More Antifa Terrorists Were Just Sentenced in Texas

 

A little over a week ago, several Antifa terrorists were sentenced to a collective 450 years in prison. One of them, the convicted ringleader of the 2025 ambush of an ICE detention facility that saw a law enforcement officer get shot, received a century behind bars. The shortest sentence was 30 years.

Antifa and their Leftist allies in the Democratic Party were not happy about these sentences. They really believed they were above the law, and are threatening the federal judges who put their comrades behind bars.

More Antifa terrorists were sentenced today. Andy Ngo, the independent journalist who's reported on Antifa for years, says there was crying in the courtroom and that one Antifa convict attempted suicide before sentencing.

Seven more convicted members of a North Texas Antifa terror cell were sentenced Wednesday in federal court, less than two weeks after one of the convicts allegedly attempted to kill herself while in custody.

U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman and Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor handed down the sentences in Fort Worth following last week’s 450-year prison sentence, a historic punishment of the Antifa group’s first batch of trial defendants.

With the exception of Ines Soto, all of Wednesday’s defendants had accepted plea agreements before trial.

Ngo reports that the seven Antifa terrorists received sentences ranging from 22 months to 50 years. Ines Soto, who did not accept a plea agreement, was sentenced to 50 years. The other six defendants did accept plea deals. Their sentences are:

• Nathan Baumann — 22 months
• Joy Gibson — 15 years
• Rebecca Morgan — 15 years
• Lynette Sharp — nine years
• Seth Sikes — six years and ten months
• John Thomas — nine years

Another defendant, Susan Kent, had her sentencing rescheduled to next week. Ngo reported that defendant Rebecca Morgan tried to harm or kill herself prior to sentencing, but no additional records were available. Of the 16 defendants, at least a quarter identify as trans, but they are all being housed in a facility matching their biological sex.

America’s New Socialists Are Coming From the Upper Class

 We are witnessing in this year of 2026, for the first time really in over a century, a resurgence of socialism. And it’s a strange kind of socialism. It’s the democratic socialism of America. And what it is, the Democratic Party has been taken over by young zealots who do not believe in free-market capitalism.

They do not believe in the unique story of the United States. They do not believe in this 250th-year anniversary, in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the exceptional virtue and brilliance of the American nation.

It’s mostly a critical message they have, past and present. So, who are these people, and why are they coming into prominence?

In Maine, we have Mr. [Graham] Platner. He’s a former veteran. He’s running on—I don’t know what his ticket is. All he seems to do is talk about millionaires and billionaires and the privileged, and everybody’s being exploited.

But notice he does not say, “I want to do the following. I want this particular program, and this is how I’m going to fund it.”

You don’t get any details. It’s mostly a critique of free-market capitalism and the American tradition and the American status quo.

In Michigan, we have Mr. [Abdul] El-Sayed. He was a health official for the city of Detroit, a very young epidemiologist with a Ph.D. He is even more critical. He adds an Islamist tinge to socialism.

He was the one that said, basically, “Don’t criticize the death of the supreme leader in Iran because my constituents might take offense,” meaning most of his Michigan constituent base is Muslim, and in that sense at odds with the majority of Americans who much welcome the news that this theocratic fascist in Iran was dead.

Then we have Mr. Bernie Sanders. He’s been around for years. He’s in his mid-80s now, a perennial candidate for president. He feels very happy that at the end of his life somebody finally is listening to his socialist message.

We have Mr. [Zohran] Mamdani. He is the mayor of New York. I don’t know what he was doing before he ran for office.

He had one term in the Legislature. He was a rap singer. He’s an immigrant from Uganda, the Indian American community, 1% of the population in Uganda. They’re sort of, to use Mamdani’s own phrase, settler colonialists in a foreign country. Then his parents, very highly educated, very successful, very wealthy.

One is an endowed professor. The other is a very celebrated and heavily subsidized filmmaker. And now he’s the mayor of New York and trying to implement a socialist agenda. What do they all have in common? Well, ideologically, they feel that they can take over the Democratic Party and, by extension, America.

And then they can raise taxes to an enormous level, raise entitlements, and do what [Barack] Obama had once promised—when, remember, he said he wanted to spread the wealth. And the idea is that we would have an equality of result, not equality of opportunity, and we would have millionaires’ and billionaires’ taxes that are now on the ballots in certain states.

We would see millionaires flee, as they are from California to red states.

It’s a pretty radical message. We haven’t seen anything like this since the perennial socialist Eugene Debs from, I guess it was, 1900 to 1920. He ran for president five times. The final time, in 1920, he was in prison. He got over a million votes.

But what else do these people have in common? They also tend to be quite well off.

Mr. Platner really hasn’t had a job. He has one client for his oyster business, and that’s his mother’s upscale restaurant. He works out of his father’s friend’s property. He’s been on a government pension-disability check from his war service. His father bought him a house.

Mr. Mamdani has been heavily subsidized most of his youth and early adulthood by his affluent parents. Bernie Sanders really didn’t have a job. But notice what I’m getting at. Now Bernie Sanders has three homes. The Squad, the so-called four or five representatives that are socialists in the Congress, are pretty affluent.

I mean, one day Rep. [Ilhan] Omar says she was worth $30 million. The next day, when she faced a storm of criticism, not so much. Bernie Sanders has three houses, as I said. It’s a very odd phenomenon that the people from the upper, upper-middle class are advocating for redistribution of wealth and property.

There’s another thing. These people are all what I would call a blue-state phenomenon. They rise up in either local elections, like Mr. Mamdani, a mayoral election in a city that’s 85% Democratic or left-wing, as far as the voters identify themselves. But they don’t do well in red states, and they so far have not won national elections.

In fact, with the exception of Bernie Sanders, they haven’t really won a statewide election. This is going to be very interesting to see if their support transcends the local environment of leftists from which they arose.

We have members of Congress who are socialists, but again, those are from congressional districts of about 750,000 people. We’ll see if we get socialists. Now, some of you are going to say, “Victor, of course, they don’t say they’re socialists,” but what was Kamala Harris but a socialist? What was Gavin Newsom but a socialist?

And you make a good point. We had in Virginia, Abigail Spanberger. We had Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey. We had Katie Wilson, the mayor of Seattle. They had one thing in common. They said to themselves, “Americans don’t like socialism. This is the land of the free and the home of the brave, and they like rugged individualism, blah, blah, blah.

“But I can’t run on that because I’m a socialist. But I can’t run on socialism either because they hate it. So what am I going to do? I’m going to mask my political views until I’m elected.”

And that’s what all three of those candidates did once they took office.

The locus classicus is, of course, Joe Biden. They’re always looking for a working-class person. Mr. [James] Talarico—he is a working-class evangelical Christian. Forget about his strident commentary about trans issues or gay issues that are at odds with the propensities and political feelings of Texans, or the fact he’s subsidized heavily by his parents.

But they always try to be a Graham Platner, a working person, because socialism is a boutique fetish of the upper-upper class. Marx and Engels were very well off. Most socialists, progressives come from the upper class.

It’s not any longer a grassroots movement. And we will see in November if this breaks with tradition. But if American history and protocol and tradition are any guide, once socialists run in statewide races or in national races, they are exposed for who they are, and it’s very hard to keep dissimulating and hiding their agenda.

And one thing we know from the history of America: It’s one of the few countries in the world that does not like communism. It does not like statism, and it certainly doesn’t like socialism.

Where Are the ‘Neocons’? Exposing the Left’s New Anti-Israel Narrative

 

Recently, during the confusion, the anger, the controversy over the memorandum of understanding concerning negotiations that will ensue with the United States and Iran, JD Vance, our vice president, was tasked with visiting the media and being the public spokesman on behalf of the memorandum.  

It wasn’t an enviable job. He’s very skilled. I think we all admire him a great deal. 

But one of the strange things that followed was there was criticism in Israel, and that would be natural. We are a large country and very powerful, and we’re 7,000 miles away from Iran. Israel is a very small country of roughly 10 million people, and it’s right proximate to Iran. So obviously, our ultimate strategic aims and agendas are not always identical. 

But Vance made the argument that there were people in the Israeli Cabinet who were too critical of the deal, and he wanted to kind of slap them down and say, no one likes you in the world except … I should say supports you except us, i.e., you should show more gratitude. 

No. 2, we give you over $3 billion of aid, and 75% of your missile defense is contingent upon us. Donald Trump, see, is your best friend you’ll ever have, as you have acknowledged yourself.  

And fourth, the United States policy is the United States policy. It’s not affected by other people trying to influence it. 

This was kind of extraordinary because in that speech, he was more critical of the Israelis, really, than he was of the Iranians because he talked in the sense that we’re dealing with Iranian moderates, and there are people who might emerge as a new Iran. He didn’t have that tolerance, it seems, for our ally Israel. 

The question of whether Israel is an asset? Yes, we give over $3.5 billion to Israel, but unlike all of the other money that we give—we give $1 billion to Egypt, we give almost $1 billion to Jordan. Both, by the way, are autocracies. They’re not constitutional systems or consensual governments like Israel that’s Western. And we gave $17 billion—$17 billion, six times what we gave Israel—as late as 2023. I think it’s been over $100 billion so far. 

So, Israel’s not the only recipient of U.S. aid, but unlike all the other recipients, maybe with the exception of Ukraine lately, it’s a strategic partner. Its intelligence is vital to our knowledge of the Middle East, especially of terrorists, which it shares daily with us. 

It is a laboratory of U.S. weapons. Every day they are flying F-15s, F-16s—latest models of each—F-35s, using Patriot missiles. And almost daily they consult with our people and say, this is what we’ve learned as a flaw. This is what we’ve learned as unrealized advantages. And that knowledge is incorporated into our defense profile. 

Another thing that was—so it is an asset, and this is quite aside from the idea that there are commonalities between Israel and the West in general and the United States in particular.  

We both are part of a long Judeo-Christian moral tradition. We both are consensual governments. We both have freedoms. Israel is not as other nations in the Middle East, threatening death sentences to some people who say they want to break away from their religion.  

You can break away from Judaism if you want in Israel. Try that in a Gulf state or Saudi Arabia in the case of Islam, and you’re going to be in big, big trouble. 

One of the things he said was that the neocons—and we’ve heard that word neo, neo, neocons. That’s a term for people who were, in the former decades of their life, their formative decades, they were liberal, so we put the Greek prefix “neo,” meaning new cons—and then they flipped during the Reagan years or the Bush years into conservatives, and many of them were Jewish Americans, most notably people like Donald Kagan, Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol.  

Their children and others in the next generation have been strong supporters, so the idea or the accusation is we are going to war against Iran because a small influential group of neocons feels their first loyalty is to Israel, and defending Israel is not in the national interest because there are 550 million Muslims surrounding Israel.  

So, in terms of population or oil wealth, they are geostrategically more valuable. That is not true in itself, but what I’m curious about is: Who are the neocons? 

If you look at the primary spokesman for the neoconservative movement that happened incidentally to be Jewish, they all detest Donald Trump now. 

Bill Kristol, he was the arch spokesman of the neoconservative movement. He’s advocated voting for [Zohran] Mamdani. Professor Elliott Cohen, radically anti-Trump. Washington Post columnist Max Boot, hysterically anti-Trump. Former National Review writer Mona Charen, radically anti-Trump. Jonah Goldberg bolted away from National Review, radically anti-Trump. I could go on and list David Frum, radically anti-Trump.  

Some of them in cases are voting Democrat even though the Democratic Party is now a socialist-Islamist party. 

So, there is no neocon movement anymore that is an inside lobby for the Israelis. 

Second point I want to make very quickly is there is a larger climate on campuses today of antisemitism. We’re seeing candidates like Mr. [Abdul] El-Sayed in the Senate in Michigan, or we’re seeing Graham Platner, who are openly anti-Israel, but also anti-Jewish. 

And I think I could be frank and say, if you are a Jewish American, you cannot run on a national ticket on the Democrat side. If Joe Lieberman were going to be nominated today, it would be impossible to be a vice presidential candidate as he was in 2004. The antisemitism is so marked and explicit in the Democratic Party.  

So, we have to be very careful when we talk about inside influence and a general climate where already Jews are unfairly targeted and suspect. 

And I’ll finish with Lebanon. Donald Trump was critical as well. He said, you can’t blow up a whole building when a Hezbollah person walks in. And I think JD said something to the effect—I’m just paraphrasing—you can’t kill your way out of your problem. 

But if you say to Lebanon and you say to Israel, tomorrow, just don’t fire, either one of you. Israel will be fine with that. The people who are breaking the truce are Hezbollah, which has hijacked the Lebanese government. The Lebanese government hates Hezbollah just as much as we do and just as much as Israel does. But Hezbollah isn’t even a nation. It is terrorist thuggery. Its relation to Lebanon is like the cartel’s relation to Mexico. 

And they are attacking Israel daily. They had 160,000 missiles originally. They have shot thousands into Israel. Israel tries to be disproportionate, just like we are. If somebody attacks us, we attack them 10 times harder. Why? To create deterrence. 

So, when somebody shoots missiles or drones at Israel and then runs back to the suburbs of Beirut and has them stashed in the basement and thinks, you can’t hurt me, Israel targets that basement. It does not blow up the entire apartment building by intent. It tries to blow up the particular areas within the apartment. 

It is much more careful to target individual Hezbollah killers than the Hezbollah people are willing to target the IDF. They target everybody. 

And again, if you don’t want Lebanon to be an issue—and I don’t know why it’s even in a memorandum of understanding. It has nothing to do with our effort to disarm Iran—it shouldn’t be in there at all. That should be something the Israelis handle and Hezbollah handles. And all we need to do is say, don’t give money to Hezbollah. But that’s an Israeli-Hezbollah question. 

And Iran is desperately trying to cling onto something to get leverage, but we shouldn’t allow them that leverage. 

Why America’s Universities Are Falling Apart

 There’s been a lot of news lately about the university’s higher education crisis, and universities are now competing for students rather than students competing with each other to get into universities.  

Maybe the elite universities still, because of their brand name, although they’ve suffered a great deal and their admissions reflect that and their applications are down, they’ll always make it—the seven or eight so-called top tier. 

But most four-year colleges and universities are in a bad strait. And why is that? 

First of all, it’s demography. During the 1960s, the fertility rate reached, in 1960, about 3.6 children per family. It’s recovered a little bit the last three years, but it’s 1.7. So, the cohort of 17-, 18-, and 19-year-olds is less than half. 

So, they are competing for a much smaller pool of young people. 

The second thing that’s really turned people off is that tuition has increased, over the last 50 years, three times more than the annual rate of inflation.  

Now, why is that? 

Mostly it is because of administrative bloat.  

Where I work, at Stanford University, The Wall Street Journal recently suggested that if you count graduate and undergraduate students at Stanford, and you count administrators and their staff, there is roughly one administrator or staffer for every student. 

This is because the university became in loco parentis. It said, “I am a parent, and I’m going to monitor the 360-degree, 24/7 life of a student. If he’s not happy, we’re gonna deal with it. If somebody accuses you of sexual harassment, we’re gonna deal with it. We’re gonna deal with everything, and we’re going to try to be political. 

“Our job is not disinterested, inductive education. It is to turn out left-wing people who can offer an antithesis to the family, nuclear family, the community, religion, etc. We believe society is biased with corporations and family and religion, and we’re gonna offer an antithesis.

That turned off people, believe me. 

Professors themselves are unique in American life. Nobody else has the same conditions of employment. After six years, they get tenure. Outside the exclusive schools, it’s almost automatic. Where I worked at the [California State University], I think 90% of assistant professors got tenure. 

Release time is very common now. You can say, “I want to be a part-time administrator,” or “I am tutoring,” or “I have a special project,” and you can get a reduced teaching load. 

Remember that the teaching load has gone way down. In most colleges, it’s between two and four courses a year. A year. 

Maybe not at the CSU, but even CSU has gone down on many campuses. That’s the California State University system, the largest in the world. It has gone from four classes to three classes a semester. 

And part of the way that they finesse that was when you increase the administrative budget and you increase release time for full-time faculty and decrease teaching, you hire part-time, temporary lecturers, and you exploit them. 

You pay them about 40% per class of what you would pay a full or associate professor. You don’t really give them the same type of benefits. And at some universities, the percentage of courses that are taught by part-time, exploited lecturers is getting up to 40% and even 45%. 

Another thing that turned the public off about these universities: They grant-gouge. 

We’re starting to learn that, say, on NIH grants, many of these universities were charging not 10% or 15% commission, but 40% and even higher. 

In other words, if a professor got a million-dollar grant from the federal government, a university would step in and say, “Well, you’re using your office or your phone or your lab, so we want 40% of it.” 

And they use that because the whole system is financially unsound. Financially unsound. 

Largely because, again, of administrative bloat and the creation of centers and programs that have nothing to do with education but form a huge overhead. 

Another thing that got people very worried is another way they financed this debt, expanded their administrators, and cut back on teaching: They brought in over a million foreign students. 

And unlike American students, there are no scholarships. There are no discounts. Foreign students pay the premium, if not a little bit higher tuition. 

Now, the problem with that is when you bring in 300,000 students from China or over 200,000 from the illiberal Middle East, and when you look at the origin of most of these students, they are from autocratic and illiberal places in Africa, Asia, and the Western Hemisphere, particularly the Middle East and China. 

Then you start to politicize the student body, and you can see what happened after Oct. 7. 

We had enormous demonstrations, often led by foreign students, chanting, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” That’s essentially code for destroying the state of Israel. 

And we had violent demonstrations often led by people from the Middle East. 

And, of course, the FBI suggests that 1% to 5% of Chinese students are actively engaged in espionage. 

The public knows this, and they’re not fond of that idea—that sometimes their children don’t get into school because the universities are letting in foreign students because they pay a premium. 

DEI did damage—diversity, equity, inclusion. 

The idea that the universities, despite state referenda and Supreme Court decisions and the Civil Rights Act, were deliberately, consciously, insidiously using race as a barometer to admit people, to hire people, to retain people, and to promote people on the basis of their superficial appearance, their sexual orientation, or their gender. 

It was entirely anti-meritocratic. It was like the Soviet commissar system. It was like the McCarthy period. 

If you wanted to get a job at a university, you had to fill out, in most cases, a diversity statement. 

And believe me, if you wrote on that diversity statement, “Honestly, I believe that DEI is anti-meritocratic,” you were not going to be hired. 

There’s another reason that these universities are in crisis. 

The federal government came in and guaranteed student loans. 

Once they did that, the universities jacked up the rate of tuition, as I said, three times higher on an annual basis than the inflation rate. 

So the government came in and said, “You guys can loan students money, and we will back it up, so they will pay you back with federally guaranteed dollars.” 

And we know now that there’s a 30% to 35% non-compliance rate, that people are either late or have defaulted. 

And so, when you have $1.7 trillion in debt and you see that the debt is increasing because the students are not graduating in four years—the average graduation now is six years. 

About 30% to 40% of people who enter college do not ever graduate. 

But the whole thing is subsidized by loans from banks that are guaranteed by the federal government, and that gave a green light for universities to offer these crazy courses that nobody wants—peace studies, race studies, Black studies, environmental studies, etc., studies—because the students took them and the government paid for them. 

And nobody worried about whether they graduated or whether employers found a well-educated and empirical product coming out with a B.A. 

Finally, we’re short a couple million plumbers, electricians, blue-collar carpenters, sheet rockers, and roofers. 

These are very important to the economy of the United States. 

But when these universities said, “Come to us, and maybe even if you don’t graduate—40% of you—or if those who do average six years, and even though you’re gonna run up a big debt, you can take psych and sociology. It’s a good time to kind of float around, live in your basement, and have a good time in your 20s.” 

But the economy answered back: We’re wasting kids’ formative years in their 20s. 

We need master electricians. We need oil workers. We need skilled carpenters. 

And the irony is that if you graduate with a bachelor’s degree in psychology or sociology versus being a master electrician at the age of 22, the electrician these days is going to be making $100,000-plus, and the sociology B.A., or the person with two or three years of psychology, is either going to be unemployed or not using that education at all in employment. 

Or, if he is hired, he will be making half of what the electrician or the roofer or the carpenter makes. 

Add it all up, and the universities are in bad shape, and they’re in desperate need of coerced reform because they will not reform on their own. 

Europe Refuses to Enforce the Rule of Law

 person 1: First of all, there have been protests—significant protests—against the murder of Henry Nowak in England and the attempted beheading of the gentleman, whose name I forget, forgive me, in Belfast. So throughout Ireland, throughout England, and including Scotland—Glasgow—there have been these protests.

So, here’s what I think is a typical response from your typical Eurocrat. This is John Swinney, the first minister of Scotland. Here’s the headline from The Scotsman newspaper over there:

“Scotland must stand against racism, hatred and intimidation.”

“First Minister John Swinney has said Scotland must stand against racism, hatred and intimidation after protests following a knife attack in Belfast.

“In a post on social media, Mr. Swinney said, ‘The scenes we saw in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Ayr last night are unacceptable. Scotland is a welcoming nation, and those who choose to make their lives here are valued members of our community. Racism, hatred and intimidation have no place in Scotland. We must stand against it.’”

Don’t you—

person 2: Where do they get this? Do they have an AI thing that always turns out this boilerplate? “This has no place here. This isn’t who we are.” All that stuff?

Why doesn’t he just admit that there’s no audit of the people coming into the U.K.? They come in illegally for the most part. They come from areas that are governed illiberally. They come with religious differences. They have ideas about women and homosexuals, other tribal people, people not of their tribe. They have very negative views of them.

And they won’t assimilate, integrate, or acculturate at a pace that would be expected of any other immigrant. So, they have gotten the message that they’re going to be subsidized with housing, education, food, and medicine, and they feel that the host owes them that.

Then, when they’re deterred from the consequences of their behavior—whether it’s a rape gang or walking down the street and hitting somebody—they go to the next level.

Now, “they” is a collective stereotype and generalization. But this demagogic politician doesn’t say anything about this. But he wants to give a soapbox platitude so that he feels good about himself. But he doesn’t understand that no one is listening to him anymore.

There’s an entire European movement, and if they don’t intervene and say, “We expect every single person in the U.K. to have come legally, and they must reside legally. If you’re an immigrant, you must be self-supporting and fully employed, and you will face the full force of the law just like subjects of the Crown. If you can’t do that, would you please leave?” They can’t say that. I don’t know why they can’t say it.

I don’t know how they got in this position where some cities are 20% to 30% non-Indigenous people, but it’s not working, and it’s going to spread.

The next thing that’s going to happen is that if they won’t address it in a sober and moderate fashion, people are going to get frustrated. We saw those two girls, I think they were from Scotland, remember? They were defending themselves from that predator.

person 1: With the knife and a hatchet?

person 2: Yeah. And she was trying to protect, was it her sister or her friend?

person 1: Her sister. Her sister.

person 2: Yeah. Everybody demonized her and said, “Oh, this is…” You know.

Then he was found guilty the other day of actually trying to attack them or solicit them in some fashion.

But if you allow grooming gangs and you don’t do anything about it, people are going to get frustrated, and they’re going to get violent.

You have to treat everybody equally under the law, and you have to have the rule of law. That’s where we learned the rule of law—from the Western tradition via Britain.

And if there’s no rule of law…

You know, here in the United States, there was just a poll that said it was overwhelming. Seventy percent wanted everybody deported who was here illegally and committed a crime.

I thought, “Well, that doesn’t do anybody any good. Who wouldn’t?”

Then I read down further: 56% of the population wants everybody deported who came here illegally.

How could that be when we’re told by the leftist media that all these people who are spitting at ICE, throwing rocks at them, and waving plastic phallic symbols represent the public?

Well, the public is tired of that. They look at the ICE agents and don’t see demonic figures. They see largely minority people who want a living and want to protect their communities, which are the most impacted by illegal immigration.

person 1: Yeah. Look, why is an elitist type—whether in government or media in England—who believes he has the right to say, “You lower-middle-class white dude are a racist for this and this reason”?

So, they have some racism calibration, but they won’t apply it to immigrants who have racial—

person 2: Because they have this Marxist, Foucauldian, Lacanian, Derridean, postmodern, Frantz Fanon idea that there is a binary. There’s no middle. There’s a victim and an oppressed person, and there’s a victimizer and an oppressor.

And the duty of all good Marxists is to—and they have redefined this. Marx didn’t talk about race. He talked about class. They said class doesn’t matter because many people on their side of the binary are wealthier than the so-called oppressor side.

Barack Obama is much, much, much, much wealthier than Joe Biden. His children are in much better shape than Hunter Biden.

Yet they are on the oppressed side. Nobody can define it. We don’t know what makes a person part of the oppressed side. I guess it’s one Confederate drop, one-sixteenth non-white blood, non-Christian faith, or whatever standard they use.

Once they went down that road of racial essentialism, they had to have something.

Even Native American tribes who went down that side said that nobody can be in charge of this casino unless they have tribal blood. Well, in our society, what does that mean? It means they have to have DNA, and I think it’s one-sixteenth or one-eighth.

You can see how absurd this is. It’s going back to the antebellum South. And that’s what they’re doing.

You can be very, very wealthy. You can be very privileged. You can have every advantage.

Cory Booker’s parents were corporate grandees. He grew up in a very upscale environment, and we’re supposed to think he is a champion of the oppressed?

Jasmine Crockett has two accents: one that reflects her middle-class, upscale private schooling and another that she puts on when she wants to be authentically inner-city.

It’s a joke. The whole thing is performance art, and everybody’s tired of it.

So, this guy is going to get up and lecture, lecture, lecture. But he should ask himself: If you say “black” today, or “non-white,” it’s usually in a positive sense.

But if you hear a government bureaucrat, a media figure, or a celebrity say “white,” it’s almost always in a negative context. It’s a pejorative.

And people who are somewhere between 67% and 71% of the population—

By the way, I think it’s a ridiculous rubric anyway. I live in a Hispanic area, and in the summer I am darker than many of my Hispanic friends. I see people at the bank every day speaking Spanish and they’re pure white.

I don’t know why we call them non-white. I don’t know why anybody calls anybody white or non-white. But that’s another story.

The point I’m making is that it’s always used as a pejorative, and that’s not sustainable. People will not put up with that.

When you add “deplorables,” “irredeemables,” Peter Strzok saying, “I smelled them all at Walmart,” the CNN commentator saying, “I have more teeth than everybody at a Trump rally,” Joe Biden saying, “ultra MAGA,” “semi-fascists,” “garbage,” and “chumps,” and then Barack Obama saying they cling to their guns and religion—

It’s time to quit that because there’s a big revolt, and you don’t want it to get like it is in Europe.

When you have the young Ukrainian woman butchered, and this conniver DeCarlos Brown is now suing the FBI, and then you just recently had the young kid walking outside his home in Philadelphia who was murdered, and the woman set on fire in Chicago—these high-profile black-on-white crimes—and then the reaction is…

I don’t know what the reaction is, but in the case of Karmelo Anthony, you had counter-demonstrations where they basically said he was the victim and the man he murdered was the oppressor.

When you have AI imagery of people urinating on Austin Metcalf’s supposed grave—I guess it was manufactured by AI, but the message was still hatred.

We have got to get rid of this university idea that if you’re on the victim side of the binary, you’re incapable of racism or oppression. That’s just a get-out-of-jail-free card. That is just an invitation to be racist.

The only thing that keeps us from behaving badly is some kind of deterrence, whether that’s religious, legal, social, or shame.

But if you remove those deterrents, you’re going to see human nature in the raw, with the veneer stripped off.