Category: Politics

  • Putin doesn’t really want to live forever

    Putin doesn’t really want to live forever

    Rejuvenation is unstoppable, we will prevail,’ blared the editorial in the Chinese newspaper Global Times. The subject was China’s resurgence, but it looked oddly apposite in light of an inadvertently overheard conversation between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.

    Biotechnology is continuously developing,’ commented Putin as the two men walked towards the podium in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square during the military parade to mark 80 years since Japan’s surrender in World War Two.

    “In the past, it used to be rare for someone to be older than 70 and these days they say that at 70 one’s still a child,” the 72-year-old Xi replied to his similarly-aged counterpart.

    “Human organs can be continuously transplanted. The longer you live, the younger you become, and even achieve immortality.”

    “Some predict that in this century humans may live to 150 years old.”

    This was, of course, a gift to sketch-writers, satirists and anyone looking to poke fun at Putin in particular. Putin wants to be immortal! After all, there had already been the tales of his bathing in blood from the severed antlers of Siberian red deer as a rejuvenate folk remedy, and last year Putin established the New Health Preservation Technologies research centre, dedicated to developing “technologies that prevent cellular aging, neurotechnologies, and other innovations aimed at ensuring longevity.”

    We should hardly be surprised that an aging autocrat with the means to do so would support such research. I dare say many 70-year-olds might want another 70 years, if physical and cognitive decay can be kept in abeyance.

    There is also a powerful political dimension. In a personalistic system like Putin’s, so much depends on the health of the monarch. As soon as he anoints a successor, he risks becoming a lame duck – and he also recognizes what he is still trying to deny, that there can be a Russia without Putin.

    Putin’s family, his clients and his cronies also face a potentially bleak future, given that their security and pampered lives depend on his presence. Indeed, a cynic might wonder whether New Health Preservation Technologies was also a vessel for nepotism – that acceptable form of immortality-by-proxy – given that Putin’s eldest daughter, Maria Vorontsova, is an endocrinologist working on a genetic research program to boost longevity. Besides, is this that different from those tech bros like Bryan Johnson, who spends $2 million a year in a strict regime intended to stop or wind back his metabolic clock?

    As an opportunity for a more light-hearted Western reporting, it was a gift. But it was even more appreciated by Russians, who already have indulged their subversive spirit at the expense of Putin’s efforts to mask the ravages of age. Indeed, there was for a while a fashion for posting historical pictures “proving” that he is already immortal, following the publication of photos of a Bolshevik Red Guard from 1920 and a Soviet soldier from 1941, who did in fairness resemble a younger Putin.

    But while some Western journalists have mistaken this, and separate claims that Putin has a time machine or is a clone, as evidence of his hubris and his personality cult, they are, rather, example of styob. There’s no neat way of translating this Russian word, which has its roots in “lashing out.” It is essentially fanciful conspiracy theory mobilized as a parody of some orthodoxy. It is not meant to be enjoyed, but savored for its very transgressiveness and outlandishness.

    The most infamous was the tongue-in-cheek claim that Bolshevik leader Lenin had consumed so many magic mushrooms that he had actually become one himself. In what was a seemingly serious documentary broadcast on Leningrad TV in 1991, musician Sergey Kuryokhin played the role of an historian defending his thesis with all kinds of non sequiturs and fake “evidence.” It was the last year of the Soviet Union, and the Party’s grip on culture had loosened enough for this to be possible, but strong enough that this was still deliciously transgressive.

    This seems to be how most Russians are treating the whole “Putin wants to live forever” story. (Indeed, Xi himself seemed to be treating the conversation rather light-heartedly.) If we take it too seriously, well, then the styob’s on us.

  • Why Trump should impose a trans gun ban

    Why Trump should impose a trans gun ban

    As President Trump’s Department of Justice deliberates over a gun ban on transgender people, we must stop and reflect on the environment we have created for our children and ask whether we are truly protecting them.

    Whenever tragedy strikes, progressives rush to the microphones to declare that the problem is “guns.” They insist that if only we banned this weapon or restricted that accessory, shootings would stop. They blame inanimate objects instead of focusing on the people who actually pull the trigger. The recent shootings in Nashville (2023) and Minneapolis (2025) should force us to confront uncomfortable truths – not about firearms, but about what is happening inside our culture and what our leaders are pushing on the next generation.

    On March 27, 2023, 28-year-old Audrey Hale, who identified as transgender, entered the Covenant School in Nashville and murdered three children and three adults. Hale had meticulously planned the attack, leaving behind writings showing an obsession with violence and a hatred of self. Police ultimately stopped the rampage, but not before families were destroyed forever.

    Two years later, on August 27, 2025, 23-year-old Robin Westman, a transgender woman and former student, opened fire at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis during a back-to-school Mass. She killed two children, injured 17 more, and ultimately took her own life. Like Hale, Westman had left behind videos and a manifesto showing a disturbing fascination with mass shooters and a desire for infamy.

    In both cases, the evidence shows that the shooters were motivated not by their identity alone, but by a toxic blend of mental instability and self-loathing. The common thread is clear: both individuals were deeply troubled, and both had access to firearms despite glaring warning signs.

    Progressives scream “gun control” after each tragedy, but they refuse to address the elephant in the room: the mental state of those who commit mass shootings. The uncomfortable truth is that individuals struggling with deep identity conflicts, fueled by hormone treatments or rapid social transitions, are often at greater risk of instability. Pretending otherwise is reckless.

    New York Governor Kathy Hochul pushed through the so-called “ERA” amendment that enshrines the right for minors to undergo sex changes – without parental consent – into the state constitution. Hochul also banned body armor and raised the age for legal gun purchases after the Buffalo shooting. Yet she refuses to fix New York’s “Raise the Age” law, which effectively removes accountability for minors who possess or even use illegal guns.

    This trend extends well beyond New York. Across the US, “leaders” from both are implementing conflicting policies that reveal deep hypocrisy.

    So ask yourself: how is it logical to remove consequences for teenagers carrying illegal firearms, while simultaneously giving those same teens the ability to permanently alter their bodies with hormones and surgeries they cannot possibly understand? Progressives call it “compassion,” but the outcome is confusion, instability, and is leading to tragedy and violence.

    The question that no Democrat seems willing to answer is why they are so determined to push radical gender ideology onto children. Why the obsession with chemically and physically altering kids who are still developing, who are vulnerable, and who are easily influenced?

    These are irreversible decisions that can scar someone for life. Instead of helping children develop resilience, coping skills, and a healthy sense of self, progressives are telling them that their bodies are the enemy – and offering hormones and surgeries as the “solution.” For some, this sets the stage for severe mental health consequences. And when mental instability meets an obsession with notoriety and easy access to illegal firearms, tragedies like Nashville and Minneapolis become more likely.

    The hypocrisy doesn’t end there. Democrats slammed President Trump when he banned transgender individuals from military service, claiming it was discriminatory. Yet these same leaders claim their top priority is “preventing gun violence.” How does it make sense to place individuals undergoing major hormone treatments – who may be struggling with identity or mental health – in positions where they are armed, trained for combat, and placed in volatile international environments? That’s not compassion; that’s recklessness.

    Progressives want to ban average Americans from owning body armor. They want to restrict legal gun ownership for law-abiding citizens. But they’re simultaneously handing confused kids hormones, protecting minors who carry illegal guns from accountability, and pushing for transgender inclusion in the armed forces. These contradictions are completely illogical and are flat out dangerous.

    The Nashville and Minneapolis shootings were not just random tragedies. They are warnings. They show what can happen when identity crises, untreated mental illness, and a culture of victimhood collide with a political movement more concerned with ideology than with reality.

    Instead of scapegoating firearms, lawmakers must confront the uncomfortable truth: our society is destabilizing children by stripping parents of authority, pushing radical ideology and fueling confusion with irreversible medical interventions. Add to this a justice system that coddles young offenders, and we are setting the stage for disaster.

    The solution isn’t simply more bans on law-abiding citizens. It’s accountability, honesty, and a serious national conversation about what we are doing to our kids. If we don’t stop pushing confused children down a path of irreversible harm, we should not be surprised when some of them end up in crisis – with tragic consequences for innocent families and communities.

    Until this self-inflicted crisis is resolved everyone in a bipartisan fashion should support ending the double standard where law-abiding, stable citizens face restrictions, policymakers ignore minors with illegal weapons or gloss over ideological factors that may contribute to instability and seriously consider the President’s idea to ban transgenders from obtaining deadly weapons.






  • RFK Jr. triggers Vax War Two

    RFK Jr. triggers Vax War Two

    Throughout COVID, Gov. Ron DeSantis’ aggressive leadership made Florida the national model for resisting vaccine tyranny. But Vax War Two is coming, and the state seems to have chosen the inevitably losing side.

    Florida now aims to eliminate vaccine mandates altogether, including those long required for children to attend school like the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. If the move goes through, Florida would become the first state in the nation to do so.

    “Every last one of them is wrong and drips with disdain and slavery,” Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo said of the mandates Wednesday in a press conference alongside DeSantis.

    “Who am I as a government – or as anyone else – as a man standing here now to tell you what you should put in your body?”

    As it stands now, Florida is the only state considering such a move. But that could, and very likely will, change in the coming months given the prevailing winds against vaccines at the highest level of public health.

    It’s hard to separate Florida’s move from the larger posture on vaccines that’s taken root at the Department of Health and Human Services under Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s leadership. Kennedy has been one of the most prominent voices against vaccines, adopting the alleged link with autism as a decades-long pet project.

    I’m open to good faith arguments against blanket vaccine requirements, especially since “The Science” has so thoroughly beclowned itself during the COVID years. Accepted truths deserve a fresh round of scrutiny, as do the bureaucrats who insist they’re above reproach. But vaccines have long been an accepted – and popular – fixture of American life.

    Kennedy will have to unveil a smoking gun to win this fight; so far, that’s the one thing left wanting amidst all the bluster. Is this seemingly ideological push against vaccines really that much different from what liberal bureaucrats did during COVID?

    COVID-crats decided their experimental vaccine was an end to itself, and ignored or downplayed all contrary evidence against efficacy and potential downsides. They then sought to punish anyone who said otherwise.

    Now, the new combatants in the looming vax wars are not totalitarians in the same vein. Yet they nevertheless seem to have settled on the instinct that vaccines are bad, and now seek to back-fill policy without the evidence to back it up. Like sweeping COVID mandates, it’s becoming a trendy move in certain health circles, but it’s clearly too all-encompassing to address the problem (whatever it may be). We’re not simply going to all stop getting vaccinated.

    That doesn’t mean we need to instinctively “trust the experts” again. The pearl clutching from “experts” against Florida’s move certainly still feels political – everything is “dangerous” when they’re not in control.

    Yet we’ve always had religious and medical exemptions for vaccine requirements, and the determined anti-vax parent can always still find a way out. Most, however, go along to get along, whether they trust the science or not.

    Polls show that vaccines are generally accepted as good: 79 percent support school requirements, while the 21 percent who don’t mostly cite parental choice rather than any fear over side effects. Many within the 21 percent presumably still “choose” to get their kids vaccinated. After all, Florida kindergarten vaccination rates only dipped a few points in recent years, from 94 percent in 2016 to 89 percent today. That’s not much change, even after COVID authorities tyrannically overplayed their hand.

    The enduring popularity of vaccines only highlights why this is such an absurd move. The vast majority of people will still keep getting their kids vaccinated, and they probably should. This is a losing issue – and thus feels like a wholly unnecessary political battle that neither RFK, DeSantis or any state that follows their lead can win.

    In the coming months, we now face new battles as apparently clever people all throw rival science papers at each other, all claiming the mantle truth – only to alienate the average joe who loathes to see another public conflagration over a once-settled issue.

    We can already see the storm brewing, as RFK gave heated testimony about his tenure on Thursday. With Senators as diverse as Bernie Sanders and no. 2 Republican John Barasso slamming his vaccine record, the odds are not in his favor.

    DeSantis became a political star because he turned a purple state bright red through the embrace of common sense, but politically treacherous issues. Starting a new vaccine war may be a political poison pill, but this time, there’s no common sense to back it up.

  • After Rosie O’Donnell, the Americans Trump should strip of citizenship

    After Rosie O’Donnell, the Americans Trump should strip of citizenship

    As he often does when things get a little hot in the kitchen, President Trump went after Rosie O’Donnell again yesterday. “We are giving serious thought to taking away Rosie O’Donnell’s Citizenship,” he wrote on Truth Social. O’Donnell, he said, is “not a Great American,” layering that on top of what he said in July, that Rosie is “not in the best interests of our great country.”

    I don’t think anyone other than her closest associates would argue that Rosie O’Donnell is “Great,” but she is, technically, an “American.” If the Trump Administration wants to revoke citizenship for every mediocre celebrity who criticizes the President, well, then, Hollywood is going to have to do some fast outsourcing. Let’s think about who else is on the chopping block.

    Ellen DeGeneres

    Once American’s first lesbian sitcom darling, then the dancing queen of daytime TV, Ellen has fallen from court favor under a cloud of employee mistreatment allegations. After pitching a huff over Trump’s re-election, she’s moved to the United Kingdom, where she’s slowly morphing into Farmer Hoggett from Babe. She and her wife, former Arrested Development star Portia DeRossi, live in a modest $18 million farmhouse, where she’s entered into a “planning clash” with her neighbors after committing a “technical breach” over some Roman remains. Ellen is the first person to simultaneously run afoul of the American empire and the Roman Empire, and as such she must be on Trump’s naughty list. We won’t see the likes of her stateside again.

    Eva Longoria

    The Desperate Housewives star and her husband, multimillionaire media executive José Baston, fled the United States after Trump won, dividing their time between their hovels in Spain and Mexico. “I’m privileged. I get to escape and go somewhere. Most Americans aren’t so lucky,” she told Marie Claire last fall. “They are going to be stuck in this dystopian country, and my anxiety and my sadness is for them.” Still, times were tough for Longoria, who was so desperate to escape the MAGA jackboot that she sold her Beverly Hills estate for $19 million instead of the asking price of $22 million. No citizenship for you!

    George Clooney

    Rumors spread online in December that Clooney had fled the US because he “can’t take the red wave anymore,” though that doesn’t appear to be the case. He and his wife Amal, a human-rights lawyer and therefore a strong candidate for citizenship revocation, have a multimillion dollar mansion on the shores of Lake Como, and also appear to live in the UK, a backwards, repressive post-colonial state that is the ironic living choice for freedom-loving American liberals. He doesn’t seem to like it here anyway, so let’s yank the passport. Goodnight, George. And good luck.

    Courtney Love

    Apparently because she loves governments who arrest people because they don’t like their opinions, the former grunge icon announced last year that she’s applying for her UK passport. After all, she already lives there. “I’m finally getting my British citizenship in six months. I get to be a citizen. I’m applying, man! Can’t get rid of me!” Not a good American, Courtney Love. Very nasty person. She wants to be the girl with the most scones. We might have to look into taking away her citizenship.

    Sharon Stone

    In July of last year, Stone told the Daily Mail that she was “certainly considering a house in Italy. I think that’s an intelligent construct at this time. This is one of the first times in my life that I’ve actually seen anyone running for office on a platform of hate and oppression.” Who among us hasn’t considered a house in Italy? To rent. For a week. With extended family. As you well know, if you’re trying to flee “hate and oppression,” move to notoriously welcoming and tolerant ITALY.

    Billie Eilish

    Rumors flew after Trump was re-elected that Eilish was going to leave the country, but they turned out to not be true and she’s just kind of quietly going about her business. Citizenship revocation should still be on the table, though. She and her brother Phinneas can go live on a cloud.

    Barack Obama

    You know who isn’t saying they’re going to leave the country? The Obamas. America has been good to them. But if Trump really wants to go full circle in his political career, he can distract from whatever problems he’s having by reviving the “birther” slander. It’s not true. Of course it’s not true. But since when did what’s true mean what’s best for America?

  • Poland’s Nawrocki heralds a more mature populism

    Yesterday, September 3, President Trump welcomed Karol Nawrocki, the newly inaugurated president of Poland to the White House. It was a stirring occasion, replete with a surprise military fly-over of F-16 and F-35 fighter jets flying in “missing man” formation to honor  Major Maciej “Slab” Krakowian, the Polish pilot who died in a crash in Radom, Poland, last Thursday. 

    Nawrocki, who narrowly won the presidency in June, is often described as “the Polish Trump.” It’s an accurate epithet. Nawrocki is as much a “Poland First” president as Trump is an “America First” president. The 42-year-old historian (Nawrocki holds a PhD in history) supports a list of policy initiatives that could have come right out of the MAGA playbook. In his inaugural address on August 6, he touched on several of these themes. Unlike his brethren in the EU, Nawrocki, a staunch Roman Catholic, emphasized Poland’s abiding “attachment to Christian values and identity.” Among those values, he noted, were “love and mercy towards other people,” including, he said with a perhaps a touch of irony, those who had vilified and lied about him during his campaign. 

    On more overtly political matters, Nawrocki affirmed that at the center of his “Plan 21” platform were two negative imperatives: “no” to illegal migration “no” to adopting the euro. Poland would maintain its own currency, and thus its independence from the encroachments of the EU not only on matters of illegal immigration but also on such subjects as energy (Nawrocki is pro-nuclear energy) and the florid sexual exoticism of LGBTQ+ and transsexual activists.  

    During his meeting with Trump in the Oval Office, Nawrocki stressed his commitment to bolster Poland’s contribution to NATO. It already stands at 4.7 percent of GDP, he noted, one of the highest in the EU, and his goal is 5 percent. 

    Trump endorsed Nawrocki last spring and it was clear that the two men have a lot in common. Both are pro-growth, pro-law and order (Nawrocki is an independent but is supported by the conservative Law and Justice party), and pro-national sovereignty. And just as Donald Trump has been wildly castigated (and indicted) by agents of the globalist, deep-state establishment, so Nawrocki has been the object of a campaign of vilification by the usual suspects. The Polish American, anti-Trump writer Anne Applebaum, for example, has dismissed Nawrocki as an “authoritarian populist candidate” and advocate of “blood-and-soil nationalism.” The side-long allusion to the diminutive Austrian house painter with the funny mustache was not adventitious.  

    In fact, Karol Nawrocki is one of a new breed of politically mature populist leaders in Europe, among whose number I would include Italy’s Giorgia Meloni and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. These are leaders who have rejected the malicious hot-house utopianism of open borders and fantasy politics in which a nurturing past is exchanged for a congeries of militantly superficial and enervating liberal clichés. If leaders like Karol Nawrocki represent the future of Europe, Europe’s future will be bright. Donald Trump saw that instantly, which is why the two men exhibited such obvious rapport and camaraderie in the Oval Office. I predict that meeting marked the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

  • Xi and Putin dabble in vampirism

    “They’re vampires” was my first thought. I had just heard the news that Putin and Xi were discussing how to prolong their lives, as they walked toward their places at the Tiananmen Square military parade. 

    On the official news footage, Putin’s translator could be heard saying in Chinese: “Biotechnology is continuously developing.” And then: “Human organs can be continuously transplanted. The longer you live, the younger you become, and [you can] even achieve immortality.” Xi responded: “Some predict that in this century humans may live to 150 years old.” Kim Jong-un was there too, but is not known to have contributed to the conversation.

    Maybe the blood-sucking image came to me because I was, when I heard this news, giving blood. My next thought was that it is the quintessence of secular individualism, to plot an attempt at immortality. It is a statement that one’s life is an entity unto itself, isolated from human community. Also, vampirism was an image favored by Karl Marx, in his description of capitalism. 

    In Capital, for example, he describes capital as “dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks.” So it is interesting that these three men grew up under communism. It would seem that the ideology had no real substance, no moral force.

    By the way, I rather enjoyed giving blood. After a nice summer break, things were feeling a bit oppressive over here in London, a city of strangers, elbowing each other out of the way. And it cheered me up, a friendly chat with a nice young nurse, and a sense of local community, of shared values. I’d feel differently if I was being paid for my blood: I’d feel resentful of the person who could afford to buy it from me. I’d feel that we were rivals, competing for resources.

    The immortality story featured on the evening news, as part of the general coverage of the military parade. The next item was our head of state, King Charles III, visiting a hospital in Birmingham, a visit delayed by his own cancer treatment. Unlike those Oriental despots, our monarch displays the vulnerability that he shares with the rest of us. 

    If he and his son William were overheard discussing prolonging their lives through organ donation, the monarchy would be over. He said to one patient: “Hips don’t work so well, do they, once you get past 70?” I might live in a palace, he was saying, but I share your knowledge of bodily infirmity, vulnerability.

    I was also reminded of another king, David. He committed a sort of act of vampirism, bedding another man’s wife, and getting the man killed in battle. It was an act of total selfishness, a denial of common humanity. And he repented, and his change of heart resulted in the poetry of the Psalms, an ur-text of common human vulnerability. Let these men have a change of heart, one that does not involve literal organ transplants.

  • The death throes of free speech in Britain – and its opponents

    Free speech, the very bedrock of constitutional democracy, is writhing on its deathbed in England. It will take a mass movement to restore its vitality. Fortunately, one can see that movement emerging among a once-free people, tired of government suppression.

    The dire state of British liberties was outlined Wednesday in Congressional testimony by British MP, Nigel Farage, who testified before the US House Judiciary Committee. He was backed by the committee’s Republican members and attacked, alas, by Democrats. 

    Powerful as his testimony was, it was overshadowed by an even more striking event: a phalanx of armed police arriving at Heathrow airport to arrest an Irish comedian for a tweet he posted in Arizona. His crime: he made fun of transgender people. Toss him in the dungeon.

    This is the same law enforcement, mind you, that ignored decades of child rape and “grooming” by Pakistani Muslims in northern England. 

    How is the lax treatment of grooming gangs connected to the harsh treatment of tweeting? By more than the lunacy and hypocrisy. The deeper connection is that successive Labour and Conservative governments have considered it more important to “protect” minority groups against bad words and criminal investigations than to protect innocent children or ensure free speech and open inquiry. “Social justice,” don’t you know?

    The collapse of free speech, under the repressive hand of British government, is deeply linked to the massive influx of immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East, who have little interest in adapting to English laws and customs and every interest in protecting the customs of their native lands. They have consistently refused to adopt the basic ideals of tolerance and forbearance that are fundamental to any functioning multicultural democracies.

    Instead of pushing back against this illiberal tide – an essential task if liberal democracy is to survive – political leaders in the UK and most of Western Europe have appeased it. Just as bad, they have suppressed any opposition.

    The common theme among these feckless leaders is their lack of confidence in their own cultural traditions and historic national achievements. They have refused to stand up for those basic values and traditions in the face of ferocious, illiberal assaults, stemming mainly from these hostile immigrant communities, often supported by progressive elites, who share the leaders’ lack of cultural self-confidence. Instead of resisting these illiberal assaults, halting immigration, and limiting the lifelong provision of free housing and income, those leaders have acceded to these demands and smacked down anyone who says different. The price has been enormous.

    How bad is it? Bad enough that people are now being arrested in England and Scotland for putting up flags or wearing them on their clothes. Waving the national flag is somehow considered an insult to immigrants. This show of patriotism must be stopped and the miscreants arrested.

    These arrests do more than crush free speech. They also deter free assembly, or at least they are intended to do so, if that assembly opposes government policy. But the right to assemble peacefully to protest government policy is the very essence of a functioning democracy.

    The connection between speech and assembly is often overlooked, but it is crucially important. It is free assembly – mass crowds, mobilized around political demands – that threaten governments. That is why the two rights, speech and assembly, are paired in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. That is why their absence in English law is so devastating. Their absence gives free rein to a repressive government. That is exactly what is happening now in England and Scotland.

    The right to speak openly and assemble freely, allow citizens to voice their opinions, demonstrate the intensity of those views, protest some government policies and advocate others, and express those opinions without seeking permission from the very government they may be contesting.

    The British, who have no written constitution or bill of rights, give no such protections to their citizens, either in theory or in practice. That is why today’s repressive governments can treat citizens like subjects, to be suppressed or arrested when they say something objectionable to those in power. What is objectionable? We in power will decide. Not you.

    It is a special tragedy to see this repression take place in England, the fountainhead of free speech and assembly in western civilization. The theory was best stated in John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty (1859), with roots that run back two centuries to John Locke and still further to the Glorious Revolution and Magna Carta. Mill’s vital points are that ideas need to withstand the test of counter-arguments and best evidence, that multiple views need to be heard and tested, and that citizens can then reach their own, informed judgments.

    The wisdom of Mill’s analysis was not limited to his book or the scholarly discourse it prompted. It was already embedded in Parliamentary debate, public speeches, and the free publication of newspapers and magazines.

    This open discourse is a magnificent achievement and a historically rare one. Few countries have ever permitted it, and it is in jeopardy now in the very birthplace of these freedoms, trampled by ignorant and malign political leaders. It’s easy to see why those in power don’t want to hear opposing voices or critical tweets. They don’t say so plainly, of course. They prefer to wrap themselves in the high-flying moral language of “social justice.” Whatever the justification, they use the full repressive weight of state power to smash alternative views. They alone decide which views are permissible.

    They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this power grab – this blatant suppression of basic democratic rights. Politicians, bureaucrats, and police shouldn’t decide what can be said and what must be silenced. Not in a free country. They shouldn’t be allowed to turn the birthplace of liberty into its charnel house.

  • Will Trump cripple Brazil if Jair Bolsonaro is found guilty?

    Will Trump cripple Brazil if Jair Bolsonaro is found guilty?

    The trial of Brazil’s former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro on charges of plotting a coup to topple the current President Lula da Silva is entering its final stages.

    Bolsonaro, 70, and seven co- defendants are accused of conspiring to oust Lula, the veteran left-winger who narrowly beat him in the 2022 Presidential election. The Supreme Court in Brasilia will consider its verdict this week. If – as expected – the court convicts Bolsonaro, the ailing ex-President is looking at a lengthy jail sentence, and may die in prison as a result. Bolsonaro has been in poor health since he was stabbed in the abdomen in an assassination attempt while campaigning during his successful bid for the presidency in 2018.

    Such an outcome will not only dismay Bolsonaro and his many supporters in Brazil: it will also enrage US President Donald Trump, who has condemned the trial as a “witch hunt” against his ideological soulmate – and has threatened to impose punitive 50 percent tariffs against Lula’s Brazil in response.

    Bolsonaro is already under house arrest at his Brasília home and is forced to wear an ankle tag. The sanctions were imposed by the court after the ex- President attempted to seek political asylum in right wing President Javier Milei’s Argentina.

    The coup charges stem from a mass riot in January 2023 when thousands of Bolsonaro supporters stormed federal government buildings calling for the military to take over and oust Lula. That riot reminded many observers of the January 2021 rampage in Washington when hundreds of Trump supporters swarmed into the Capitol building in an unsuccessful effort to prevent President Biden taking over from Trump. President Trump pardoned those protesters jailed for insurrection over the riot when he was re-elected for his second term.

    Brazil is especially sensitive to talk of coups since the vast country – Latin America’s largest state by far – was ruled by a military dictatorship for 21 years between 1964 and 1985 after another elected left-wing President Joao “Jango” Goulart was deposed in a coup. Goulart died in exile in Argentina in 1976, officially of a heart attack, though many believe he was poisoned on the orders of the military junta.

    Bolsonaro, himself a former Army captain, was an outspoken supporter of the military dictatorship. He still retains much support among conservative Brazilians, and recent polls show that around 40 percent of people believe he is being unjustly persecuted by Lula’s regime. His condemnation would risk more violence and disorder in the streets.

    The legal authorities in Brazil have certainly given the former President no favours or granted him any allowances respecting his age and ill health. They have even forbidden Bolsonaro from contacting his son Edouardo, who is himself an aspiring right-wing politician.

    The harsh treatment reflects the social divisions in Brazil generated during the former President’s controversial time in office.

    If Bolsonaro is convicted and jailed as seems likely, and Trump follows through on his Tariff threats, it will put the US on a collision course with yet another Hispanic country, and this time with one that is the most powerful of them all.

  • Watch: Nigel Farage warns Congress about UK speech laws

    Watch: Nigel Farage warns Congress about UK speech laws

    UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer took aim at Nigel Farage in Parliament today for not being present. In fact, the Reform leader is on the other side of the Atlantic, testifying to the House Judiciary Committee on the state of free speech in the UK. The timing couldn’t have been better for Farage, what with the release of Lucy Connolly from prison (after she was incarcerated over a social media post) and the arrest of comedian Graham Linehan providing extraordinary case studies.

    And Farage was not holding back. First saying that he would have brought Connolly with him, had she not been restricted by travel rules following her conviction, he launched into quite the speech about freedom of expression in Britain. Using Linehan’s case as a warning for American travelers, Farage fumed:

    He put out some tweets months ago when he was in Arizona. And months later, he arrives at Heathrow Airport to be met by five armed police. Armed police. Not a big deal in the USA, a very big deal in the United Kingdom. Five of them. And he was arrested and taken away for questioning. He’s not even a British citizen. He’s an Irish citizen. This could happen to any American man or woman that goes to Heathrow, that has said things online that the British government and British police don’t like. 

    He went on, taking aim at legislation that allows police to monitor social media posts in the first place:

    It is a potentially big threat to tech bosses to many, many others. This legislation we’ve got will damage trade between our countries, threaten free speech across the West because of the knock-on rollout effects of this legislation from us or from the European Union. So I’ve come today as well to be a klaxon, to say to you, don’t allow piece by piece this to happen here in America, and you will be doing us and yourselves and all freedom-loving people a favor. If your politicians and your businesses said to the British government, you’ve simply got this wrong. At what point did we become North Korea? 

    Strong stuff! And it seems even politicians for the incumbent Labour party are rather perturbed by Linehan’s arrest, with Health Secretary Wes Streeting this morning suggesting that the law could be amended to ensure police focus instead on more serious crime. But given the outrage whipped up at the treatment of both Linehan and Connolly, even this could be too little too late…

    Watch the clip here:

  • Cynthia Nixon and the battle for Broadway

    Cynthia Nixon and the battle for Broadway

    When Representative Jerry Nadler announced his retirement this week, Democrats in New York instantly began preparing for a political drama worthy of its stage. Nadler’s district – the 12th, which covers the Upper West and Upper East Sides, Midtown, Times Square and the United Nations – is the geographic heart of Manhattan. It’s also one of the safest Democratic seats in the country. Whoever wins the primary will not only control a powerful perch in Congress, but also inherit a stage in the very center of America’s media capital.

    That’s the problem. In New York’s 12th, politics isn’t about solving problems. It’s about performance.

    For decades, Nadler played the part of Manhattan’s liberal lion. But in his later years, his work as a legislator was overshadowed by his role as a star of the Trump impeachment saga. Nadler’s most memorable moments in Congress weren’t about fixing housing costs, reducing crime, or dealing with New York’s collapsing infrastructure. They were about sitting in front of cameras, promising to “hold Trump accountable.” Even Nadler’s allies now admit his retirement marks the end of an era defined less by governance and more by political theater.

    Enter the next cast of characters. Micah Lasher, a state assemblymember and former Nadler aide, is already being framed as the establishment’s choice. But this is Manhattan, which means Lasher won’t have the stage to himself. Expect a chorus of progressives, activists and democratic socialists eager to turn this district into their next soapbox. Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist who recently became the Democratic mayoral nominee, only narrowly beat Andrew Cuomo in June – but his upset has emboldened the left. His allies will see Nadler’s seat as a prime opportunity to push their agenda further.

    This is, after all, the district of liberal royalty and celebrity activism. Among those considering running is Cynthia Nixon, who ran for governor from its leafy streets. So too Molly Jong-Fast, the socialite-turned-MSNBC commentator, who tweets furiously from the Upper East Side. And of course, the Kennedy-Schlossberg clan still hovers around the neighborhood, auditioning themselves for future office. These are the “stars” of District 12 – figures who are repellent to mainstream America but perfectly at home in Manhattan’s bubble, where politics is just another performance art.

    This race will be covered breathlessly by CNN, MSNBC and the New York Times not because the district’s voters face unique struggles, but because it provides the perfect script. In New York’s “Political Theater District,” the Democratic primary will be marketed as a battle for the soul of the party: Wall Street donors versus socialist insurgents. One candidate will claim the mantle of responsible governance; another will demand revolutionary change. The audience – journalists, Ivy League professors, and Upper East Side donors – will cheer from the sidelines.

    Meanwhile, the actual constituents of NY-12 face real problems that will barely register in the debates. Manhattan is struggling with skyrocketing housing prices, public safety concerns, an overwhelmed shelter system, and an affordability crisis that is driving middle-class families out of the city altogether. Yet those issues will take a backseat to ideological pageantry. The candidates aren’t running to represent New Yorkers. They’re running to impress MSNBC bookers, national activist groups and wealthy donors who see New York as a testing ground for their preferred brand of politics.

    It is telling that within hours of Nadler’s retirement announcement, Democratic clubs were already organizing candidate forums – not around issues like public safety or schools, but around how best to position the district as a national stage. In Manhattan, the applause of the crowd has become more important than the quality of governance.

    This is the broader story of today’s Democratic Party. In cities across America, Democrats are more interested in performance than results. Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson delivers speeches about equity while his city’s crime spirals. San Francisco officials declare their city a climate leader while families flee in record numbers. In Washington, House Democrats compete to see who can deliver the sharpest sound bite about Donald Trump, while ignoring the border crisis and inflation. Nadler’s district is simply the most glaring example because of where it sits: at the center of the world’s cameras.

    The Democratic base in Manhattan doesn’t want a legislator. It wants a performer. The district’s voters have been conditioned to expect headlines, not solutions. That’s why Nadler’s fiercest defenders remember his role in the impeachment hearings, not any serious legislation he passed for New Yorkers. That’s why Lasher will be asked how well he can defend democracy on cable television, not how he plans to fix crime on the subways.

    The irony is that even as Democrats cast themselves as the “serious party of governance,” their most coveted congressional district has become a caricature of everything wrong with modern politics: politics as performance art, driven by donors, activists and an elite media audience that rewards theatrics over substance.

    As Nadler exits stage left, the show will go on. The candidates will fight over who can deliver the loudest applause line, who can attract the flashiest endorsements, and who can position themselves as the next national star. But don’t expect them to fix the problems that have made life in New York harder for ordinary families. The district is no longer about serving New Yorkers. It’s about serving as America’s most glamorous political theater.

    For Democrats, New York’s 12th District is the most important congressional seat in the country. But for the rest of America, it’s just another reminder: when it comes to governance, the Democratic Party has forgotten its lines.