict, and with it, the end of human sacrifice which was prevalent in the world at that time. From this point onward, belief in a higher power could be accompanied by protecting and investing in our children.
Religion, Children and Western Democracy
It made for an interesting sermon triptych connecting religion, children and western values: Lord Sachs, Rabbi Soloveichik and President Trump all emphasized that religion has the power to strengthen ourselves, our families, our communities and our nation.
In Lord Sacks book, The Great Partnership, published in June 2011, right before his talk at YU, he wrote:
My argument has been that contrary to the received narrative, freedom has been better served in the modern world by a religious vision rather than a secular one. The Abrahamic vision, with its insistence on the non-negotiable dignity of the human person and the importance of protected space – the families and communities that make up civil society – where relationships are not based on power, saved England and America from the worst excesses of the revolutionary politics that cost tens of thousands of lives in France and tens of millions in Russia….
Abrahamic politics, by contrast, is politics with a human face, the politics that knows the limits of power, as well as the transformative effect of free persons freely joining together to make social institutions worthy of being a home for the divine presence. Abraham politics never forgets that there are things more important than politics, and that is what makes it the best defense of liberty.”
That is the motion before Western democracies: can humble faith as embodied in “Abraham politics” lead our different faiths to help build a cohesive society of respect and growth.
Concluding Circle
The discussion of religion and democracy is being advanced passionately today because it feels abandoned.
According to Lord Sacks, democracy under secularism preached intersectionality which yielded segregation and isolationism. Rabbi Solveichik responded that “a Mayflower of persecuted religions might leave England and Europe to come to safer shores [like America].” For his part, President Trump established the Religious Liberty Commission to deal with such matters, with the first group’s term ending on July 4, 2026, on the nation’s 250th anniversary.
So it was fitting that Rabbi Soloveichik should end his talk to the Tikvah Fund, a group whose motto is “Advancing Jewish Excellence and Western Civilization through Education & Ideas,” before Emanuel Leutze’s Washington Crossing the Delaware, while President Trump was concluding his remarks in Washington, D.C.
Rabbi Soloveichik at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, September 2025
In the 1851 painting, the future president of the United States stood aboard a boat filled with a diverse crew, readying to end the rule of England and break with the British monarchy and Church of England, to establish a new democratic state in 1776. Nearly 250 years later, the Chief Rabbi of England, the president of the United States, and the rabbi leading the oldest synagogue in the United States were championing the importance of religion in strengthening democracies everywhere. A quiet revolution to return to the foundations of faith to help build a more perfect union.
In an astonishing development, a majority of U.S. Senate Democrats voted to withhold “offensive weapons” from Israel. It was a symbolic vote — the measure failed with Republicans opposing the bill — but the message is clear: Israel may block rockets but not destroy the launchers. Defense in this new moral order means absorbing blows gracefully, not ending the threat.
At the same time, France — home to the third-largest Jewish population in the world — announced it will recognize a State of Palestine without requiring demilitarization. Paris is prepared to bless a future Palestine that could legally import tanks, rockets, and drones — even as its largest faction, Hamas, wages a genocidal war.
The Illusion of Morality
This is not a call for peace but a demand that Israel remain permanently in the center of the bullseye. Washington Democrats and European leaders want to look moral by limiting “excessive force,” but they are scripting a world where Jews may bleed — just not too much at once.
Recognizing a Palestinian state without disarming it legitimizes Hamas’s war aim. It signals that mass murder, hostage-taking, and open calls for Israel’s destruction do not block your path to statehood — they accelerate it. That is appeasement, not diplomacy.
Hamas kidnapping Israeli women on October 7, 2023
The Right to Finish the Fight
Israel was built on thousands of years of history, and the vow “never again.” That means more than survival — it means the right to end the threat. Defensive weapons stop today’s rockets; offensive weapons prevent tomorrow’s.
If Democrats in Washington vote to deny Israel offensive weapons, and if Paris recognizes an armed Palestine, the message is the same: the Jewish state must fight forever.
True peace will not come from tying Israel’s hands — it will come from removing those committed to its destruction and extinguishing their dream.
ACTION ITEM
Contact the Democratic senators who voted to block weapons to Israel in the middle of its multi-front war and share this article.
“The recent fighting and grave risk of further aggravation in an already brutal and deadly conflict raise severe protection concerns, amid a pervasive culture of impunity for human rights violations.” – Volker Türk, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, June 2024
“The RSF and its allied militias have also committed other war crimes and crimes against humanity. These include widespread sexual and gender-based violence, rape, sexual slavery, abduction, and recruitment and use of children in hostilities. The RSF and its allied militias have also systematically engaged in pillage and looting. They have further committed large-scale attacks based on intersecting ethnicity and gender grounds, especially against the Masalit community in El Geneina, including killings, torture, rape, and other forms of sexual violence, amounting to persecution.” – Independent International Fact-Finding Mission for the Sudan, October 2024
“Famine is present in Darfur. Conflict is increasing. Children are targeted. Girls and women are subject to rape. And the whole landscape is one of destruction, and, we say, criminality. ” – ICC Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan, January 2025
” I have now concluded that members of the RSF and allied militias have committed genocide in Sudan.” – US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, January 2025
With an estimated 150,000 people dead and some 12 million displaced, the conflict has paralysed Africa’s third-largest country. A catastrophic famine is ravaging the more remote areas, while a nightmare of sexual violence persists for women and girls across the country. – OCHA, April 2025
The numbers are staggering: as many as 150,000 people killed, millions displaced, thousands of women and children raped, villages in Darfur wiped off the map. It has been called “ethnic cleansing,” “genocide” in a land beset with “rape and sexual slavery” and “famine.” Children are dying daily, with half of El Fasher’s trapped population under five.
And yet — the streets of London, Paris, New York are quiet. No bridges are blocked. No university campuses are occupied. No faculty letters demand boycotts of Sudanese products.
The UN and Campus Activists Save Their Fury for Israel
When the UN convenes emergency sessions, it is rarely for Sudan. In 2024, the UN General Assembly passed 15 resolutions against Israel — and only seven against all other countries combined. The Human Rights Council maintains a permanent agenda item (Item 7) targeting only Israel.
On campus, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) calls for “globalizing the intifada” and promotes BDS campaigns to cut economic, cultural, and academic ties with Israel. Faculty petitions accuse Israel of “genocide” while ignoring the UN’s own genocide determinations in Sudan.
The fake narrative is fixed: Israel is a “settler-colonial outpost,” a European implant, a Western beachhead in the Middle East. This is not merely bad history — it is a deliberate attempt to erase Jewish indigeneity and delegitimize Israel’s right to exist.
Limited travel and lack of burial space has led to burials expanding from existing graveyard perimeters to the city roads. (photo: Giles Clarke for OCHA)
Erasing History as Antisemitic Strategy
“Israel’s pattern of practice of dispossession and expansion of settlements dating back to its establishment as a settler colonial state in 1948 has been found to be illegal under international law.” – NY CUNY vote on BDS Divestment, June 2024 (Passed)
This framing is an antisemitic dog whistle: it rebrands Jews as foreign European invaders in their ancestral homeland, turning their self-defense into imperial conquest. It ignores that more than half of Israeli Jews are Mizrahi expelled from Arab and Muslim lands. It recasts Israel’s rebirth — championed by the same UN that voted for partition in 1947 — as a sin that must be repented by dismantling the Jewish state.
The Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism is attempting to move Israel Studies in universities out of the Jewish Studies department and into Colonial Studies, both attempting to sever Jews from the land of Israel, as well as mark Zionism as a point of European imperialism.
This helps explain why so many are silent about Sudan or Syria. Those wars do not serve the European imperialism narrative, a war between the Global South and Global North. They do not produce graffiti that says “globalize the intifada” or “river to the sea.”
Israel is Vulnerable
“They can crush the flowers, but they cannot delay the springtime.” MIT vote on BDS, September 2024 (passed)
Israel is a small democracy, one that can be pressured and condemned without risk. Many seem to feel the UN’s vote to create Israel in 1947 was a mistake that must be corrected. The endless parade of UN resolutions, the obsessive focus of NGOs, and the boycotts pushed by activists reveal a not-so-hidden goal: not to protect Gazans, but to destroy Israel.
When Hamas butchered 1,200 Israelis on October 7 — burning families alive, gang-raping women, kidnapping children — the global street roared. Not in sympathy, but in accusation. The protests called Israel “the real terrorist” and demanded its isolation. When Israel finally defended itself, the outrage multiplied.
Meanwhile, Sudan burns — and the world yawns.
Mohamed Maysara, 2, cries at the Al-Buluk Hospital in Omdurman. He was there to receive treatment for malnourishment (photo: Giles Clarke)
A Moral Compass Pointed the Wrong Way
The world has turned its outrage into a weapon, aimed squarely at the one Jewish state. Genocide in Sudan, mustard gas in Syria, mass killings in Yemen — they elicit murmurs. But Israel’s attempt to dismantle a terror army that openly calls for its annihilation provokes riots, boycotts, and international tribunals.
This is not human rights activism but a global campaign to strip Jews of sovereignty. And it is why the contrast between Sudan’s silence and Gaza’s deafening clamor is not just hypocrisy — it is proof of a deeper animus that cannot be explained by compassion. It is the validation and desired implementation of Hamas’s genocidal charter.
A suicidal antisemite walked into a church school in Minnesota and opened fire. He left behind rants of depression and hate. He idolized the mass murderers who came before him — Hitler, Columbine, Christchurch, Pittsburgh — and fantasized about joining their ranks in death.
It is a sad story. Sad for the victims, whose lives were cut short. Sad for the shooter’s family, who must live with the legacy of his murders. Sad for society, which must add another notch to the ledger of preventable carnage.
But I pause on the judges. Not the judges in robes who preside over courts of law — this menace took his own life and will only face a real judge in the afterlife, if you believe in one. The judges I mean are the self-appointed arbiters of truth on social media, the pundits with millions of followers who rush to craft a narrative before the blood on the church floor has dried.
Narratives Over Facts
Cenk Uygur, founder of The Young Turks, quickly posted on X that the killer “hates Israel and Muslims.” Two deliberate misdirections.
First misdirection: He didn’t hate Israel in the abstract. He hated Jews — which is precisely why he hated Israel. On his weapon magazine he scrawled, “6 million wasn’t enough.” That wasn’t about Israel. That was about Jews. In his journal he wrote “If I carry out a racially motivated attack, it would be most likely against filthy Zionist jews,” before calling Jewish people “entitled” and “penny-sniffing” and adding “FREE PALESTINE!”
writings on the Minneapolis killer’s weaponry
He even called for destroying HIAS, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society that helps resettle refugees in the U.S. His antisemitism and anti-Israel animus were inseparable. He loved Nazis and he loved Palestinian Arabs who killed Jews. Cenk only loves the latter, because it allows him to hang his “anti-Zionist, not antisemitic” credentials where he cannot with the former.
Second misdirection: The shooter never expressed hatred of Muslims. He praised mass murderers — including some who targeted mosques — but not because he despised Islam. His adoration was for the act of mass killing as a pathway to glory. He wanted to die a martyr in the suicide-mass murder cult, to etch his name in the pantheon of psychopaths and inspire the next one, just as he inscribed their names on his gun, as well as “mashallah,” meaning “Gd has willed it” in Arabic.
The Sanitizers
So why did Cenk say what he said? To refit the crime into his own comfortable narrative. To launder the reality that this shooter’s rants — about Jews, Israel, HIAS — were fueled by the same demonization that Cenk himself mainstreams daily.
Cenk published this rant about Israel controlling the US government around the same time as misdirecting people about the Minnesota killer
This is how today’s judges operate. They aren’t rendering justice to take the wicked off the streets. They are sanitizing their own crimes by placing their incitement onto a scapegoat and pushing it off a cliff. They hope you will move on, and not notice their bloody handprints on the crime scene of young children dead on a church floor.
But be clear, Cenk and others like him are inciting the next mass shooter. They just hope the murderers come for Israel supporters.
Conclusion
There are no winners in these tragedies. The dead are buried, the families are broken, the shooter is gone.
But the lies linger. The venom feels less poisonous once imbibed and cleansed by the antisemitic judges.
When influencers and media stars twist a killer’s words into their preferred stories, they are not exposing truth — they are covering their own complicity.
The Minneapolis shooter’s manifesto was clear enough. It will likely be on the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) book-of-the-month club reading. The world is sad and unjust and we must burn it down. Ideally, start with the Jews. If you can’t, make sure your manifesto reads like a modern day Mein Kampf that would make Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) proud.
The killer’s sphere of desecration was relatively small. Tragic, but limited. But the shrill antisemitic rants atop social media and infiltrating politics grossly widen the diameter of the damage.
The lingering tragedy is that the loudest voices have become the judges, and that will mark our entire society for collapse.
But read today’s news, and the stories have been rewritten. The jihadists are airbrushed out. In their place, new villains are supplied: Israel, Republicans, conservatives. Hamas’s October 7 slaughter becomes “anti-colonial resistance.” The Pulse massacre becomes proof of “alt-right bigotry.” The killers vanish; scapegoats stand in their stead.
The New York Times article on August 24, 2025 essentially blaming Republican anti-gay attitudes surrounding the Orlando nightclub killings. Nowhere does it say that the murderer was a radical Islamist who was interviewed several times by the FBI for involvement with Al Qaeda and Hezbollah.
This is the age of villains of preference.
A Hamas gunman disappears, Netanyahu is written in.
An ISIS bomber is scrubbed out, Trump takes his place.
Jihad becomes invisible, conservatives become the menace.
This isn’t sloppy reporting—it’s deliberate redirection. Our society, already awash in the viral toxicity of social media, is being pushed to focus obsessively on politics and demonizing your neighbors. It’s red vs. blue, right vs. left. The situation courses with the ultimate stakes: life and death. The reframing empowers a radical socialist agenda that uses a domestic enemy to mobilize its base. Jihadists don’t fit the script, but Republicans and Zionists do.
The real clash—radical Islam against democracy and freedom—is inconvenient to acknowledge. So it’s erased. In its place we’re told the true battle is internal: conservatives are dismantling democracy; Israel is committing genocide with American support; capitalism is the ultimate evil that threatens the world. The foreign killers who target Jews, Christians, and gays are excused, while the West turns on itself.
Anti-capitalist, anti-Zionist politicians-in-waiting, Jamaal Bowman and Zohran Mamdani
The creed is simple: protect the victims of preference, attack the villains of preference—Jews, conservatives, capitalists. They are being lined up for your bilestorm. Your retweets. Your ire. Your protest. Your vote.
It is a purposeful rerouting of outrage, weaponized by radicals who despise capitalism and democracy, and cheered on by regimes like Qatar and China that profit from the West’s collapse.
The jihadists told us why they killed. Our media tells us to look away. Because in the new faith, truth is expendable while villains of preference are eternal.
There is a subtle subtitle to mainstream news articles today. It is a chorus that is growing louder and closer, lifted from killers’ manifestos: “There is only one solution: Intifada Revolution.”
Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks, posted on X that Jesus was a Palestinian. The implication was not only that Jesus was Arab, but also Muslim. Both are historically false. Jesus was a Jew in Judea. He lived, preached, and died as a Jew in his homeland.
If alive today, Jesus would not be celebrated by the Palestinian Authority. He would be condemned. The United Nations would call him an “illegal settler” for living in Bethlehem and Jerusalem. Palestinian leaders would brand him a “colonist” because his Jewish family had the audacity to live in their ancestral land.
This is not a new stunt. A few years ago, activist Linda Sarsour declared that Jesus was a Palestinian from Nazareth. She conveniently ignored the fact that Nazareth is in Israel, and that Jesus was Jewish—observing Jewish holidays, quoting Jewish scripture, and praying in Jewish synagogues. He was as much a “Palestinian” as King David or Moses.
Radical preacher Omar Suleiman – invited to speak before Congress by Nancy Pelosi – said the same. His goal was to peel Christian support away from the Jewish State. Evangelical Zionists needed to hear the gospel from an Islamic extremist.
Why this persistent rewriting of history? Of cultural appropriation? Because anti-Israel agitators have a larger project: erasing Jewish ties to the land of Israel. They cannot admit that Jews have been in their holy land continuously for millennia, so they try to recast Jewish history in Arab clothing. They claim Jews are foreigners and interlopers while appropriating Jewish figures for their own narratives.
The irony is striking. For all their rhetoric about “coexistence” and “justice,” the pro-Palestinian movement reveals its antisemitic moral rot in these fabrications. They would rather deny Jewish history than seek peace with the Jewish people. They would rather invent a fictional Palestinian Jesus than accept the historical Jewish Jesus.
Jesus has now become the latest Jew taken hostage—not in body, but in identity. Uygur, Sarsour, and their fellow travelers parade his name as a prop in their campaign against Jewish sovereignty. But no amount of Twitterstorms, hashtags, or revisionist slogans can undo the reality: Jesus was a Jew, in Judea, in the land of Israel.
Jesus, like every Jew before and after him, is bound up with the land that antisemitic anti-Israel activists desperately want to sever from its true indigenous people.
In the Book of Numbers, chapters 32 and 34, we find a powerful and enduring lesson for Jews living outside the land of Israel. The tribes of Reuben and Gad, later joined by half of the tribe of Manasseh, approached Moses with a bold request. They asked to settle on the east side of the Jordan River, outside the boundaries of the Promised Land, because the land there was suitable for their abundant livestock. Moses was skeptical: was this another rebellion, like the spies who had refused to enter the land decades earlier?
But the tribes made a solemn vow. They would not only join the conquest of the Land of Israel—they would be on the front lines. Only after the land was secured for their brethren would they return to their homes across the Jordan. They could live outside the Promised Land, but they could not abandon their people or their mission.
Wallis’s New map of The Holy Land (1815)
Fast forward thousands of years, and the question still echoes: Do Jews living in the diaspora bear a similar responsibility toward Israel today?
The modern State of Israel, reborn in 1948, has been under near-constant threat. From surrounding Arab nations launching wars to terrorist regimes like Hamas slaughtering civilians, Israel’s security is never guaranteed. The battlefield has expanded beyond the physical: anti-Israelism masquerades as social justice in Western institutions, and Jewish students face intimidation on campuses from New York to London to Sydney.
And yet, many diaspora Jews seem detached from the fight. Some claim that Israel’s policies are the cause of antisemitism. Others go further, actively criticizing the Jewish State in public forums – leading with “AsAJew” credentials – hoping that distancing themselves will spare them from scorn.
The lesson of Reuben and Gad was clear: you can live outside the land, but not outside the mission.
Reuben and Gad did not ask to be exempt from the battle. In fact, they pledged to be the vanguard. Likewise, Jews living in the diaspora, particularly those in free and prosperous nations, must recognize their role. They may not carry rifles in the IDF, but they must arm themselves with truth, courage, and commitment.
They should defend Israel in public discourse. They must call out antisemitism cloaked as “anti-Zionism,” a calling card demanding the destruction of Israel. They ought to support accurate Israel education, advocate with elected officials, and give generously to causes that strengthen Israel’s security and society. It is the price of living across the river.
Moses demanded a commitment from the tribes outside the land. Jewish history demands one now.
Before the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City, The New York Times editorial board wrote that Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani was “uniquely unsuited to the city’s challenges” due to his complete lack of experience in running organizations, negotiating contracts and impractical solutions for the largest city in the country. After Mamdani won the primary, the paper quickly churned out articles casting him in a positive light.
First the Times posted puff pieces about “Zohran Mamdani’s Winning Style,” followed a few hours later by “The Parents Who Helped Shape Zohran Mamdani’s Politics.”
Just a few hours later there was an article on “The Age-Old Question Behind the New York Mayor’s Race,” followed ten minutes later by an opinion piece “Plenty of Jews Love Zohran Mamdani.”
The next day, the paper continued its posting frenzy. First it posted about unions switching to support Mamdani and the alt-left politician’s courting Black voters. Then it posted twice about the Mamdani’s social media campaign and success with young voters.
The paper seemed to have an artificial intelligence blogger on autopilot, trying to familiarize the world with this inexperienced 33-year old extremist, and cast him in a positive light.
Why the sudden flip? Why did the Times choose to ignore the millions of New Yorkers who loathe the politics and economic plan of the far-left socialist and fear his hatred for the Jewish State fighting a multifront war? Why pretend that the paper had never recommended that voters stay away from Mamdani?
It’s a terrifying reality of today’s world where party loyalty is paramount over anything else.
And it’s not just the Times. Jewish New York politicians like Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Jerry Nadler ran to support Mamdani after his win, abandoning the majority of the 1.4 million Jews in the city who think of Mamdani the way those two politicians think of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. #AnyoneButMamdani. #MadManny
In an embarassing – and more frequent – dynamic, non-Jewish New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand had no issue calling out Mamdani for his hateful rhetoric. While Schumer and Nadler have become the WOAT, “Worst Of All Time,” non-Jews are proving themselves better allies than fellow Jews.
While millions of New Yorkers are attempting to figure out how to keep a radical socialist out of Gracie Mansion, leaders of the Democratic party are rallying around the primary winner whom they know is unfit and dangerous, whom they had shunned. Such is politics today: an ugly circus in which loyalty is in the center ring and the ringmasters sacrifice innocent heads in the mouths of tigers.
Zohran Mamdani, a radical socialist won the New York City Democratic primary for mayor. He did it on the strength of young voters who turned out to vote in Brooklyn and Queens. It was not solely about race or income level as commonly thought (Bronx is poorest and went +18 for Cuomo and Manhattan has the greatest percentage of Whites and went for Mamdani). The young people in liberal districts who came out in droves and secured his victory.
Poor Hispanics generally preferred Cuomo; Asians preferred Mamdani. But the real divide was in age: both in candidate preference and coming out to vote
America’s young people – especially in urban areas like New York City – are much more likely to be non-White than older Americans. They are more likely to get their news from social media influencers than credible news outlets, know little about the Holocaust, don’t remember the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and have been indoctrinated in a public school system that has advanced an “oppressor/oppressed” narrative in which “White privilege” has not only intentionally placed young non-White people at a disadvantage, but stolen their wealth and power in a racist generational kleptocracy.
Today’s youth have been indoctrinated by a socialist public school system which has compulsory attendance. Powerful teacher unions block alternatives like new charter schools and fight any monies going to private schools, thereby making them out-of-reach for many and frequently non-viable. Further, the teacher unions demand that they have total control of the education and block parental involvement.
This forced indoctrination of youth into a divisive ideology has a historic parallel: Nazi Germany.
When people think of black-and-white images of Hitler Youth, they instinctively recoil. The idea of a government-run school system indoctrinating children with a twisted dogma, demonizing whole groups of people, and eliminating parental rights is rightfully condemned. But the problem of the real world modern incarnation is ignored. Western democracies employ the same mechanisms, just with different terminology and new targets.
Germany’s National Socialist Party Educational System
In Nazi Germany, schools were not really about education—they were about indoctrination. From an early age, children were taught racial supremacy, loyalty to the Führer, and hatred of Jews, communists, and other so-called “enemies of the state.” Textbooks were rewritten to glorify White Aryans and dehumanize others. History was a fable of German victimhood and revenge. Biology became eugenics.
Parents were sidelined and teachers were party enforcers. Loyalty was not to truth or family, but to ideology.
America’s Democratic Socialist Party Indoctrination
Today, we do not see classrooms preaching eugenics or worshipping a dictator. But we do see a disturbing echo of the same approach: children are being indoctrinated to hate fellow classmates and members of society.
Public schools across the United States and other Western democracies increasingly push a worldview centered around oppressor and oppressed—not in terms of deeds or choices, but by skin color and gender. Critical Race Theory, once an obscure legal theory, has bled into K–12 education in the form of “equity-based learning,” and “antiracism,” approaches that specifically elevate non-White and low income students, and sideline Whites and Jews.
White children are taught they benefit from “privilege,” regardless of their life experience. Minority children are taught that their struggle is rooted in systemic bias. And the lesson is rarely a call for unity or shared values—it is a call for reordering society through grievance and power struggle.
History is reframed as nothing more than a record of Western oppression. Heroes like Washington, Lincoln, and Churchill are minimized or vilified. Meanwhile, activists are lionized regardless of method or truth. There is no longer a shared civic narrative—only the mantra of “deconstructing power structures.” The language of “revolution” and “liberation” are instilled in America’s youth.
And the teachers – and only the teachers – are in charge. Parents and politicians who push back against the curricula are demonized under a banner of “disguised censorship” who are “trying to dictate what teachers say and block kids from learning about our shared history.”
But it’s not shared history; it’s divisive history.
Teachers as Activists
During the Nazi regime, teachers were required to join the National Socialist Teachers’ League and toe the ideological line. They encouraged teachers to intimidate and harass perceived enemies: Jews. Today, public school teachers are forced to join powerful teacher unions. It promotes teachers becoming open activists that feast on current enemies, such as attacking “Zionist” Jews.
Holocaust Museum review of education in Nazi Germany
These teacher unions aggressively fight against charter schools and school vouchers, keeping millions of students trapped in underperforming, politically biased and morally deformed systems. Parents who speak up at school board meetings could be tarred as “domestic terrorists” by the National School Boards Association (NSBA), as happened in September 2021.
In Nazi Germany, dissent was criminal. In the modern West, dissent is canceled.
Michael Mukasey reviewed attempt by NSBA to shut down parental involvement in classrooms, vilifying parents who “disrupt” school board meetings as engaged in “domestic terrorism.”
Compulsory Attendance, Controlled Curriculum
In both Nazi Germany and America today, attendance was (and is) compulsory. Children cannot simply walk away and parents are similarly held captive. And in most school districts, there is no alternative—no charter school, no voucher for private education, no support for homeschooling. The state dictates the curriculum. The unions staff the classrooms. And the ideology is enforced, not debated.
Then and Now
Feature
Nazi Germany
Modern Public Schools
Curriculum
Racial supremacy, hatred of Jews
Oppressor vs. oppressed, white guilt, DEI focus
Control
Total state monopoly
Union-dominated, resistance to school choice
Teachers
Nazi enforcers
Ideological activists protected by unions
Enemies
Jews, Slavs, Communists
“Whiteness,” traditional values, parents who dissent
Dissent
Criminalized
Canceled, ignored, or labeled extremist
Outcome
Fanatical loyalty to regime
Cultural division and civic unraveling
Indoctrination by Any Other Name
Today’s teachers are not training students to become SS officers but they are shaping how children see their country, their history, their families, themselves – and their neighbors. And when a government-backed education system insists that children adopt one political ideology, demonize dissent, and question parental authority, we are no longer talking about education—we are talking about indoctrination.
ACTION ITEM
Get involved in your local school board. There are elections every year and public fora held throughout the year.
First One Through 