“Theft is virtue.” “Stealing is altruism.” “Murder might be excusable.” “Burn it all down.” 
These are the principles of the radical Left. And that radical Left is increasingly embraced by the mainstream Democratic Party. 
You may have heard of Hasan Piker. There have been a ton of New York Times profiles of him. He&#8217;s associated with most of the major left-wing Democrats. He&#8217;s a podcaster and a Twitch streamer. 
He is also monstrously evil. 
He publicly advocates for hatred of America. There&#8217;s not a terrorist group, an anti-American, anti-Israel terrorist group, that he doesn&#8217;t support. He has advocated for violence against those opposed to his views. 
And the mainstream Left loves him. I think that&#8217;s because they think that he is bro-coded, meaning that he works out a lot, and speaks the way that your friends from high school might after they read the Communist Manifesto and smoked some pot. 
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ben-shapiro-ep-2412"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone wp-image-981859 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif" alt="" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-768x128.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
He also zaps his dog, and is a socialist who is quite rich, but hypocrisy does not matter to these folks. Not one iota. 
When you speak of limousine liberals, this dude is a mansion Marxist. He&#8217;s worth millions and millions of dollars and owns a huge mansion in Los Angeles. 
He&#8217;s also willing to travel to Cuba — a communist hellhole where the average annual income is something like $150 — and party it up while rationalizing why he should have air conditioning in his nice five-star hotel. His outfits apparently cost roughly four times the annual income of a normal Cuban. He wore a Cartier ring that apparently costs $1,400, and Cartier sunglasses that cost roughly $1,300. 
But remember folks, he is a good Marxist, and he represents certain principles on the extreme Left: that America is evil, private property is inherently bad, and violence is often justified.
No principles of morality must be adhered to as long as you&#8217;re “fighting the system.” The ends of Marxist anarchism justify the means. They justify any behavior, so long as you are aligned with the ends, so you can have a really nice mansion, a $1,400 Cartier ring, and $1,300 Cartier sunglasses in Cuba. 
What we are watching right now on the Left is radical and dangerous leftist garbage.
The legacy media and the New York Times are trying to turn Piker into a mainstream figure. Inside the Democratic Party, they are succeeding. 
What we&#8217;re watching right now with the Democratic Party is beyond the intersectional wokeism that previously was the way of the future for Democrats. 
We are well beyond that now.
When people on the Right say “woke is dead,” woke may have died, but it&#8217;s been replaced by something else, and that is something older: third worldism. 
Third worldism is the philosophy that essentially every country on Earth that is poor is poor because of the West. The solution is to tear down the West from the inside. Global redistributionism, destruction of private property, and violence are all justified by the supposed evils of the Western system.
That&#8217;s not something new. That&#8217;s something quite old. 
In the 1970s, there was the Baader-Meinhof gang, also called the Red Army Faction. They were communists whose entire goal was to tear down the world of capitalism on behalf of Marxism.
They called for revolution. Ulrike Meinhof, the left-wing radical journalist who founded the group, famously said, “Protest is when I say this does not please me. Resistance is when I ensure that what does not please me occurs no more. Protest is when I say I don’t like this. Resistance is when I put an end to what I don’t like.”
That manifested itself in terrorism by the Baader-Meinhof gang. Meinhof actually wrote an essay defending the Munich massacre of Israeli Olympians by Palestinian terrorists.
That sounds a lot like the people defending Hamas&#8217;s massacre of Jews on October 7 while defending Hezbollah.
Which, of course, Piker has done.
Stefan Aust, who wrote a book on the Baader-Meinhof gang, pointed out that a poll at the time they were active showed that a quarter of West Germans under 40 felt sympathy for the gang. One-tenth said they would hide a gang member from the police, and prominent intellectuals spoke up for the gang&#8217;s righteousness. When the gang started robbing banks, newscasts compared its members to Bonnie and Clyde. 
This is nothing new. There&#8217;s an impulse in human beings that when they do not like the system, they believe it justifies violence, theft of property, evil, and terrorism.
Hasan Piker is one of these types. We&#8217;ve played clips of him on the show, routinely talking about violence against his political opponents. Now he’s done an interview with <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/22/opinion/shoplifting-political-protest-microlooting-whole-foods.html">The New York Times</a> in which he talked about stealing. He explained that he fully endorses crimes like robbing banks and stealing artifacts, saying, “I cheer on every news story of people that I see doing it.”
What a despicable human being. He also went on to suggest that you should steal from corporations. Of course, he also said he would not recommend stealing from taxpayer-funded grocery stores in New York City because the workers would be unionized. He also said you should be able to steal intellectual property.
The fact that this person is being mainstreamed by the Democratic Party shows you what the Democratic Party has become: a full-scale, destructive force in American life. 
This all culminates in Hassan Piker&#8217;s justification of murder. He&#8217;s not in favor of murder, you see. But he totally understands why United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson was murdered, saying, “That was a fascinating story for me, because Americans are very draconian about crime and punishment. They&#8217;re very black and white on this issue. And yet, because of the pervasive pain that the private health care system had created for the average American, I saw so many people immediately understand why this death had taken place.”
Permission structures for murder. “Of course, I understand why people were so okay with a man being murdered, because of course, it&#8217;s just social violence.&#8221;
Everything Hasan Piker doesn&#8217;t like is social violence. And social violence justifies and excuses actual violence. He can pretend he&#8217;s not excusing it as much as he wants. 
He has made statements such as, “I don&#8217;t have any sort of patriotism in my heart for America,” and “Liberals,  you need to be showing your opponent&#8217;s guts on there, okay? You need to be gutting them. You need to be shanking these and letting their intestines just ride on stage.”
This is who the Left is mainstreaming.
Zohran Mamdani is ideologically the same as Hasan Piker. They are exactly the same. Nothing Hasan Piker says is radically different from anything Mamdani says. 
A couple of days ago, Barack Obama was hanging out with Mamdani. Hasan Piker and Bernie Sanders have campaigned together.
This is now pervasive throughout the Democratic Party.
Where does all this end?
Communist centralization of power.

MamdaniPiker

The Democratic Party Has Been Eaten By The Radical Left

Communism

Democrats

Hasan Piker

Marxism

Radical Left

Zohran Mamdani

Dinesh D&#8217;Souza posed a chilling rhetorical question in his 2020 book, “United States of Socialism”: 
<blockquote>Think how insane it would be if someone said, &#8216;Let’s try slavery again. Slavery didn’t work in the past because we didn’t have the right people to implement it. But this time we’re going to have the right people, and this time we’re going to get it right.&#8217; Yet this is exactly what the socialists say about socialism.</blockquote>
He is still correct six years later. Democrats and their fellow travelers, however,  seem to have doubled down on this backward thinking and are proceeding full steam ahead into socialist waters.
The ultra-progressive Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) released a new poll — their first formal <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/15/is-socialism-going-mainstream-a-new-poll-suggests-it-might-be-00564167">poll</a>, in fact, a telling sign of their extending tentacles into the mainstream — showing that 53% of Democratic voters prefer politicians described as similar to Senator Bernie Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, while only 33% favored those similar to Senator Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and Rep. Nancy Pelosi. 

These numbers aren&#8217;t an anomaly; they are a trend. Since 2016, rank-and-file Democrats have grown increasingly hostile toward the system that built this country. According to recent Gallup <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/694835/image-capitalism-slips.aspx">data</a>, the gap has expanded to a staggering 24 points, with 66% of Democrats viewing socialism favorably compared to just 42% for capitalism.
What exactly do these voters find agreeable about the ultra-left, socialist wing of their party? For starters, the lofty ideals that big government should be in control, that billionaires are evil, that corporations and high-income earners should be taxed into oblivion, that Congress should enact more regulations on workers and consumers, and that housing, healthcare, and utilities should fall under the purview of the public sector.
To conservatives, most Independents, and even some Democrats, these goals portend only bureaucratic bloat, delays, and the stifling of innovation. Most proponents of capitalism believe the private sector is best equipped to improve Americans&#8217; lives. They generally support lower taxes, oppose government regulation of businesses, and want the private sector to own key industries — like housing, healthcare, and utilities — as confirmed by the DSA&#8217;s own poll.
A staggering 74% of likely Democratic voters said democratic socialism comes closest to their viewpoint. That means America will be seeing a rise in the Bernie, Mamdani, and AOC type — and with it, a severe stifling of growth and innovation, a rapid spike in taxation, and an influx of leftist agenda items into the mainstream.
Bernie Sanders — the unproductive socialist Senator from Vermont, and a man who has added precious little of significance to his state or his country in his decades in office — is now using the socialist wave to push his <a href="https://www.wsj.com/opinion/bernie-sanders-is-wrong-about-ai-innovation-ebf22d15?mod=saved_content">latest</a> agenda item: a federal moratorium on the construction of new AI data centers, with his collectivist companion AOC in tow. This moratorium, like so many of the policies this pair champion, would erect burdensome bureaucratic roadblocks that frustrate innovation and squander entrepreneurism. In Bernie&#8217;s world, we should fear millionaires — no wait, billionaires (he&#8217;s now a millionaire himself) — technology, and climate change at all times. Better yet? Just stay in your home until further notice.
This new wave of socialism will also bring suffocating taxes and a collectivist mindset — because, as comrade Mamdani proclaimed, the blanket of collectivism is so warm and cozy. Bernie and his proletariat wouldn&#8217;t just tax the billionaire class; they would enact wealth taxes across the board. Taxing &#8220;unrealized gains&#8221; or net wealth forces billionaires to sell their stocks, which can crash market prices and reduce the capital available for businesses to expand and hire. IRS data shows that the top 1% already pay roughly 40% of all federal income taxes. The Democratic Socialists want you to believe that poor people pay all the taxes and the wealthy get off scot-free — they have it completely backward. They would simply like to take $10 billion from a technology company or its founder and pour it into a government black hole of bureaucracy, where Sanders and his friends reside. Leave that money with founders, entrepreneurs, and innovators, and it goes into rockets, electric cars, and global internet access. As Margaret Thatcher wisely noted — and Elon Musk has echoed — eventually, they run out of other people&#8217;s money, and then they come for you.
The final and perhaps most alarming aspect of this modern socialist resurgence is its Trojan Horse delivery system. Under the banner of the DSA, we see a conglomerate of radicalism — where traditional Marxists, climate extremists, and anti-western agitators coalesce into a single political force. By quietly installing hundreds of activists into local school boards, city councils, and state legislatures, they are executing a long march through the institutions. This isn&#8217;t just a policy shift — it&#8217;s a calculated, multi-level erosion of the capitalist fabric our founders painstakingly cultivated. Apparently, they didn&#8217;t anticipate the &#8220;watermelon coalition&#8221; growing so rapidly, or that its mission — to dismantle the American capitalist empire from within the &#8220;belly of the beast&#8221; — would find willing participants at every level of government.
The good news is that Democrats have tried their socialist playbook before, and while it performs reasonably well at the local level, the national stage has been another story entirely — as 2024 made clear. But that isn&#8217;t stopping them. &#8220;What the mainstream of the party wants is both democratic socialism as a value system and democratic socialist politicians,&#8221; said Gabe Tobias, executive director of the Democratic Socialists of America Fund, to POLITICO.
Democratic socialism is a pretty way of blending class-based Marxism with modern identity politics. It is no longer just about the proletariat — it&#8217;s about mobilizing a coalition of the oppressed to overthrow the oppressor and pave the way for state-sponsored redistribution. It won&#8217;t work. It never does. But it looks like the American left is going to have to find that out the hard way.

Bernie Sanders holds ‘Tax the Rich’ rally in New York City

Democrats Are Going All-In On Socialism. It Portends The Ruin Of American Greatness.

Anti-capitalist

Democratic Socialists Of America

In 1988, after escaping socialism in Romania, I celebrated my first Christmas in America. It was a profound experience marked by joy, gratitude, and reflection. It was the first time I was able to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ without fear of being arrested by a totalitarian socialist regime. I enjoyed the freedom to attend church and the joy of discovering new cultural traditions. It marked a significant milestone in my journey toward freedom and renewal.
But before that journey was even an idea, I attended my first Socialist Party Christmas as a child. As we arrived, my father said very sternly, “We are at the Socialism Party headquarters, where Santa’s party will take place. Remember, only say yes or no, nothing more.”
The large reception room was decorated in red, and on each wall there was a large portrait of our “Beloved Leader” Nicolae Ceaușescu, flanked by Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. On the left side of the room, a small Christmas tree stood, decorated with pictures of soldiers who had died, a picture of Ceaușescu, and topped with a big, red socialist star with a yellow hammer and sickle.
There were no angels, no silver Bethlehem stars, no nativity scenes.
Santa was a Socialist Party leader, and all the gifts had a Communist theme. The boys received Communist soldier toys or books about Ceaușescu. The girls received red-scarfed socialist dolls. The following year, Santa was replaced with Dictator Ceaușescu’s name, and no gifts were given.
<div id="attachment_1017011" style="width: 790px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1017011" class="size-large wp-image-1017011" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-3438665-780x576.jpg" alt="circa 1985: Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu (1918 - 1989) and his wife Elena with a large group of children in national costume. (Photo by Keystone/Getty Images)" width="780" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-3438665-780x576.jpg 780w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-3438665-300x221.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-3438665-768x567.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-3438665.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 780px) 100vw, 780px" />circa 1985: Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu (1918 &#8211; 1989) and his wife Elena with a large group of children in national costume. (Photo by Keystone/Getty Images)</div>
Now, years later, I’ve watched as the influence of socialist ideologies and policies has infiltrated and changed how Christmas is celebrated in America.
Since 1971, court cases, like <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/602/">Lemon v. Kurtzman</a> and <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/">Allegheny County v. ACLU</a>, have scrutinized the use of religious elements in public Christmas displays, often resulting in the restriction of nativity scenes on government property to avoid the perception that the government favors one religion over another.
The fear of appearing “too religious” or “exclusive” has transformed Christmas celebrations, shifting them toward a more secular, inclusive holiday focused on community and festive cheer rather than its core religious meaning. This secularization has diluted the profound significance of Christ’s birth.
As governments and institutions increasingly strip Christ from Christmas, our religious freedoms are slowly eroding – and could soon vanish entirely if we don&#8217;t stand against it.
Make no mistake. This is exactly what happened in Romania.
Ceaușescu&#8217;s rise to power in Romania was due to his charm, enthusiasm, anti-capitalist rhetoric, and how he portrayed himself as a man of the people. These qualities all resonated emotionally with citizens and framed socialism as a path to equality and justice.
As soon as Ceaușescu took power in Romania, his regime systematically attacked religious freedom by promoting atheism, controlling religious institutions, and demolishing churches. This created an environment of repression that stifled religious expression and contributed to the decline of organized religion in Romania during his rule.
Ceaușescu used <a href="https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71402.htm">Decree 177/1948</a> for further repression that significantly curtailed religious freedom in Romania. He established a framework for state control over religious organizations and practices.
New religious groups faced significant difficulties in obtaining official recognition. Religious literature, including Bibles and other texts, faced heavy censorship. Many publications were banned in socialist Romania or required state approval before distribution. Nativity scenes, crosses, and other religious imagery were often removed from public spaces, and churches faced restrictions on displaying decorations that highlighted the religious significance of Christmas.
Some families in socialist Romania, risking cruel punishment, jail time, or death, created small altars or displays in their homes featuring religious icons, candles, and nativity scenes, allowing them to express their faith privately.
While initially Ceaușescu’s anti-capitalist rhetoric resonated, the reality of his regime’s failures ultimately led to widespread disillusionment.
George Barna&#8217;s research recently found that <a href="https://www.arizonachristian.edu/2021/02/03/americas-thirst-for-socialism-plummets-in-wake-of-2020-election/">support for socialism</a> is growing in America. Socialism is now deeply rooted in New York City after the election of self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani.
And Mamdani is following Ceaușescu’s playbook. He strongly criticizes capitalism as corrupt and exploitative, while socialism is a path to equality and justice. He plays on the emotions of New Yorkers who struggle to survive in one of the most expensive cities in the world.
Mamdani hopes people will see the true reality of his policies years from now. He advocates for religious freedom by emphasizing the importance of maintaining a secular government approach to it. He frames religious freedom within the broader context of social justice, racial equality, economic justice, and immigrant rights. He believes in promoting government policies grounded in ethical and secular principles rather than religious doctrines.
<div id="attachment_1017055" style="width: 778px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1017055" class="size-large wp-image-1017055" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-2250069091-768x576.jpg" alt="NEW YORK, NY - DECEMBER 04: Crowds gather for a look at a Christmas tree in Rockefeller Center on December 4, 2025 in New York City. The tree, which is an icon of New York City's holiday season, was lit up on the night of December 3 in midtown Manhattan. (Photo by Liao Pan/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images)" width="768" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-2250069091-768x576.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-2250069091-300x225.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-2250069091.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 768px) 100vw, 768px" />Liao Pan/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images</div>
The election of progressive candidates who openly identify with socialist principles in America has changed the political landscape, challenging traditional party norms and policies.
Socialism stands in direct opposition to God, replacing Him with an all-powerful government that demands total allegiance. It erodes our God-given religious freedoms and brands faithful Christians as obstacles to its agenda.
My own life bears witness to this truth. I fled a socialist regime in 1988, escaping the brutal oppression that crushed religious rights and silenced believers. Those same poisonous lies of socialism, now spreading rapidly in America, are gaining ground, especially among those who despise our nation&#8217;s founding principles and Judeo-Christian heritage.
We cannot remain silent. Those of us who have endured the horrors of socialism will never stop sounding the alarm. It is time to rise up and fiercely defend our freedoms before they are lost forever.
* * *
<a href="https://www.virginiaprodanbooks.com/">Virginia Prodan</a> is an international human rights attorney, best-selling author of the memoir “<a href="https://virginiaprodanbooks.com/get-the-book-2/">Saving My Assassin</a>,” and host of the “<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/courageous-leadership-with-virginia-prodan/id1590554517">Courageous Leadership with Virginia Prodan</a>” podcast. She serves as an ambassador on the President’s Council for National Religious Broadcasters, a member of the Advisory Board of the American Christian Leaders for Israel, and an Allied Attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25">Christmas Sale &#8211; Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>

Christmas in Rockefeller Center – Season 2025

Don’t Let Socialism’s Red Star Top America’s Christmas Tree

Bible

Christmas

Democratic Socialism

Europe

Karl Marx

New York City

Religion

“You did it! You really finally did it, you maniacs! You blew it up, damn you!”
The Statue of Liberty is half-buried in the sand now, and Charlton Heston is yelling at it because of what New York City just decided to do.
By an overwhelming margin, New Yorkers handed over the financial center of planet Earth to a Marxist pro-jihadist named Zohran Mamdani, who has never held a real job.
It&#8217;s a bold strategy, Cotton. We&#8217;ll see how it works out for them.
Mamdani is not hiding the ball. He intends to implement major changes in America&#8217;s financial center, the financial center of planet Earth. He intends to make a new system that is going to destroy capitalism. 
Will he be able to accomplish that? There are some checks on him. 
Many of the promises he has made are like a third-grader running for school president who promises: “Free ice cream for everybody and no homework” was basically his campaign. If he said “affordability” over and over and over and then threw out a bunch of random things that he would never be able to do, he would be elected mayor.
It worked.
We now live in a political era characterized — on both sides — by people accurately diagnosing problems and then not proposing any real solutions while saying, “If you give me ultimate power, I will solve it for you.”
It never works.
Democrats are resistant to the idea that Mamdani is the future of the party. Hakeem Jeffries suggested that he was not the face of the party. But I&#8217;m old enough to remember when Democrats said AOC, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib were not the face of the party.
And now they are.
It will be interesting to see how the Democratic Party treats him. Do they treat him as an outsider? Do they say that he&#8217;s “sort of quirky,” the way they treated Bill de Blasio, or do they embrace him and try to draft off of the energy that he obviously captured in the middle of this campaign?
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2311"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
One of the lies that is constantly told about socialist candidates like Mamdani is that they are the people who get blue-collar voters, that they excite blue-collar voters. But America and Europe are different; historically speaking, European blue-collar workers tend toward socialism, but that does not happen in America. In America, blue-collar workers have always been fond of capitalism because it is what provides their jobs. Even in the early union days of the United States, the unions were quite actively anti-communist in the United States in a way that they simply were not in Europe. That remains true today.
What drove Mamdani to victory were immigrants, extreme leftists, and college-educated young women. Some of the latter is because Mamdani, with the smarmy grin and the inability to bench-press 135 pounds, seems particularly non-threatening, as opposed to Andrew Cuomo, who was ousted from office over his inability to keep his hands off the asses of women.
If this is the future of the Democratic Party, go for it, guys. It&#8217;s playing with fire. New York City is playing with fire. Mamdani’s policy proposals are trash. If he implements any of them, the city is in serious trouble.
There are systemic checks and balances that prevent Mamdani from single-handedly destroying the city. If he wants to raise taxes, he has to go to the state level. And the state legislature is very unlikely to want to increase taxes again. He says that he wants to make all the buses free, and he&#8217;s going to pay for it. How&#8217;s he going to do any of this stuff?
He won&#8217;t be able to get any of that stuff done, and then he will rail against the system.
Mamdani will make the business climate disastrous. Crime will go up. His proposals are foolish in the extreme.
Typically when you win, you tend to quote the founding ideals of the country. Mamdani did not. His entire victory speech was about how America historically is trash and how all of the fundamental principles of America are trash, and how he&#8217;s here to change things on a radical, fundamental level.
He quoted Eugene Debs, a socialist candidate from the 1910s and Nehru, the socialist leader of the non-aligned India in the post-partition era. There was no Washington; there was no Jefferson; there was no Lincoln. He said there&#8217;s a mandate for a new kind of politics, a mandate for a city we can “afford.”
All of these plans are trash.
He says that there&#8217;s a “mandate for change.” There&#8217;s always a mandate for change. That&#8217;s what elections are.
I&#8217;m very much looking forward to never having to pay for a hotel again in New York. I&#8217;m just gonna ride the buses around. I&#8217;ll just get on and ride them for free. Why the hell not? As long as I don&#8217;t get stabbed in the face, which may very well happen in a city of New York governed by Zohran Mamdani, who thinks that the police are inhibitors of human freedom.
H.L. Mencken, the famous columnist from the early 20th century, once said that democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
I hope you enjoy what you wrought, New Yorkers.
And I&#8217;m glad that I have some Florida real estate that is available at a fetching price.

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-VOTE-NEW YORK-MAMDANI

New Yorkers Take The Bait

Ben Shapiro

Elections

Leftists

Manhattan

Mayor

Opinion

U.S. Politics

In 1979, Iran’s revolutionaries — an <a href="https://institute.global/insights/geopolitics-and-security/ideology-and-irans-revolution-how-1979-changed-world">alliance</a> of Marxists and Islamists — rose on promises of justice and equality. They <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/5/the-ayatollahs-unkept-promises">pledged</a> to give citizens free water, free electricity, and free housing. The slogans captured a nation’s imagination, uniting two ideologies that despised each other but shared the same illusion: that moral purity and government control could replace economic discipline. Within years, the illusion <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/08/30/world-news/islamic-republic-close-to-collapse-in-iran-civil-war-possible-report/">collapsed</a>. Inflation exploded, jobs vanished, and the regime they created silenced its own believers.
Half a century later, in a different world and under a different flag, the same rhetoric echoes in New York City.
Assemblyman <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/zohran-mamdani">Zohran Mamdani</a>, now running for mayor, calls for “people-powered politics” and promises “free” public services — fare-free buses, frozen rents, and new programs that would expand government dependency under the banner of compassion. It’s a playbook familiar to anyone who has studied <a href="https://diamond-democracy.stanford.edu/speaking/speeches/when-does-populism-become-threat-democracy">revolutionary populism</a>: identify inequality, moralize the problem, and promise paradise without explaining the cost.
Analysts <a href="https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/traffic_and_transit/2025/07/10/free-buses-could-slow-speeds-and-cost-more-">estimate</a> that making city buses free would erase about $700 million a year in fare revenue. Replacing that money would either require massive new taxes or more state debt. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) already <a href="https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/traffic_and_transit/2025/07/10/free-buses-could-slow-speeds-and-cost-more-">loses</a> roughly $1 billion annually to fare and toll evasion, including more than $500 million on buses alone. The Independent Budget Office <a href="https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/comments-on-new-york-citys-executive-budget-for-fiscal-year-2025-and-financial-plan-for-fiscal-years-2024-2028/#:~:text=With%20these%20adjustments%20based%20on,$13.00%20billion%20in%20FY%202028.">projects</a> multi-billion-dollar city deficits through 2028. To date, Mamdani has offered no serious proposal to offset the hundreds of millions in lost revenue.
That mindset is not new. In 1979, Iran’s revolutionaries <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/18468/#:~:text=In%201979%2C%20Ayatollah%20Khomeini%20gave%20his%20first,disappeared%20from%20the%20public%20archives%20in%20Iran.">said</a> oil revenues would pay for everything; in 2025, New York’s progressives say “the rich” will. The numbers never add up, but the slogans keep working because they appeal to emotion, not reason.
<div id="attachment_995421" style="width: 749px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-995421" class="size-large wp-image-995421" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/GettyImages-2659698-739x576.jpg" alt="The Iranian Islamic Republic Army demonstrates in solidarity with people in the street during the Iranian revolution. They are carrying posters of the Ayatollah Khomeini, the Iranian religious and political leader. (Photo by Keystone/Getty Images)" width="739" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/GettyImages-2659698-739x576.jpg 739w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/GettyImages-2659698-300x234.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/GettyImages-2659698-768x599.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/GettyImages-2659698.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 739px) 100vw, 739px" />Keystone/Getty Images</div>
Adding to the picture, the Washington-based lobbying group <a href="https://www.meforum.org/mef-observer/how-the-iranian-regime-seeks-to-build-its-power-upon-american-naivete">NIAC</a>, often criticized for mirroring Tehran’s foreign-policy positions, recently <a href="https://x.com/NIACouncil/status/1982919590310011092">announced</a> its official endorsement of Mamdani. The symbolism is striking: the same organization that has long echoed and defended the Islamic Republic now throws its support behind a socialist-leaning candidate in America’s financial capital. The thread that connects them is ideological, a shared belief that moral virtue justifies economic fantasy.
This convergence of left-wing utopianism and moral absolutism should alarm anyone who cares about the survival of pragmatic politics. When ideology replaces arithmetic, cities fall into the same trap that ensnared nations. The faces and languages change, but the structure remains: emotional populism promising equality through control.
Iran’s tragedy began with chants about justice and dignity. Within a decade, the alliance between communists and clerics disintegrated, replaced by censorship, executions, and an economy under siege. The rhetoric of equality gave way to ration cards and ideological policing.
New York is obviously not Tehran. But when candidates promise unlimited benefits and moral purity while ignoring budgets, they are playing the same dangerous tune. No city, no matter how rich, can outspend reality. Populism always runs on borrowed time and borrowed money.
The warning isn’t about religion or class. It’s about patterns. In every era, radicals on the Left promise that compassion can be legislated and that economics will obey moral will. It never does. When leaders treat economics as politics and politics as faith, collapse follows.
In 1979, Iran’s revolutionaries told people to look up, and many claimed to see Ayatollah Khomeini’s face in the moon. The illusion was complete. New Yorkers shouldn’t make the same mistake on the skyline. Charisma is not competence, and utopia is never free.
* * *
Dr. Aidin Panahi is an Iranian-American research professor, energy expert, and political activist. He is the co-founder of the “From Boston to Iran” initiative, and his analyses on security and policy issues have appeared in outlets including The Jerusalem Post, Washington Times, the Jerusalem Strategic Tribune, Middle East Forum, Homeland Security Today, and Visegrád24. X: @Aidin_FreeIran
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.

NYC Early Voting Surges Ahead Of Nov. 4 Mayoral Election

Iran Tried Mamdani’s Ideas 45 Years Ago — It Ended In Ruin

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

Iran

Islamists

Editor’s Note: This is the fifth and final installment in the series “American Maoists: Warnings From The Cultural Revolution.”
In <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/proletarian-profanity-like-communists-democrats-want-to-trap-voters-in-a-linguistic-ghetto">Part IV</a>, Xi Van Fleet and Sasha Gong — both activists, scholars, and survivors of Mao’s communist uprising — exposed the radical communist roots of Democrats cringey attempt to seem cool by using profanity.
Today, the authors look to the future, and explore how radical leftist movements rewrite history, not just to justify their actions and demonize the cultures they want to destroy, but to change how people think about their past, present, and future. 
***
Every nation lives by its landmarks. These are not merely dates on a calendar, but signposts dividing history into “before” and “after.” They anchor collective memory and shape how a people understand themselves.
For Americans, the great landmarks have long been clear: 1492, the discovery of the New World; 1776, independence; 1861, the Civil War; 1929, the Great Depression; 1964, the Civil Rights Act. To speak of “before” and “after” these events is to tell the story of a nation striving toward freedom, law, and self-government.
In recent years, however, new landmarks have been imposed by ideological fiat. The most striking is the New York Times’s 1619 Project, which declared that America began not in 1776 but in the year enslaved Africans first arrived in Virginia. With that shift, the axis of history moved: “before and after independence” became “before and after slavery.” Liberty and law were redefined as hypocrisy and oppression. More dividing lines quickly followed: before and after Jim Crow, before and after George Floyd, and so on.
These changes are not merely academic. When the Chinese Communist Party seized power in 1949, it imposed a single ultimate landmark: “before liberation” and “after liberation.” Five thousand years of recorded history were collapsed into a morality tale. Everything before was painted as darkness; everything after as light. The word liberation itself became a judgment on every person and institution. Those who had prospered before were condemned, often destroyed.
The CCP has never ceased wielding this powerful weapon to manufacture historic milestones. After the disastrous Mao era, it crafted yet another milestone by dividing its own history into ‘before Reform and Opening-Up’ and ‘after.’ The Mao years were rebranded as ‘decades of arduous exploration’ in search of a better China, erasing the atrocities that claimed tens of millions of lives.
The post-Mao period, by contrast, is exalted as the Party’s crowning achievement: lifting the Chinese people out of poverty and transforming China into an economic superpower. And the ultimate aim? To enshrine the CCP as the eternal liberator of the Chinese people. This is not just propaganda but a wholesale transformation of society. History was rewritten, language reshaped, culture remade. The “before” was demonized; the “after” glorified. Ordinary people adopted the new vocabulary, willingly or not. And once language changed, thought and memory changed too. The Chinese people, once bound by a magnificent civilization, were divided into “good” and “bad” classes — oppressors and oppressed, loyalists and enemies. Hatred of the designated groups was not just tolerated but demanded.
America is not a one-party state. Our institutions remain democratic. Yet the project of re-framing — what might be called Cultural Marxism — has advanced here with surprising speed. The narrative of American exceptionalism, rooted in liberty, law, and individualism, has been replaced by a narrative of slavery, racism, and oppression.
The Left has shown itself to be even more cunning Cultural Marxists than the Maoists. They have redefined and “simplified” American history into a new binary: before and after. In their telling, the “before” is our present — defined solely as slavery and white oppression — rendering the Civil War irrelevant and erasing the achievements of countless Black Americans, including Barack Obama. The “after,” meanwhile, exists only in the future. And how is that future to be reached? By dismantling the entire system, which they insist is built on racism, bigotry, and injustice. 
History’s landmarks are never neutral. They can unite or divide, elevate or diminish. To say “before independence” and “after independence” is to conceive of ourselves as citizens — free, equal, and striving for self-rule. To say “before slavery” and “after slavery” is to fix identity forever in terms of bondage and resentment. One story moves toward freedom; the other freezes us in grievance.
Nations cannot thrive on grievance. A shared history, however imperfect, is the glue that binds generations. To rewrite that history into a tale of villains and victims is to dissolve the glue.
The real question is whether we will continue to allow new landmarks to redefine us. Will we pass on to our children the story of a free people, equal under God, struggling but advancing toward justice? Or will we hand them a fractured narrative that teaches them to see one another as permanent enemies?
History is never only about the past. It frames the future. What we choose as our “before” and “after” will decide who we become.
READ MORE:
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/license-to-kill-what-turns-normal-people-to-political-violence" target="_blank" rel="noopener">American Maoists, Part I: License To Kill: What Turns Normal People To Political Violence?</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-wheel-of-misfortune-victims-victimhood-and-victimization?topStoryPosition=undefined&amp;author=Xi+Van+Fleet+and+Sasha+Gong&amp;category=Opinion&amp;elementPosition=3&amp;row=1&amp;rowHeadline=Top+Stories&amp;rowType=Top+Stories&amp;title=The+Wheel+Of+Misfortune%3A+Victims%2C+Victimhood%2C+And+Victimization" target="_blank" rel="noopener">American Maoists, Part II: The Wheel Of Misfortune: Victims, Victimhood, And Victimization</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/from-red-guard-to-blue-hair-why-leftists-destroy-womanhood?author=Xi+Van+Fleet+and+Sasha+Gong&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=From+Red+Guard+To+Blue+Hair%3A+Why+Leftists+Destroy+Womanhood">American Maoists, Part III: From Red Guard To Blue Hair: Why Leftists Destroy Womanhood</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/proletarian-profanity-like-communists-democrats-want-to-trap-voters-in-a-linguistic-ghetto">American Maoists, Part IV: Proletarian Profanity: Why Democrats Want To Trap Voters In A Linguistic Ghetto</a>
Xi Van Fleet is a survivor of Mao’s Cultural Revolution, activist, and author of “Mao’s America: A Survivor’s Warning.”
Sasha Gong is a writer, scholar, journalist, and filmmaker. A dissident in Mao’s China, she holds a PhD from Harvard University and was previously Director of the China Branch at Voice of America.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Untitled design (61)

Erasing History: The Real Cultural Marxism

1619 Project

Commerce Department

History

monuments

The first rule of a Marxist revolution is that it must always eat its own. We&#8217;re beginning to see that even before Zohran Mamdani is elected mayor of New York, which has a very high likelihood according to the betting markets.
The supposed heartburn is already setting in because here is the problem: Once people begin to govern, there are actual rules to governance. You have to be a person capable of carrying out the office of the mayor, and there are obstacles to that.
Thus, all of the bizarre, radical signaling that Mamdani has been doing runs up against reality. Make no mistake, Mamdani has embraced Marxism and jihadism. This is a person whose parents are radical; he&#8217;s a second-generation radical. His father compared Abraham Lincoln to Adolf Hitler.
Mamdani came to America as one of the privileged scions of an immigrant family. His father is a Columbia University anti-American professor; his mom is an anti-American producer, both of whom believe in a racial hierarchy of victimhood.
POLITICO reported:
<blockquote>Zohran Mamdani and New York City’s Democratic Socialists of America will have some relationship issues to iron out if he’s elected mayor of the nation’s largest metropolis. The DSA has been integral to his success.</blockquote>
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is a revolutionary movement. They&#8217;re not interested in governance. They&#8217;re interested in revolution. They want to overthrow capitalism. They want to overthrow the Constitution. They hate all of these things.
But the problem is that once they get people elected to office, those people have to operate within some boundaries.
More from POLITICO:
<blockquote>How the arrangement will work should Mamdani win on Nov. 4 is uncharted territory. “One of two things will happen: They will give him a grace period and let him get his sea legs and recognize that compromise is a way to get something done, or they become one of his biggest obstacles,” said Christina Greer, an associate professor of political science at Fordham University. “And if that happens, he’ll be fighting people from the right and the left.”</blockquote>
It is clear that that he is going to be moderate in some areas because he doesn&#8217;t want to completely destroy all credibility with the New York population; he wants to retain NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch; he&#8217;s committed to following through with the city&#8217;s plan to build for new jails to replace Rikers, which is something that both he and the DSA had previously opposed.
We&#8217;ll see if the DSA will give him any space. My theory is that they will give him some space, that they will allow him to be as revolutionary as he wants to be within the format that has been provided to him, and then they will gradually hollow out the movement.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2308-the-ben-shapiro-show?elementPosition=3&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
What the DSA is realizing is something that people from all sides of the political aisle are realizing: If you maintain your extremely radical ground, but you operate within the party system, you&#8217;re able to more quickly take power than if you operate outside the party system and browbeat people. Hijacking a party is far easier than forming your own, and then ideologically twisting and turning it.
All this heartburn, this angst, is going to be overplayed.
The hard-leftists know exactly who Mamdani is. They know he&#8217;s a revolutionary, and they are perfectly happy to travel with him, knowing that his heart is in the revolutionary place.
Perhaps he ends up stopping short. Maybe they end up turning on him when he&#8217;s no longer useful to the movement. Marxist movements have a real habit of doing this.
They will turn on absolute butchers like Leon Trotsky if it turns out that he is now inhibiting the next step of the revolution.
But I think they will give Zohran Mamdani an awful lot of rope with which to hang the city of New York before they make those sorts of moves. The Democratic Party has now built itself around the radicals, which is why you see Ilhan Omar out there as a chief advocate for Mamdani, on the basis that he is being attacked for his Islamic religion, not for the pro-jihadism or the pro-Marxism, or for the fact that he&#8217;s never held a real day job and that he&#8217;s one of the great leeches on the butt of American society.
The revolution is the only thing that matters here. The truth doesn&#8217;t matter. That&#8217;s true even for many voters in New York. There&#8217;s a <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15235585/mamdani-poll-terrifying-nightmare-new-york.html">brand new poll</a> out, talking about what New Yorkers think is going to happen if Mamdani is elected. The poll shows that many New Yorkers who do not support Mamdani are convinced he&#8217;s going to destroy New York. They think that his mayoralty will mark a return to the urban decay of the 1980s, when the city was blighted by poverty, rampant crime, crumbling infrastructure, and abandoned buildings.
It&#8217;s not as though New Yorkers are unaware of what&#8217;s happening here. New Yorkers are perfectly aware. It&#8217;s just that they are willing to risk it. They&#8217;re willing to risk it because they want to make a revolutionary statement.
The bottom line is that a plurality of New Yorkers understand things are going to be bad, but they don&#8217;t have the strength to stop him. That is the real key to this election.
Many mainstream Democratic figures have swirled and swiveled behind Mamdani and decided that it&#8217;s perfectly fine for him to take a leadership position.
This is what happens when the so-called moderates are more invested in the success of the party than they are in the principles of the party. They give way to people who are more interested in shifting and moving the principles of the party than they are in the success of the party.
* * *
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.

NYC Mayoral Candidate Zohran Mamdani Campaigns Ahead Of Next Week’s Election

The Democratic Socialists Of America Prepare For Victory

Editor&#8217;s Note: This is the second installment in the five-part series “American Maoists: Warnings From The Cultural Revolution.&#8221;
In <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/license-to-kill-what-turns-normal-people-to-political-violence">Part I</a>, Xi Van Fleet and Sasha Gong — both activists, scholars, and survivors of Mao&#8217;s communist uprising — explain how extremist movements plant the seeds for revolution by slowly acculturating ordinary citizens to political violence.
In today&#8217;s installment, the authors explore something all too familiar to anyone who&#8217;s seen the American Left in action: the endless cycle of victimization, which fuels perpetual revolution.
***
History is full of paradoxes. None is more striking than the revolutionary promise to rescue the downtrodden, only to end in destruction for all.
From the French Revolution to Mao’s Cultural Revolution, the pattern is familiar: revolutionaries first elevate “the victims,” granting them moral superiority. Those newly anointed victims are then encouraged to victimize their designated enemies. What begins in the name of liberation almost always degenerates into tyranny.
It is a story as old as revolution itself. The Jacobins invoked the poor and the persecuted, then set the guillotine to work on nobles, priests, and eventually their own comrades. Lenin vowed to free workers and peasants from Tsarist oppression, only to unleash the Red Terror that consumed millions, including many of his followers.
Mao empowered the youths to denounce their teachers, parents, and neighbors. In those frenzied years, almost everyone alternated between being a victim and being a victimizer, and frequently embodied both roles simultaneously. As Georges Danton, himself a leading figure of the French Revolution, devoured by the machine he helped build, lamented: “Revolution devours its own children.”
In China, we witnessed this cycle firsthand. The story of Bian Zhongyun, the first teacher beaten to death by her students in August 1966, illustrates it in all its cruelty.
Bian had been a faithful revolutionary. She joined the Communist Party in 1941 and later helped carry out land reform in a village where she was involved in the stoning to death of four landlords — including a woman who once cared for her child. She was later rewarded with the post of principal at Beijing’s most prestigious girls’ high school, which primarily served the children of CCP elites.
Yet her students, daughters of top Party leaders, killed her within hours in the first frenzy of the Cultural Revolution. They were fueled by Mao’s call to “rebel.” That month alone, thousands of teachers across China were killed. Millions more were publicly humiliated and beaten.
What became of the new victimizers? After serving as Mao’s instruments, the rebelling youths were discarded: the girls were sent into exile in China’s remote regions for grueling labor. The cycle turned anew. 
This wheel of misfortune follows a grim logic. Authorities pick assumed “victims” and designate enemies. The chosen victims are given power beyond the law, while enemies are stripped of any protection. Victimhood becomes not a misfortune but a privilege. People scramble to claim it — often by victimizing others. The scope of enemies then expands endlessly. Eventually, the beast devours everything.
We would be foolish to believe this tragic dynamic cannot repeat here. In recent years, America has seen smaller but chilling echoes: the #MeToo movement, Black Lives Matter, pro-Hamas and anti-ICE protests, and so on.
Who are the victims? Those once deemed “victimizers” — men, White people, and law enforcement personnel. Though our democracy tempers the scale, the revolutionary zeal is real, and has already produced a vast number of victims. 
Virginia gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger recently exhorted her supporters: “Let your rage fuel you.” Rage justifies escalation: exaggerated allegations, destruction of reputations, looting, even violence. We saw the consequences in the murder of Charlie Kirk.
The other fuel is thrill. Lenin once called revolution the “festival of the masses.” It is intoxicating to watch hierarchies topple, reputations destroyed, enemies dragged into the public square. Today, whole groups are urged to define themselves by grievances, while the list of oppressors grows without limit. Yesterday’s ally becomes today’s enemy; yesterday’s victim becomes today’s victimizer. Unfortunately, a society built on grievance politics collapses under its own contradictions.
China paid dearly: Mao’s Cultural Revolution killed tens of millions of people, including revolutionaries themselves, and brought the country to its knees. In America, Leftist ideology has condemned inner-city communities to crime, drugs, and welfare dependency that deepens poverty rather than relieves it. The paradox endures: revolutions that begin in the name of justice often end in greater injustice. Movements that elevate victims often produce mass victimization. Ideologies that promise to heal history’s wounds often end up deepening its scars.
The lesson is clear. A healthy society must recognize suffering without weaponizing it, redress injustice without creating new ones, and honor dignity rather than grievance. If we fail, the cycle will repeat — as it has so many times before. And once again, revolution will devour everyone, including those who started the revolution.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/license-to-kill-what-turns-normal-people-to-political-violence">READ MORE: American Maoists, Part I: License To Kill: What Turns Normal People To Political Violence?</a>
Xi Van Fleet is a survivor of Mao’s Cultural Revolution, activist, and author of “Mao’s America: A Survivor’s Warning.”
Sasha Gong is a writer, scholar, journalist, and filmmaker. A dissident in Mao’s China, she holds a PhD from Harvard University and was previously Director of the China Branch at Voice of America.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Untitled design (54)

The Wheel Of Misfortune: Victims, Victimhood, And Victimization

China

Numerous organizations have latched onto the homelessness crisis in the United States to advocate for &#8220;Marxist, anti-capitalist, or anti-American ideologies,&#8221; according to a report published last week by conservative watchdog, Capital Research Center (CRC).
In the 113-page <a href="https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/Infiltrated-Report-1.pdf">dossier</a>, CRC identifies multiple groups that are part of &#8220;extremist ideological movements advocating&#8221; for certain policies to address homelessness. The report refers to this network of leftist groups as the &#8220;Homelessness Industrial Complex,&#8221; which helps shape policies that are &#8220;counterproductive&#8221; and fail to address the root problems of the homelessness crisis.
&#8220;Many of the groups over time have moved away from a focus on directly serving people who suffer to advocacy, which is to say political fighting,&#8221; CRC President Scott Walter told The Daily Wire, adding, &#8220;Some groups have gotten seriously radical.&#8221;
The report, which CRC put together in cooperation with the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank, combs through numerous organizations and highlights how they have pushed some of the most extreme leftist talking points. The report also analyzes the financial data of leftist networks and identifies how they have spent billions of dollars in their supposed effort to address homelessness, while the crisis has only spiraled further out of control.
Researchers with CRC looked into dozens of nonprofits that signed onto a Supreme Court amicus brief in last year&#8217;s Grants Pass v. Johnson case, opposing arrests and fines for homeless individuals who violated city ordinances. In that list of organizations, researchers found many groups that don&#8217;t focus solely on addressing homelessness, but also push radical leftism on other issues.
The National Harm Reduction Coalition, for example, supported defunding the police and told drug abusers that “no one knows what’s best for you better than you. Whatever drugs you use, we want you to be safe and healthy.&#8221; In 2022, the National Harm Reduction Coalition received 73% of its $12.8 million funding from government grants.
San Francisco Rising, another leftist organization that signed onto the Grants Pass v. Johnson amicus brief, is open about its political activism, calling itself an “electoral alliance” working “to build political power with working-class communities of color.”
The Center for Constitutional Rights filed another brief for the Grants Pass v. Johnson case, urging the court to oppose the city&#8217;s efforts to enforce the law against homeless individuals. The Center for Constitutional Rights <a href="https://ccrjustice.org/home/press-center/press-releases/legal-group-israeli-colonial-domination-necessary-context">defended</a> Hamas&#8217; October 7, 2023, terrorist attack on Israel, arguing that “Palestinian resistance fighters” had the right to “carry out attacks on military targets.”
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a href="http://dailywire.com/Subscribe" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.
The Western Regional Advocacy Project, another nonprofit highlighted by CRC, espouses anti-capitalist rhetoric and has made <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CA_k3KChdZ1/">calls</a> to &#8220;Abolish Police.&#8221; The group&#8217;s executive director, Paul Boden, <a href="https://thestreetspirit.org/2025/05/07/the-roots-of-neoliberal-fascism-in-america-and-what-we-can-do-about-it/">wrote</a> an article in early 2025 arguing that the Trump administration is instituting &#8220;neoliberal fascism&#8221; in America.
&#8220;The essence of extreme radicalism is fury that America is a horrible place, and for those people, they want to exploit the homeless because they can point to the homeless as supposed evidence that the country is horrible,&#8221; Walter said. &#8220;If that is what you&#8217;re doing, you don&#8217;t want there to be fewer homeless people. You want their suffering as vivid and as widespread as possible. And if they were in an institution that was helping them with their mental or their substance abuse, instead of being out on the streets, that&#8217;s not very good for your PR campaign.&#8221;
Other far-Left groups that are involved in housing and homelessness advocacy have openly pushed Marxism. The Autonomous Tenants Union Network <a href="https://atun-rsia.org/who-we-are">says</a> that it fights &#8220;for a world without landlords and without rent&#8221; and then adds that it wants to &#8220;end capitalism itself.&#8221;
Stomp Out Slumlords, a D.C.-based member of the Autonomous Tenants Union Network, <a href="https://www.stompoutslumlords.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/SOS-2023-report_web.pdf">wrote</a> in 2023, &#8220;We’re not going to get to communism without moving people to talk to their neighbors first, and more importantly, doing it ourselves. Here in DC, exercising tenant purchase rights or pushing for rent freezes aren’t going to immediately decommodify housing, true. But these are the small-scale sites of disruption from which we can build working-class power into something much bigger.&#8221;
The Manhattan Institute&#8217;s Christopher Rufo, who has written extensively about America&#8217;s homelessness issue, said in the foreword to CRC&#8217;s report, &#8220;The rhetoric of &#8216;housing is a human right&#8217; and &#8216;abolish homelessness&#8217; is seductive, but it functions as a smokescreen.&#8221;
&#8220;Behind it lies a set of interests dedicated to dismantling enforcement, expanding bureaucracies, and keeping streams of funding flowing into activism rather than into effective service delivery to those in desperate need,&#8221; Rufo added.
The Trump administration has sought to address the homelessness crisis by focusing on law enforcement and rehabilitation. President Donald Trump also signed an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/ending-crime-and-disorder-on-americas-streets/">executive order</a> in July that aims to move &#8220;homeless individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment through the appropriate use of civil commitment&#8221; to &#8220;restore public order&#8221; and to redirect federal funds toward &#8220;Effective Methods of Addressing Homelessness.&#8221;
&#8220;Surrendering our cities and citizens to disorder and fear is neither compassionate to the homeless nor other citizens,&#8221; the order stated. &#8220;My Administration will take a new approach focused on protecting public safety.&#8221;
The Trump administration has faced backlash from leftist groups over its move to clean up homeless encampments. The Southern Poverty Law Center is another group that has inserted itself in the homelessness debate while advocating for leftist ideologies. The SPLC has frequently been slammed for smearing conservatives. CRC found that the SPLC often &#8220;engages in homelessness policy by submitting amicus filings that oppose enforcement.&#8221;
After Trump signed his July executive order, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/resources/guides/trump-executive-order-homelessness-faq/">argued</a> that the order &#8220;promotes unlawful and out-of-date approaches that are rooted in anti-Black racism and bias against people with disabilities.&#8221;
Walter said that rooting out the &#8220;Homelessness Industrial Complex&#8221; in the United States remains a &#8220;huge challenge&#8221; that &#8220;will take years.&#8221;
&#8220;It will take years because there&#8217;s so much money and inertia behind the current bad industrial complex on this,&#8221; Walter added. &#8220;So much of this is state and local, not federal. The federal money is often funding bad state and local things, so it&#8217;s not like the feds have no role or no leverage, But if Portland and Seattle and San Francisco and Los Angeles want to continue to be foolish and hurtful, it will not be easy to change because they are the tip of the spear for dealing with this.&#8221;

Homelessness

Leftist Groups Exploit The Homelessness Crisis To Push ‘Anti-American Ideologies,’ Watchdog Says

Leftist Groups Are Using The Homelessness Crisis To Push 'Anti-American Ideologies': Watchdog

Anti-American

Homeless

Leftism

Trump Administration

There&#8217;s been a lot of talk lately about the radicalism problem on the Right. It is, indeed, a problem that exists.
But is it nearly as mainstream as it is on the Left? Has it been imbibed? Has it been ingested? Has it been sucked into the great maw of the party and turned into the mainstream position on the Right?
The answer, of course, is no.
But on the Left, the answer is very much yes.
The Democratic Party has decided to let the radicals run the show. This has become extraordinarily clear over the course of, not just of the past couple of election cycles, but the past few months, now that Zohran Mamdani has been vetted by the entire Democratic Party as the future of the party.
All of the so-called moderates in the Democratic Party refuse to dissociate in any way from Mamdani, who is, in fact, a terror sympathizer; who is, in fact, a Marxist radical; who is, in fact, a complete, useless ne&#8217;er do well of a human being who has somehow managed to manipulate himself into a position to become the mayor of the financial center of planet Earth in New York City.
Mamdani is a Marxist with jihadist leanings. That&#8217;s the reality. And in the modern Democratic Party, that is a feature, not a bug.
There are a lot of people in the media who&#8217;ve been struggling to figure out how Mamdani was able to win a primary despite having these radical positions. I&#8217;ve been saying since he won the Democratic Party primary that his winning is not a bug; it is a feature quite popular among Democratic primary voters, because the Democratic electorate has basically split between moderates who are increasingly bleeding over into the Republican Party or into the independents, and the hardcore Democrats, who are increasingly moving ever further to the left.
We are now two generations removed from the specter of communism via the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union fell 35 years ago, and that means that there are a lot of people who don&#8217;t remember the Soviet Union or the risks of communism. When they think of socialism, they actually are thinking of mixed states, capitalist states that have a significant welfare portion in places in Europe.
But the solutions that they are proposing are full-scale nationalization projects, Marxist projects directly from the Soviet, Cuban, Venezuelan handbook. And they don&#8217;t even know they&#8217;re doing that — or they don&#8217;t care.
What that means is that the candidate who signals the furthest to the Left in many of these areas in the primaries is actually quite likely to win. That’s how someone with Mamdani’s positions on the Middle East and terrorism and jihadism — only 24 years removed from 9/11 — can be elected mayor of New York.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2298-mamdani-aoc-and-bernie-oh-my?elementPosition=4&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
 New York City is likely to elect as mayor somebody who has sympathies for Al-Qaeda. I don&#8217;t mean he&#8217;s sympathetic to the actual terror attacks of 9/11, although he&#8217;s quite sympathetic to the terror group Hamas. I mean he believes that the Osama bin Laden-articulated grievances of 2001 against the West are mostly correct.
There are people who&#8217;ve been trained for generations in this country to believe that Western civilization is responsible for everything bad that happens on planet Earth, that third-world countries are third-world because of exploitation by the first world. They believe that terror centers are terror centers, not because of a deeply steeped radical Islamic ideology, but instead because somehow the West has been cruel to people.
That’s the kind of garbage Mamdani is preaching, and it is finding a ready audience among Democratic primary voters.
Very few Democrats have had the stones to simply say, “No, this is a bridge too far. The answer here is no.”
What&#8217;s amazing about that is that the risk factor in making such a statement is relatively low. Imagine that you are a mainstream Democrat, an elected official from Kansas, and somebody asks you about Mamdani. Does it cost you anything to say, “No, that guy&#8217;s too extreme. I would not vote for him. I&#8217;d vote for Andrew Cuomo.” Would that cost you anything?
Let&#8217;s say that you&#8217;re a purple state Democrat. Or let&#8217;s say that you&#8217;re a blue state Democrat. You&#8217;re just not a New York City, far-Left Greenwich Village Democrat. Does it cost you anything to say, “No, that dude is too much for me. I understand the primary voters chose him, but the reality is that is not representative of America.”
<div id="attachment_987879" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-987879" class="size-large wp-image-987879" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-2241087777-864x576.jpg" alt="Andrew Cuomo, New York City mayoral candidate, from left, Curtis Sliwa, New York City mayoral candidate, and Zohran Mamdani, New York City mayoral candidate, during a mayoral debate in New York, US, on Thursday, Oct. 16, 2025. Millions of dollars are pouring into the mayoral election with less than four weeks to go until New Yorkers go to the polls. Photographer: Angelina Katsanis/AP Photo/Bloomberg via Getty Images" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-2241087777-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-2241087777-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-2241087777-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-2241087777.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Angelina Katsanis/AP Photo/Bloomberg via Getty Images</div>
Instead, the Democratic Party has decided they must draft off of the Mamdani energy. And that&#8217;s why you&#8217;re seeing nationally a reflection of Mamdani politics via the Bernie Sanders wing of the party.
Mamdani is a child of the Bernie Sanders revolution because Bernie obviously is not just a socialist when it comes to domestic policy. He is also a Howard Zinn, anti-American extremist when it comes to American foreign policy. Mamdani is just following in the footsteps of Bernie Sanders. But he&#8217;s adding a more diverse backstory.
People think Mamdani’s radicalism about the Middle East is somehow an inhibitor to his political success.
Wrong.
In New York City, with its Democratic primary base, his radicalism is an aphrodisiac. The Democratic Party base wants this signaling. They want the extremism. They want the Howard Zinn-ification of American foreign policy.
Israel pulls out of Gaza, and Hamas immediately starts consolidating control by literally pulling people out of their houses, lining them up, putting them on their knees, and shooting them in the head. There are videos of this happening.
And Mamdani has nothing to say about this. Not only does he have nothing to say about this, he&#8217;s asked whether Hamas should disarm now and he won&#8217;t even answer a question as to whether Hamas ought to be disarmed.
New York Congresswoman Elise Stefanik was asked by a New York Times reporter, “I&#8217;m a reporter for the Times. I&#8217;m writing about Elise Stefanik’s comments in response to Mamdani’s Fox News interview, Mamdani’s campaign has said that her comments calling him a jihadist were Islamophobic. Please let me know if you want to respond.” 
Stefanik <a href="https://x.com/EliseStefanik/status/1978943584867860643">responded</a> publicly on X:
<blockquote>I call Zohran Mamdani a jihadist because he is. Zohran Mamdani is a raging antisemite. Mamdani is the definition of a jihadist as he supports Hamas terrorists which he did as recently as yesterday when he refused to call for Hamas terrorists to put down their arms &#8211; the same Hamas terrorist group that slaughtered civilians including New Yorkers on October 7, 2023. 
He is Kathy Hochul’s endorsed jihadist Communist who she has empowered to destroy New York City. It’s why the New York State Democrat Party Chair refuses to support him. It’s why multiple Democrat Members of Congress refuse to support him. It’s why Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries have still not endorsed him. Because Zohran is a jihadist who will destroy New York.</blockquote>
Why aren&#8217;t Democrats dissociating from him?
None of them will say it because they are trying to draft off the jet fuel that is radicalism and nut-jobbery inside the Democratic Party.
Bill Ackman <a href="https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1979000490563432948">stated</a> on X of Mamdani:
<blockquote>It is now abundantly clear he is completely full of it. The whole thing is an act. Just look at the identical practiced smile with which he ends each answer. After watching him recreate his fake smile, your skin will start to crawl. Mamdani exudes inauthenticity and smugness. He denies or disavows any of his previous public statements that he knows will now cost him votes. The only takeaway is that he is an extremely articulate inauthentic actor. You can’t trust one word out of his mouth. And that’s before you get to his policies which make no economic sense.</blockquote>
This is the nature of the modern Democratic Party.
And they are moving in this direction at light speed.

New York City Mayoral Debate

Radicalism Isn’t Fringe Anymore In The Democratic Party

Andrew Cuomo

Elise Stefanik

Islamic Jihad

After Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) joined Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on a CNN town hall to discuss the government shutdown—and repeatedly attacked House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) while issuing demands for President Donald Trump to meet—Johnson fired back, “With every ounce of Christian character that I can muster &#8230; bless her heart.”
Ocasio-Cortez accused Johnson of “choosing to punish the American people,” declaring that she would not “enable it by acquiescing and enabling the behavior of bullies.” She added, “So it ends today,” and warned, “If I were Mike Johnson, you should be in that office negotiating with Hakeem Jeffries every damn day until we reopen this government.” Ocasio-Cortez also demanded, “I will not accept a measly one-year extension of the ACA,” and argued that “health care is a human right &#8230; the minimum wage should be a living wage in this country &#8230; [and] public colleges and universities should be tuition-free.”
“Does AOC, does she have both oars in the water here, thinking that the president is going to bow down to these demands?” Fox News’ Laura Ingraham asked Johnson.
“With every ounce of Christian character that I can muster, Laura, let me just say, bless her heart,” Johnson replied. “This would be comical if it were not so dangerous. You’re looking at the two leaders of the modern Democratic Party. We say all the time, ‘This is not your father‘s party.’ It’s not. These guys are full Marxists. You hear how vapid their ideology is; what empty suits they are.”
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/" data-sk="tooltip_parent">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.
“But they are the leaders of the party,” he continued. “They are dragging the rest of the old guard, the old party leaders, around by the nose, and they are subservient to their wishes. Chuck Schumer has picked a fight over this very simple clean CR to just keep the government funded for 21 additional days, till November 21, seven more weeks, so we can get this appropriations process done. And the reason he did it is because he’s afraid of that voice you just heard on that stage. He’s afraid AOC  is going to challenge him.”
“There’s a rise of Marxism in the party; it’s happening in New York, in their state, and he’s terrified. That’s why everybody around the country is feeling such pain right now, because of this nonsense,” he concluded.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨“Bless her heart.”
“This would be comical if it weren’t so dangerous. <a href="https://twitter.com/AOC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AOC</a> and her fellow Marxists are dragging the Democratic Party into chaos while Schumer panics to keep his job.” — <a href="https://twitter.com/SpeakerJohnson?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SpeakerJohnson</a> <a href="https://t.co/DdGQ3pAcfN">pic.twitter.com/DdGQ3pAcfN</a>
— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) <a href="https://twitter.com/IngrahamAngle/status/1978972928789073984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 16, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

MixCollage-17-Oct-2025-11-26-AM-4521

‘Bless Her Heart’: Speaker Johnson Torches AOC After She Attacks Him, Makes Demands On Trump

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Bernie Sanders

Congress

Donald Trump

Government Shutdown

House Speaker

Mike Johnson

Politics

When people say “political violence is wrong,” does that change the underlying substructure of thought that leads to a massive elevation in violence in the country of the political variety?
I don&#8217;t think it means anything to just say that political violence is wrong, because there are actual substrates of thought that lead to the elevation of the violence that compel fringe actors to go out and do things like murder Charlie Kirk.
Thus, having our politicians simply go out there and say, “We&#8217;ve got to take down the temperature; we all have to use better language,” is absolutely true, but it isn&#8217;t specific enough.
Chuck Schumer said, “The bottom line is this is a time that all Americans should come together and feel and mourn what happened. Violence, which affects so many different people of so many different political persuasions, is an affliction of America, and coming together is what we ought to be doing, not pointing fingers of blame.”
Hakeem Jeffries said, “This moment requires leadership that brings the American people together, as opposed to trying to further divide us. Political violence in any form against any American is unacceptable, and should be denounced by everyone. And moving forward, we have to figure out a better way to come together, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans.”
All of this is correct.
But all of this is incredibly vague.
I want to talk about something that we all know is true, but nobody seems to want to say: Not all ideologies are equally prone to violence.
When there is a shooting, a mass shooting at a synagogue, a mass shooting at a church, when Charlie Kirk is shot, everybody&#8217;s mind immediately goes to this: What are the likeliest probabilities in terms of who did the shooting? 
Everyone does this. We cannot pretend that we are blind to the realities of the world. When there is a shooting at a synagogue, I can tell you my mind goes to two places: radical Muslim or white supremacist. Those are usually the options. If there&#8217;s a shooting at a church, your mind might go to a trans radical or a radical Muslim. 
That&#8217;s where your mind is going to go. And this is leaving aside people who are generally mentally ill or where there&#8217;s no political ideology involved. If there is a political ideology involved, your mind immediately goes to the movements that are likely to drive people toward murder.
Not every ideology is prone to this. No one thought that when Charlie Kirk was shot, it was because of his stance on low taxes. No one thought that. We differ on all sorts of politics in this country. Nobody thought that a debate about marginal tax rates was why Charlie was shot. Nobody believes Charlie Kirk was murdered because of his stance on energy policy. 
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2279-breaking-charlie-kirk-assassin-in-custody?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=The+Ben+Shapiro+Show&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
In order for an ideology, for a movement to coalesce in such a way that it allows for violence — the sort of bubbling of violence that lies at the outskirts of a movement — there have to be some preconditions.
I&#8217;ve been talking a lot about lions and scavengers. What we are seeing here is the scavengers at work. 
The basic philosophy of the scavenger is very simple: All models and civilizations are merely guises for power. My failure is a result of one of those corrupt power systems. There&#8217;s a great conspiracy out there. I am the victim. I&#8217;m being targeted. I am the actual victim. 
And thus, if there is a great conspiracy that is targeting me for destruction, I must respond in kind with violence.
This is how you get to the idiotic notion that speech is violence. 
Those are the three elements: “Morals and civilizations that I don&#8217;t like are simply guises for power,” “My failure within that system is a result of that great conspiracy and I am the victim,” and “It is an existential threat to me and therefore I must act out with violence and harm somebody.”
Let me give you three examples, and I&#8217;m going to take them from the top death threats I received. 
I receive an enormous number of death threats. I have 24/7 security on me, on my family. I literally go nowhere without an entire team of security at this point in my life. And that is because of things like what happened to Charlie.
There are three main wings that I get these threats from: Trans ideology/Marxist ideology, white supremacists, and radical Muslims. 
I want to go through each one of those and explain why these particular ideologies, why these particular movements are likely to generate violence. 
A trans ideology says that your argument about biology, that there is simply male and female, is, in fact, a guise for power. You&#8217;re doing it because you hate me; you wish to erase me. I am a victim of your failure to accept my identity, such that you&#8217;re erasing me. You&#8217;re engaging in a “trans genocide,” and therefore, you are threatening me. Your speech is a form of violence. It is wiping away my identity. 
And therefore violence ought to be met with violence.
Marxist ideology, which is derived from the same general area, is the idea that the governmental system, the free market system, is an imposition on me. It is a conspiracy from above to harm me, to destroy me. My failures inside the market are actually not my own. They&#8217;re the fault of the system. And you, as an advocate for the system, are victimizing me. You&#8217;re erasing me. You&#8217;re destroying me. And I must act with violence. There&#8217;s a reason why Marxist movements are so violent. They say that speech, advocacy for the free market, is, in fact, a system of power. It is to be met with violence. 
White supremacy: I know that there&#8217;s an attempt to pretend that this doesn&#8217;t exist, but it absolutely exists in online spaces. Pretending it doesn&#8217;t is bulls*** and everyone knows it. I know it because I&#8217;ve had to have the FBI arrest somebody who was doing this while threatening not just me, by the way, but Donald Trump Jr. 
That ideology says that white people are being put upon in the United States by an entire system. And if you&#8217;re an advocate for that system, you are threatening me with destruction, with erasure, with white genocide, and thus you must be killed. Violence is a proper response to an attempted genocide. That is the argument that is made, at root, by many white supremacists. 
I&#8217;m not talking about what the Left calls white supremacy, which is anything to the right of Hillary Clinton. I&#8217;m talking about actual, honest-to-God white supremacists. I get an awful lot of death threats from them.
Group number three, radical Muslims, who believe that the failures of the Palestinians, for example, are the result of evil Western systems. And thus, if you are an advocate for those systems, it&#8217;s because you want to erase the radical Muslims and you want to kill people and you want to commit genocide, and therefore it is fine to shoot two Israeli embassy staffers dead in Washington, D.C. That is why it is fine to throw a Molotov cocktail at an 80-year-old woman in Colorado who was protesting Israeli hostages being held. 
We all know this is true. Pretending it isn&#8217;t true doesn&#8217;t make it go away. Not all movements are equally likely to bubble up with violence.
And so when we have politicians saying political violence is bad, if you&#8217;re not speaking out against the movements that use this logic, if you&#8217;re not speaking out against the movements that say that speech is in fact a form of violence, that systems are in fact a form of violence, and that violence is the proper response to that, then you are contributing to the environment in which this kind of stuff happens. 
It is not that there are many radical Muslims in the United States, by the numbers, thank God.
It’s not that there are many white supremacists in the United States.
But by the numbers, the increasing radicalism of the Left in the United States is, in fact, a massive issue. 
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) recently did rankings of campus free speech. And what they found is that college campuses are replete with the failure to speak your mind. 
Why? Because people are afraid of violence.
It goes all the way back to when I was in college. There&#8217;s nothing new here. I wrote my very first book, “Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth,” in 2004 about the kind of discrimination conservatives faced on campus. And yes, there was the possibility of violence, even in 2004, not being shot, but the possibility of being physically assaulted, which is something that came close to happening to me multiple times, even when I was an undergrad. 
That&#8217;s going back 20 years, when I was warning that this was going to metastasize and take over huge swaths of the political Left. People ignored it at the time. But it was true.
I spoke in 2015 at the University of Missouri during the Black Lives Matter upsurge, after Ferguson. And I remember people asking about safety. I said, “I&#8217;m not worried about safety. There are some police there; I&#8217;ve got a security team now. No one’s going to take a shot at me. This is America. You don&#8217;t get shot in America for saying things on a college campus. This is America. I grew up in this country. This is my country. This is a country I love. This is where our fundamental value is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. No one&#8217;s going to do this kind of stuff. No one.” 
But it&#8217;s becoming more and more common. According to FIRE, a record 1-in-3 students now hold some level of acceptance, even if only rarely, for resorting to violence to stop a campus speech. 
Now, I&#8217;m sure not everybody who believes they&#8217;re using violence thinks in terms of shooting someone to death. But when you are drawing from a pool at this point of legitimately tens of millions of young Americans, who are atomistic and isolated and don&#8217;t touch grass, it is not going to be hard to find some unhinged people who decide to take that to its logical conclusion and fire a bullet through the throat of a man who is simply attempting to speak truth to people in the friendliest possible fashion. 
I don&#8217;t like when people say “They shot Charlie,” because “they” isn&#8217;t a person. A person shot Charlie Kirk, and he shot Charlie Kirk for a deranged reason.
With that said, there are movements in which the substrate of their political thinking leads to an elevation in violence. Period. End of story. That is a reality.
And it is not enough to just say “political violence is bad” if you are not calling out the movements themselves.

Menu