The Left's crooked moral compass or the inversion of morality: the state in which good no longer seeks the truth, but justifies itself through lies; AKA when man uses morality to justify his own immorality, calling it virtue

Lars Hedegaard of the University of Southern Denmark and the Copenhagen Business School reports that

Daniel Karpantschof has written a thought-provoking essay on the origins of modern anti-Semitism. The text is long, but worth reading. I particularly notice that the term Nakba – the catastrophe, when it was launched in 1948, originally had a completely different meaning than the one used by today's Palestinians. I also find it interesting that the land of Israel cannot be described as a colonial power — as the so-called "anti-Zionists" are accustomed to. On the contrary, Israel is the result of decolonization.

Here is the Karpantschof essay, which focuses on Jews, Israel, and anti-Semitism, while also addressing — when you think about it — the assassinations, attempted or otherwise, of Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump, as well as pronouncements by Leftist politicians, campaigners, bloggers, podcasters, harpies, "demented schoolgirls", and other drama queens and Locofocos in places like Virginia and Connecticut, where a mainstream Democratic Congressman Suggest[ed that a] Democratic President Might Assassinate MAGA Republicans. Indeed, in Adieu New York, Lars Hedegaard wrote that 

When I see pictures of the Democratic mayoral candidate in New York, the constantly grinning Mohammedan Zohran Mamdani, I think of one of the nicknames that Muslims give to Allah: the smiling killer. Mamdani is almost certain to win the election on November 4, as he is expected to receive about half of the votes cast. New York will thus be the next Western metropolis after London to come under Muslim control. It took the Muslims only a few decades to carry out this fundamental and irreversible social upheaval. What will be the next Western metropolis to fall under Allah's turban? …

Back to the Karpantschof essay:

The Perversion of Morality

By Daniel Karpantschof

An old friend called the other day. We have known each other for twenty years. He said: “Now the war is over — so it's okay for us to talk again.” I had heard nothing from him while hatred of Jews was growing.

Not while Carolineskolen, the only Jewish school in Denmark, had increased security guards and children were once again advised to hide their Stars of David, not while red triangles and red lines were being pasted up in marches favoring the Palestinians, and not while the posters on Copenhagen's Store Kongensgade said that it was better to kill a Zionist than an animal.

But now that he thought it was all “over,” he thought it was safe to have a Jewish friend again.

I hung up the phone and thought that this — this crooked moral compass — had become the disease of our time: The state in which good no longer seeks the truth, but justifies itself through lies. What I later realized was the beginning of what I call the inversion of morality.

When reality becomes absurd

Days after October 7th, I wrote to Roskilde Music Festival's director, Signe Lopdrup.

I suggested that the festival — as a symbol of freedom and community and less about the victims of brutal, bestial terror — should condemn the terrorist attack in which young Israelis were murdered, raped, and taken hostage at the Nova Festival.

I added that had it been any other festival, anywhere in the world, the reaction would have been immediate. But there was no response. Not a word.

The silence said it all.

For at that moment the absurdity became real: It was no longer the violence that determined whether we reacted — but whom the violence affected. [See also Charlie Kirk, etc…]

The inversion of morality is when goodness is turned upside down, so that the moral value of an action is no longer measured by its content — but by its sender.

It is the state in which guilt becomes virtue, and justice becomes a question of who, not what.

The inversion of morality is the moment when we stop judging actions by their nature and instead judge by who does them.

That is where the axis of civilization shifts — from ethics to identity, from truth to sympathy. Once the axis of morality has turned, the distortion quickly becomes culture. What begins as an exception becomes the norm.

That is where the next phase enters: the perversity of morality.

The perversity of morality is when the opposite becomes normal — when man uses morality to justify his own immorality, calling it virtue.

It is the state in which empathy becomes selective, where truth is bent for the sake of emotion, and where evil is done in the name of good.

Perversity is not the rupture of inversion — it is its afterlife.

It is the moment when we stop simply distorting the good and begin to cultivate the distortion as goodness. Where the language of morality itself becomes a tool for justifying the lie.

When freedom changed sides

Emma Lazarus wrote: “Until we are all free, we are none of us free.”

The American-Jewish poet wrote it not as a slogan, but as an experience. Freedom was not a privilege for her — but a duty.

Today her words are on posters and shouted by those who want to abolish the state that was created to give her own people a home. Lazarus wrote about freedom — they quote her to attack it.

The language of freedom is now used to deny freedom, and the ideal of justice to justify injustice. This is the perversity of morality in its purest form:

When what was once good becomes the servant of evil — and man calls his own complicity a virtue.

The inverted colonial history

One of the clearest examples of this distortion is the story of the state of Israel.

Today Israel is often referred to as a colonial project — as a foreign power imposed on the Middle East by the West. But it is an inversion of both history and truth.

Israel was not born of colonization, but of its demise.

It was one of the world's first anti-colonial states — created in the wake of the collapse of the old empires. A people, displaced and persecuted for two thousand years, returned to their historic homeland after the colonial powers had withdrawn. Israel is the product of decolonization.

Calling the Jews the colonial masters of Israel is not just ahistorical; it is an inversion of history, of morality, and of truth.

It is to take the only example of an indigenous people reclaiming their land after millennia of exile and transform it into the narrative of an occupation.

When the victims of history's colonialism are made its symbol, what is revealed is not Israel's mistake, but the inversion of morality.

The catastrophe that changed meaning

When the Syrian historian Constantin Zureiq called the Arab defeat the Nakba in 1948 — the catastrophe — he meant it literally.

He wrote that the catastrophe lay not in the defeat but in self-deception: Seven Arab armies went to war to annihilate a newborn Jewish state — and lost.

Today, the Nakba means something entirely different.

It is no longer a showdown with mistakes and responsibilities, but a narrative of eternally innocent victims. Here we see the inversion in practice: guilt has become virtue.

And its result — perversity — is a culture where responsibility is sin, and victimhood the highest morality. The symbol of modern perversity

Greta Thunberg has — in her own way — become a mirror of our times.

Not as a person, but as a phenomenon: a symbol of a generation that has learned to feel strongly but think weakly. She became famous for skipping school for a cause — there is hardly a better symbol of anti-knowledge.

When she posted a picture of a "starving Palestinian," it turned out that it was actually a Jewish hostage held captive by Hamas. When the truth came out, she deleted the post. Not to correct, but to forget.

It was not evil, but the perversity of morality — the reflex in which one would rather maintain one's self-perception as good than face reality. Thunberg is not the culprit — she is merely the mirror. A picture of how Western empathy has been blinded by its own reflection.

Denmark's mirror

Here too, perversity finds its place.

According to Denmark's Security and Intelligence Agency (PET) and the Ministry of Justice's 2024 Security Survey, the number of anti-Semitic incidents has increased significantly since October 2023 — from harassment and vandalism to threats and assaults.

The Jewish Community warns again that Danish Jews are hiding symbols, changing routes, and avoiding talking about Israel in public.

Jews have long been excluded from the joint work on the memorial event for Kristallnacht — an event that was supposed to unite the victims, but instead became a picture of how they are being written out of the history of anti-Semitism, and the Jewish community has had to create its own alternative event.

The ultimate manifestation of the inversion of morality — and its final destination, the perversity of morality: Jews excluded from Denmark's memorial event for Kristallnacht.

In Copenhagen, some people are running for office on the slogan “Zionists out of town.”

Those who post the pictures see themselves as anti-racists — but they repeat Europe's darkest language. The words are almost the same as in 1930s Germany: “Juden Raus!”

When a European capital once again sees hatred of Jews as “expression of opinion,” it shows how far we have sunk into the moral dissonance left by the perversity of morality.

Movements by guardians of morality, who raise their voices when the world does not agree with their feelings and call it conscience, are seen today, with precisely this erosion.

They write declarations, hang banners, shout outside the prime minister's apartment, brace themselves for cycling, cultural events, and singing competitions, and believe that indignation is the same as responsibility. But morality does not need guardians. It needs witnesses.

The guardian judges. The witness sees.

The guardian wants to own the truth. The witness seeks it.

The old guardians, who once stood guard over morality and humanity, have today become guardians of the perversity of morality itself — protectors of the self-righteousness that arises when inversion becomes a system. They defend the illusion of the good, but no longer the good itself.

The inversion of morality occurs when the guardian forgets that morality is not a mirror to others, but to itself. The perversity of morality occurs when this forgetfulness becomes culture — when good is distorted so that it justifies its own intolerance in the name of virtue.

And here arises what one might call the evil of banality:

Not the banality of evil, as Hannah Arendt described it — but its modern inversion.

Because today it is not blind obedience that nourishes evil, but conscious, selective distance.

A form of moral laziness, in which man adopts a moral inversion because it is more comfortable not to know. Because perversity has taken root.

It is no longer the system that makes us complicit, but the moral inversion of convenience. Not totalitarianism, but complacency.

Not hatred, but ignorance, selection, inversion.

It is the evil of banality:

The quiet, cultivated apathy where the inversion of morality is allowed to grow — because no one cares anymore to know the difference between what is right and what just feels right.

Because the feeling of right weighs more heavily than the knowledge of right, and many people feel quite strongly and think quite weakly.

One problem with wealth-tax proposals is that they are more focused on eliminating the rich than actually feeding the poor

 

Answering The Economist's question whether wealth should be taxed, a reader points out something about popular pop songs:

Ten Years After had a hit song in 1971 with “I’d Love to Change the World”. The lyrics included the line, “Tax the rich, feed the poor, 'til there are no rich no more.” Interestingly, the song did not say 'til there are no poor no more. One problem with wealth-tax proposals is that they are more focused on eliminating the rich than actually feeding the poor. And on that point, the chorus of that song is also telling: “I’d love to change the world, but I don’t know what to do, so I’ll leave it up to you.” Enough said.

paul greenberg

Brookline, Massachusetts

  

Mind-Boggling: America's statues "weren't desecrated or destroyed" — The Left Is Rewriting Its Mobs Tearing Down of Statues to Only a Desire to Put Them "into museums to commemorate the fallen during the Civil War"

The head is spinning! The propensity of the Left to rewrite history — ancient or recent, its own as well as everybody else's — is rarely anything less than mind-boggling.  The Leftists' latest rewriting of history concerns their mobs tearing down of America's statues in and around 2020:

When one leftist went berserk on Facebook regarding the fate of the White House's East Wing, I posted a Fox story quoting Sen. Josh Hawley. The Missouri Republican

replied that the far left has supported the destruction of statues of U.S. historical figures in recent years. 

 … "I hear all of a sudden from my liberal friends that they’re very concerned about our history. Really? These are the same people who tore down every statue they could get their hands on in the last four years," the lawmaker said. … "Christopher Columbus, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt. They didn’t have any concern for history then. Now, all of a sudden, they’re like, ‘Oh, the facade of the East Wing is iconic,'" Hawley said. "Oh, give me a break. I mean, give me a break."

That post of mine got two reactions. From Ann:

Statues are different than the White House and you know that.

So now, it's "just" statues (it wasn't "only" statues when y'all were tearing them down, they were symbols of America's intrinsic evil — including even… Northern statues!). And "you know that," you damn conservative, meaning that therefore you should just shut up! (Thanks for the hyperlink, Sarah.)

Wait, it gets better! From Dori:

we supported said statues be put into museums to commemorate the lost and fallen during the Civil War.  They weren't desecrated or destroyed in the process of taking them down.

You have just entered the twilight zone! Leftist mobs (dripping with patriotism?) removed the statues (respectfully? in a professional manner?) for the sole reason to… (respectfully?) place them inside (respected?) museums?! And only to honor America, her history, as well as both sides in the Civil War?!?!

To the first woman ("Statues are different than the White House") I replied

You're right Ann … : it's far worse!

before proceeding to quote the Bob Woodson interview at the very bottom of this post. To the second woman I answered with a news item about Hans Heg, an (anti-slavery) officer in the Union army whose statue was thrown into a lake, although not before being… decapitated [see also the Stonewall Jackson statue]. To Dori's contention that "They weren't desecrated or destroyed in the process of taking them down" I linked a news report about the Hans Heg statue, adding that

Of course they were Dori …

Statues were painted over, (unceremoniously) torn down, decapitated, and dumped in lakes, as hysterical mobs squealed in glee. I see that the left's rewriting of history and that their fairy tales are never far from the surface.

One observer who has made profound observations about the left and their tactics is NATE HOCHMAN. Last year, he noted that the anniversary of Robert E. Lee’s surrender to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox 

was occasion for gleeful crowing from the left-wing corners of the internet. “Happy Traitors Surrendering Day,” one young Virginia Democrat wrote. “F*** Robert E. Lee, f*** the Confederacy, and f*** their cause of treason.” A widely shared video featured a woman chugging “rebel tears” to celebrate the Confederacy “taking a fat f***ing L.” (Gratuitous vulgarity seems to be a feature of this discourse.) The famous left-wing hacker group Anonymous added, “On this day (April 9th, 1865) the Confederacy surrendered after getting it’s [sic] ass kicked.” 

Notice, incidentally, that the vulgar cheers recall the recent ones in the wake of the brutal killing of Charlie Kirk ("It Should Not Be Considered Free Speech" Says Karsenty of the Left's Anti-Kirk Rants; "It Is the Glorification of Terrorism"). In Undoing the Appomattox, HOCHMAN points out that what the Left is doing "is rewriting history. What are they giving themselves permission to do?" 

 … Today’s vulgar cheers have very little to do with the Civil War at all. Today’s gleeful celebration of Lee’s surrender is part and parcel of the same fervor that has sought to remove any positive commemoration of the Southern general and his counterparts from public life. It has nothing to do with the Confederacy, except insofar as the soiled memory of the Antebellum South can be mobilized to undermine, attack, and delegitimize Red America. The contemporary Left seeks to recast the white, conservative, Christian lumpenproletariat as the inheritors of slavery, segregation, and the numerous other crimes that have replaced men like Grant and Lee at the center of our new national mythology. 

 … This is the true meaning behind the gratuitous, jeering celebrations of Appomattox. It is not, as the anonymous X user Lunkhead noted, about “hating traitors” so much as it is about a fervent desire to punish contemporary enemies. Given the violent nature of the Confederacy’s demise, it’s reasonable to ask: Just what, exactly, are they giving themselves permission to do?

I foresaw this in 2015, when the Rebel flag was starting to get demonized (Another Brick in the Leftwing Activists' (Self-Serving) Demonization of America and Rewriting of History). Of course, as I have written in the past, the Confederacy really represented the Democratic Party, and when an ignominious Republican had the gall to win the election of 1860 (the Election of a Ghastly Republican to the White House, shades of 2016, 2020, and 2024), the Democrats went berserk, and for the next four years, these drama queens (called by Abraham Lincoln Fire-eaters and Locofocos) tore the country apart. 

As I quoted Bob Woodson, the founder of 1776 Unites, as saying, concerning the entire 1619 Project — check out The 1619 Project Summarized in One Single Sentence:

This is a fight against … the credentials of this country … slavery was a stain [beyond] which we moved … This is really a struggle for the soul of this nation. Lincoln [and the Emancipation Memorial] are a symbol of redemption, and the Left does not believe in redemption. 

… One of the steps of defeating truth is to destroy evidence of the truth. Because these statues, like the Emancipation Memorial, are evidence of America's redemption from slavery, it's important for [the Left] to remove evidence of the truth.

Related: From U.S. Grant and Union Soldiers Fighting the Slavocracy to John Brown and Abraham Lincoln, All Statues Must Come Down 

• What Caused Secession and Ergo the Civil War? Was It Slavery and/or States' Rights? Or Wasn't It Rather Something Else — the Election of a Ghastly Republican to the White House? 

• During the Winter of 1860-1861, Did the South's Democrats Obtain Their Aim — the Secession of 7 Slave States — Thanks to Elections Filled with Stealth, Lies, Voter Fraud, Intimidation, Violence, and Murder?

• Wondering Why Slavery Persisted for Almost 75 Years After the Founding of the USA? According to Lincoln, the Democrat Party's "Principled" Opposition to "Hate Speech"

• The Greatest Myth in U.S. History: Yes, the Civil War Era Did Feature Champions of States' Rights, But No, They Were Not in the South (Au Contraire) 

• A Century and Half of Apartheid Policies: From Its 1828 Foundation, the Democrat Party Has Never Shed Its Racist Past

• Harry Jaffa on the Civil War Era: For Democrats of the 21st Century as of the 19th, "the emancipation from morality was/is itself seen as moral progress"

• Why Does Nobody Ever Fret About Scandinavia's — Dreadful — 19th-C Slavery Conditions?

• The Confederate Flag: Another Brick in the Leftwing Activists' (Self-Serving) Demonization of America and Rewriting of History 

• How to Prevent America from Becoming a Totalitarian State

• Inside of a month, Democrats have redefined riots and election challenges from the highest form of patriotism to an attack on democracy — And by “democracy”, they mean the Democrat Party

• Why They Don't Tell You the Whole Truth:  The 1619 Project Summarized in One Single Sentence

Powered By AI, The U.S. Is Experiencing A Massive Boom In Investment; Sebastien Laye Explains the Reason Behind the Rebound

As Dick Morris announces that, Powered By AI, The U.S. Is Experiencing A Massive Boom In Investment, Sebastien Laye explains in the Washington Examiner the reason for the massive boom while launching a challenge: Build the infrastructure, build the AI boom.

America’s economic rebound despite tariffs during the second quarter is not a mystery — it was all dependent on artificial intelligence and data center construction. 

 … My thesis is simple: if the United States wants to sustain this growth over the next 12 months and avoid a natural slowdown, it must go all-in now on building AI infrastructure — slash permitting timelines, green-light energy projects, and mass-train the HVAC techs, electricians, and plumbers who turn capital into capacity. 

 … On power, the lesson from Europe’s moratoria is cautionary: where capacity is scarce and approvals slow, investment doesn’t pause — it just re-routes to other countries. The U.S. should take the opposite track. …

RESTORING AMERICA: HARNESSING AI TO MAKE AMERICA HEALTHY AGAIN

We have been here before. America’s 19th-century railroad boom and 20th-century highway system were growth engines that reorganized production and settlement. 30 years ago, we built the massive infrastructure underpinning the new internet. Today’s rails are fiber and power lines; today’s junctions are substation yards. 

In the meantime, Sébastien Laye's new book seems to be selling well.

The title of the book is Des moutons menés par des ânes ?, or Sheep Led by Donkeys? or Sheep Led by Asses? The title is based on the age-old idiom Lions led by donkeys, and readers will recognize that its title could apply to just about any country in the Western hemisphere.

In the U.S., the superfluous is revoked to salvage the essential; In France, on the other hand, the superfluous is subsidized to conceal the essential

In the United States, what is superfluous gets mercilessly cut; In France, what is superfluous gets readily financed.

In an op-ed for Le Diplomate, Nicolas Conquer speaks about courage in the political sense, contrasting two ways of reforming government, in France and in Trump's America. Shutdown à Washington, panne de courage à Paris. There are so many good quotes here that it's hard to pick only one.

Shutdown in Washington, lack of courage in Paris: "In the United States, we cut the superfluous. In France, we finance it."

The United States is living in slow motion, but debating. France is spending lavishly, but remaining silent. The American shutdown acts like a cruel mirror: over there, we embrace confrontation; here, we subsidize resignation.

When the Americans cut the superfluous, France maintains the useless

For two weeks, part of the American administration has been at a standstill.

America is tearing itself apart, but debating. It embraces disagreement. And this is what distinguishes Washington from Paris: when the United States blocks to defend principles, France unblocks to buy social peace.

 … But behind the partisan tumult, Uncle Sam is asking a simple question: what should the state do, and at what cost?

In France, this question is never asked. When the state runs out of money, it borrows. When it goes into debt, it taxes. And at the end of the day, it's still John Doe who pays. Reform means only spending differently, never spending less. Our leaders dream of public efficiency, but reject state restraint. The result: a country on permanent budgetary life support, spending 57% of its national wealth without ever asking why.

The State, a business without a customer

The American crisis reminds us that a state, like any organization, must be able to question itself. In the private sector, a useless business closes. In the public sector, it becomes an acquired right.

 … In the United States, the superfluous is revoked to save the essential; In France, on the other hand, the superfluous is subsidized to conceal the essential. 

Shutdown à Washington, panne de courage à Paris : « Aux États-Unis, on coupe le superflu. En France, on le finance. »

Les États-Unis vivent au ralenti, mais débattent. La France dépense sans compter, mais se tait. Le shutdown américain agit comme un miroir cruel : là-bas, on assume la confrontation ; ici, on subventionne la résignation.

Quand les Américains coupent dans le superflu, la France entretient l’inutile

Depuis deux semaines, une partie de l’administration américaine est à l’arrêt. 

 … Les Républicains veulent réduire les dépenses, les Démocrates du Sénat refusent de voter la loi de finances temporaire — la Continuing Resolution — tant que leurs priorités ne sont pas financées. Parmi elles : plus de 1500 milliards de dollars supplémentaires pour prolonger des programmes d’aide hérités de l’ère Obama, y compris pour des immigrés en situation irrégulière. Oui, vous avez bien lu ! Donald Trump, lui, théâtralise le bras de fer : il sait que ses adversaires se piégeront par leurs propres calculs politiciens. Règle élémentaire de l’Art de la guerre : ne jamais interrompre un ennemi en train de commettre une erreur. 

L’Amérique se déchire, mais débat. Elle assume le désaccord. Et c’est bien ce qui distingue Washington de Paris : quand les États-Unis bloquent pour défendre des principes, la France débloque pour acheter la paix sociale.

 … Mais derrière le tumulte partisan, l’Amérique pose une question simple : que doit faire l’État, et à quel prix ?

En France, cette question n’est jamais posée. Quand l’État manque d’argent, il emprunte. Quand il s’endette, il taxe. Et à la fin de la journée c’est encore Nicolas qui paie. Réformer consisterait à dépenser autrement, jamais à dépenser moins. Nos gouvernants rêvent d’efficacité publique, mais refusent la sobriété étatique. Résultat : un pays sous perfusion budgétaire permanente, qui dépense 57 % de sa richesse nationale sans jamais se demander pourquoi.

 … L’État, cette entreprise sans client

La crise américaine rappelle qu’un État, comme toute organisation, doit pouvoir se remettre en cause. Dans le privé, une entreprise inutile ferme. Dans le public, elle devient un droit acquis. 

 … Les États-Unis suspendent le superflu pour sauver l’essentiel. La France, elle, subventionne le superflu pour masquer l’essentiel. 

Sébastien Laye's Latest Book Has Been Selling Hundreds of Copies

💥 "Nos élites, nos ânes, ont vendu aux Français l’idée que l’avenir et la grandeur de la France se jouaient dans la dilution européenne. Force est de constater que c’est une catastrophe !"

🗣️ @SebastienLaye, auteur de "Des moutons menés par des ânes ?" aux éditions @EditionsVa… pic.twitter.com/M4wfHdIdxX

— Ligne Droite • La matinale de RC (@Ligne__Droite) October 20, 2025

Invité sur La Matinale de RC par la Ligne Droite, Sebastien Laye est venu parler de son nouveau livre, qu'il évoque aussi dans une vidéo sur Youtube. Comme il le dit sur X Twitter, il y a des bonnes nouvelles et des mauvaises nouvelles. Les bonnes nouvelles, c'est que Des moutons menés par des ânes ? est déjà "sold out" sur Amazon.fr. Or, il semblerait que le livre soit la victime d'une espèce de shadow-banning :

Mon essai "Des Moutons menés par des ânes?" est deja un best seller mais impossible de l'avoir sous moins d'un mois chez @AmazonNewsFR @amazon . Marre de cette censure des livres de droite. Je vais faire remonter l'information aux USA, où Amazon s'est engagé à ne pas censurer les ouvrages. Surtout qu'il s'agit d'un simple essai économique sans prise de positions idéologiques, c'est juste un livre libéral de droite. @tegnererik @louise_morice_ @DorineRouyer

… woke or centrists LOVE books censorship. they censor even without reading the books ! in my case they are pissed off because of a foreword by a catholic businessman..@AmazonNewsFR @DavidSacks @JP_O @Ligne__Droite

Mon essai "Des Moutons menés par des ânes?" est deja un best seller mais impossible de l'avoir sous moins d'un mois chez @AmazonNewsFR @amazon . Marre de cette censure des livres de droite. Je vais faire remonter l'information aux USA, où Amazon s'est engagé à ne pas censurer les…

— sebastien laye (@SebastienLaye) October 20, 2025 

Useful Idiots: If Trump were really a fascist, the demonstrations would not have been possible, because in that case his “Gestapo” would have picked up the organizers at 4 a.m. and put them in concentration camps

Over at the New York Post, Glenn Reynolds points out that ‘No Kings’ crowds don’t want more democracy — they want LESS

Watching the “No Kings” protests, a friend commented: “Democracy dies when the other side wins. Another rule they wouldn’t want to have turned back on them.”

That does seem to be the animating spirit not only of the various marches around the country, but of the entire anti-Trump resistance. 

President Donald Trump’s crime isn’t anything he’s said, or done, or even believed (which, all too often, anti-Trump protesters can’t cogently describe anyway). 

It’s that he won, and he represents the other team.

As Batya Ungar-Sargon put it: “The ‘No Kings’ rally isn’t protesting Trump but rather the agenda the majority of America voted for. The Left isn’t protesting a king but their fellow Americans. They aren’t standing up for democracy — they are protesting against it.”

 … In fact, Trump is a “king” — or “dictator,” as we’re often told — whose actual program seems to involve shrinking the government he heads. That’s not the usual thing for autocrats.

 … As Meghan McCain tweeted, “I don’t understand how Trump is a King when he won every single swing state, the electoral college and popular vote in a democratic election.”

[With sarcasm dripping from his lips,] Legal scholar Ilya Shapiro responded, “No no he’s a king by dismantling an administrative state that <checks notes> nobody voted for.”

That’s Trump’s real sin — carrying out the will of the voters.

Democrats know their policies are unpopular. That’s why they have to lie about everything from immigration to affirmative action to gun control. 

During the COVID years, the same people who are out marching for “no kings” supported an endless array of dictatorial measures: lockdowns, firing people for not vaccinating, arresting people for being outside, arresting people for paddle-boarding in the ocean without a mask, arresting people for holding unlicensed religious services, etc.

Read the whole thing™. In the same vein, Batya Ungar-Sargon had some hard truths to deliver on CNN last weekend while Lars Hedegaard penned the following:

The Left Hates Democracy

Last Saturday, millions of Americans took part in numerous demonstrations under the slogan “No Kings”. The anger is directed at Donald Trump, who is not a king, but was elected by an absolute majority of voters in November last year. So it can be reasonably stated that the marches are opposing the citizens who installed a president they hate. It is democracy that they want to get rid of — expressed in the demand that Trump immediately resign.

For several years, Democratic leaders and their foot soldiers have been moaning about the “fascism” that they accuse Trump of being an exponent of. Apart from that, they do not present any real policy apart from the demand for unhindered immigration of anyone who can drag themselves across the US borders — regardless of whether they are drug dealers, human smugglers, gang members or just ordinary violent psychopaths. They will therefore do everything in the world to hinder the federal authorities' efforts to enforce the current legislation. Added to this are the vague notions that Trump wants to become a dictator and steal from the poor to give to the rich.

Fortunately for the protesters, they themselves have rich backers who are pouring billions into the protests and financing the approximately 250 organizations behind the “No Kings” marches. One of them is George Soros, who has made no secret of the fact that he hates the United States and will do whatever he can to bring down the West.

If Trump were really a fascist, the demonstrations would not have been possible, because in that case his “Gestapo” would have picked up the organizers and their financial backers at 4 a.m. and put them in concentration camps. The fact that people can freely demonstrate and hurl slogans and insults at the government shows that it is not fascist.

The Democrats' historical understanding is flawed. Trump is the exact opposite of a fascist. Since he came to power, he has worked tirelessly to resolve threatening military conflicts around the world — most recently in Gaza. Was it such an effort that distinguished Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini?

Trump is also trying to slim down the federal bureaucracy — that is, to limit the power of the state — while Hitler and Mussolini worked on the opposite. As Mussolini used to say: The state is everything! Hitler prided himself on not wanting to nationalize business, but to socialize the German people and make them obedient tools of the state. Trump and his Republicans, on the other hand, believe that the foundation of the United States is civil society, where citizens can freely pursue their happiness as long as they obey the law. That is how the American Constitution was conceived.

But the left hates the constitution and therefore acts in exactly the same way as Mussolini's Fasci italiani di combattimento and Adolf Hitler's stormtroopers. For the time being, the left-wing rabidists are content with a few executions of their opponents or assassinations.

But just as Mussolini's blackshirts and Hitler's brownshirts were paid for by someone, so too are the 250 organizations behind "No Kings."

The protesters pose as advocates for the poor. In reality, they are useful idiots taking to the streets to defend the economic hegemony of the ruling class. They just don't know it because they've never heard about it in the media.

"White boomers have the right to have a mass therapy session about the fact that Donald Trump won, but to call it a No Kings protest, to act like he is a king is so utterly preposterous. This is a man who won the popular vote. He won every swing state. He is a person who is… pic.twitter.com/EI5QE8Q6qg

— Thomas Hern (@ThomasMHern) October 21, 2025

"White boomers have the right to have a mass therapy session about the fact that Donald Trump won, but to call it a No Kings protest, to act like he is a king is so utterly preposterous. This is a man who won the popular vote. He won every swing state. He is a person who is enacting the exact agenda he promised he was going to enact while he was campaigning. And so what they are actually protesting is the absolute perfection of American democracy."

Submitting to Islam's Prayer Mat: The Middle East has learned what Europe has forgotten — that peace is not created by those who understand terror, but by those who defeat it

You need not belong to the Jewish faith to understand that the Talmud is right when it says: "If you are gentle with the wicked, you end up being wicked with the gentle." In Denmark's Kristeligt Dagblad (The Christian Daily) we find this outstanding article:

Europe brings the prayer mat forth in submission, while Israel is dancing again

Israel has won over terror, but Europe can look forward to a wave of evil that we ourselves have brought upon us, believes theology student Daniel Karpantschof

Interestingly, the title is turned two different ways in the newspaper itself and on the newspaper's website: While Israel is dancing again, Europe brings the prayer mat forth in submission. On Facebook, Daniel Karpantschof's article is simply called "Israel won. Europe lost." Daniel Karpantschof is a theology student, entrepreneur, and former Danish film consultant (thanks to my cousin Ellen).

ON OCTOBER 7, 2023, Israel was attacked in one of the most brutal terrorist attacks in modern times. Thousands of civilians were murdered, raped, and abducted. It was not a territorial conflict, but an attempted annihilation. Documents show this: “Burn. Slaughter. Broadcast”; handwritten by Sinwar, in his network of cowardly tunnels.

Two years later, it is unequivocal: Israel won. Europe lost.

Hamas’s leadership — Deif, Sinwar, Haniyeh — has been eliminated. The organization’s tunnels, command centers, and weapons depots have been destroyed. Gaza City and Rafah lie in ruins. Hezbollah’s leadership is divided, Nasrallah himself is killed, while Iran is reduced to a social media superpower.

The military results exceeded even Israel’s own expectations. Hamas’s infrastructure was not only knocked out — it was rendered impossible to rebuild. Its networks in Qatar and Lebanon have been burned down. Its “army” exists only in propaganda videos. Iran, which for years tried to control the region through proxies, is now seeing its grip weakened in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen.

Israel fought a war that combined technology, strategy, and exhausting patience. Israel’s beeper networks and drone control systems changed modern warfare. The precise coordination between air tactics, cyber warfare, and infantry regiments allowed the country to fight an enemy used to hiding among civilians without losing its moral compass.

BUT ISRAEL’S VICTORY was also political.

The country stood firm despite massive international and media pressure. It refused to let world opinion dictate its right to self-defense — and ended up creating results that even skeptics must now acknowledge: a new regional order. All attempts to renounce the Jewish state on the world stage have — once again — been met with a stone wall. Eurovision, UEFA, FIFA, and Hollywood can stand with as many red hands as they want.

The new European reflex — to respond to terror with understanding and to violence — should raise alarm bells throughout the West.

And Israel is no longer isolated. Several Arab countries — including Lebanon and Syria — have opened diplomatic channels. Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia have all signaled that Hamas’s time is over. Even Jordan and Iraq have allowed Israel to use their airspace.

For the first time in recent times, Hamas has been pressured by the Arab world — not supported by it. Iran has been put on the defensive, Hezbollah has hesitated, and the Houthi attacks (or the “Hezbollah of Temu,” as they are known in Israel) that once caused global fear have been met with coordinated responses from Western and Arab forces.

The Middle East has learned what Europe has forgotten: that peace is not created by those who understand terror, but by those who defeat it.

THE GAZA IMAGES OF RECENT DAYS show that terror not only corrupts the soul — it consumes itself. After the hostage deal, Hamas is now executing its own people in the streets, while only the male hostages return home alive. The women — whom the world claimed to be fighting for — have disappeared under pretexts that even the régime’s supporters no longer believe. And for every civilian released, Israel has been forced, under international pressure, to release convicted mass murderers and perpetrators of terror against children and families. That is not symmetry — it is moral inversion.

WHILE ISRAEL HAS RECOVERED its strength, Europe has sunk into moral disorientation. It is not that anti-Semitism has returned — it never disappeared in the first place. In France, anti-Semitic attacks have increased by 400 percent. In Germany, by 80 percent. 96 percent of EU Jews say that anti-Semitism is now part of everyday life. In the Netherlands and Belgium, the numbers reached record highs in 2024.

The new bearers of hatred call themselves “anti-Zionists,” but they recycle the old narratives. They march not in boots, but in academic robes. They do not shout Sieg Heil, but "From the river to the sea". But when monuments to the rescue of Danish Jews during the Holocaust have to be hidden away, or are considered for removal once and for all, the writing is clearly on the wall. Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism cannot be separated.

Europe's media play along. The headlines talk about "battle between parties" and "proportions", as if a democracy and an Islamist militia were moral counterparts. Journalistic balance has turned into ethical blindness. While Jotam Confino had to resign as a correspondent on TV2, journalists at the Danish Broadcasting Corporation (DR) have been signing statements against Israel.

SEVERAL EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS — including Spain, Norway and Ireland — have chosen to recognize a Palestinian state in the midst of war. This is not peacemaking, but a precedent stating that violence is fruitful and lucrative.

When humanism becomes selective, it becomes meaningless. It is no small thing that the same politicians who call a defensive war "genocide" call an activist's deportation "kidnapping" and "concentration camp detention." The Dhimmis' submission has become total.

Not even the church stood firm. In 2024, eight of Denmark's 10 bishops chose to condemn Israel's military actions — but without a word about the Jewish hostages, the raped women, or the Hamas child soldiers. Nor do the eight bishops have the time, energy, or Christianity to condemn the tens of thousands of Christian corpses lying in Sudan, Nigeria, Syria, or Egypt. Christian blood is worth no more than it can be forgotten in order to shed Jewish blood.

That Europe's priests are again condemning Jews before condemning anti-Semitism is nothing new. It is a repetition. Instead of defending the basic principle of civilization — that man has the right to defend himself against evil — church leaders likewise succumbed to the temptation of moral symmetry.

Europe’s Jews are figuring this out faster than their leaders. Applications for Aliyah — emigration to Israel — from France have exploded. In Germany, the Netherlands, and Britain, homes are being quietly sold while children are being enrolled in schools in Tel Aviv. Synagogues have armed guards. Schools have panic buttons. Politicians have hashtags. Bishops have blindfolds.

The new European reflex — to respond to terror with understanding and to violence with respect — should set off alarm bells throughout the West. If appeasement becomes a principle and if weakness turns into tolerance, it will affect not only Jews but all of European civilization.

When terror is once again seen as a legitimate political language, it will not stop at the walls of Jerusalem. The same forces that threaten Israel today are already testing Europe’s borders — culturally, socially, and physically.

Every concession to extremism becomes an invitation for more of the same.

The only future for a possible Palestinian self-rule must begin where the hatred ends. As in Germany after the fall of the Third Reich, as in Rwanda following the genocide, as in South Africa in the wake of apartheid: only when the population itself takes responsibility for its crimes can reconciliation begin.

A future Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Palestine can only be built on an absolute and unconditional rejection of terror, hatred, brutality, and violence: a total and unconditional surrender. From here a new beginning can grow. Not as revenge, but as acknowledgment.

But today that path is blocked by European politics. 

When countries like Spain, Ireland, Norway, Belgium, and Slovenia recognize a state before violence is rejected, they teach the region and their fellow citizens that terror is a lucrative proposition. They undermine the future reconciliation they were supposed to support, and at the same time invite extremism into their own societies.

Europe is likely facing a wave of evil that even the Arab states were wise enough to avoid.

Europe brings the prayer mat forth in submission.

Israel is dancing again.

Man behøver ikke være jøde for at forstå at Talmuden har ret når den siger: "Hvis du er blid over for de onde, ender du med at være ond over for de blide." I Kristeligt Dagblad finder vi denne kronik:

Europa finder bedemåtten frem i underkastelse, mens Israel danser igen

Israel har vundet over terroren, men Europa kan se frem til en bølge af ondskab, som vi selv har bragt over os, mener teologistuderende Daniel Karpantschof

Pudsigt nok er titlen vendt to forskellige veje i selveste avisen og på avisens hjemmeside: Mens Israel danser igen, finder Europa bedemåtten frem i underkastelse. På Facebook hedder Daniel Karpantschofs kronik simpelthen "Israel vandt. Europa tabte." Daniel Karpantschof er teologistúderende, Iværksætter, og tidligere dansk filmkonsulent (tak til min kusinde Ellen).

DEN 7 OKTOBER 2023 blev Israel angrebet i et af de mest brutale terrorangreb i moderne tid. Tusinder af civile blev myrdet, voldtaget og bortført. Det var ikke en territorial kon-flikt, men et forsøg på udslettelse. Dokumenter viser dette: "Burn. Slaughter. Broadcast"; håndskrevet af Sinwar, i hans netværk af kujontunneller.

To år senere er det utvetydigt: Israel sejrede. Europa tabte.

Hamas' ledelse — Deif, Sinwar, Haniyeh — er elimineret. Organisationens tunneler, kommandocentre og vaben-lagre er ødelagt. Gaza City og Rafah ligger i ruiner. Hizbollahs ledelse er splittet, Nasrallah selv dræbt, og Iran reduceret til en stormagt på sociale medier.

De militæreresultater oversteg selv Israels egne forventninger. Hamas' infrastruktur blev ikke blot slået ud — den blev gjort umulig at genopbygge. Dets netværk i Qatar og Libanon er brændt sammen. Dets "hær" eksisterer kun på propagandavideoer. Iran, der i arevis forsøgte at kontrollere regionen gennem stedfortrædere, må nu se sit greb svækket i Syrien, Libanon og Yemen.

Israel førte en krig, der forenede tek-nologi, strategi og udmattende talmodighed. De israelske beeper-netværk og dronestyringssystemer ændrede moderne krigsførelse. Den præcise koordinering mellem luft, cyber og infanteri gjorde, at landet kunne bekæmpe en fjende, der gemte sig blandt civile, uden at miste sit moralske kompas

MEN ISRAELS SEJR var ogsa politisk.

Landet stod fast trods massiv international pression og mediepres. Det nægtede at lade verdensmeninger diktere sin ret til selvforsvar — og endte med at skabe resultater, som selv skeptikerne nu må anerkende: en ny regional orden. Alle forsøg på at frasige sig den jødiske stat pa verdensscenen er — endnu engang — blevet mødt med stenmur. Eurovision, UEFA, FIFA og Hollywood kan stả med nok så mange røde hænder.

Den nye europæiske  refleks — at reagere  på terror med forståelse og på vold  — bør vække alarmklokker i hele Vesten

Og Israel står ikke længere isoleret. Flere arabiske lande — herunder Libanon og Syrien — har åbnet diplomatiske kanaler. Egypten, De Forenede Arabiske Emirater og Saudi-Arabien har alle markeret, at Hamas' tid er forbi. Selv Jordan og Irak tillod Israels brug af deres luftrum.

For første gang i nyere tid blev Hamas presset af den arabiske verden — ikke støttet af den. Iran er trængt i defensiven, Hizbollah tøvede, og de Houthi-angreb (eller "Hizbollah fra Temu", som de er kendt som i Israel), der tidligere skabte global frygt, blev mødt med koordinerede svar fra vestlige og arabiske styrker.

Mellemøsten har lært, hvad Europa har glemt: at fred ikke skabes af dem, der forstår terror, men af dem, der besejrer den.

DE SENESTE DAGES BILLEDER fra Gaza viser, at terror ikke blot korrumperer sjælen — den fortærer sig selv. Efter gidselaftalen henretter Hamas nu sine egne i gaderne, mens kun de mandlige gidsler vender hjem i live. De kvindelige — som verden ellers hævdede at kæmpe for — er forsvundet under påskud, som selv regimets støtter ikke længere tror pa. Og for hver en civil, der frigives, har Israel under internationalt pres været tvunget til at løslade dømte massemordere og gerningsmand bag terror mod børn og familier. Det er ikke symmetri — det er moralsk inversion.

MENS ISRAEL GENFANDT sin styrke, er Europa sunket ned i moralsk desorientering. Antisemitismen er ikke vendt tilbage — den forsvandt aldrig. I Frankrig steg antisemitiske overgreb med 400 procent. I Tyskland med 80 procent. 96 procent af EU's jøder siger, at antisemitisme nu er en del af hverdagen. I Holland og Belgien nåede tallene rekordhøjde i 2024. 

De nye bærere af hadet kalder sig "anti-zionister", men genbruger de gamle fortællinger. De marcherer ikkei støvler, men i akademiske kåber. De råber ikke Sieg Heil, men "From the river to the sea". Men når monumenter til redningen af danske jøder under Holocaust må gemmes væk, eller overvejes helt at fjernes, står skriften utvetydigt på væggen. Antizionisme og antisemitisme kan ikke adskilles. 

Europas medier spiller med. Overskrifterne taler om "kamp mellem parter" og "proportioner", som om et demokrati og en islamistisk milits var moralske modparter. Den journalistiske balance er blevet til etisk blindhed. Mens Jotam Confino matte afgå som korrespondent på TV2, har journalister i DR underskrevet erklæringer imod Israel. 

FLERE EUROPÆISKE REGERINGER — herunder Spanien, Norge og Irland — har valgt at anerkende en palæstinensisk stat midt under krigen. Det er ikke fredsarbejde, men præcedens for, at vold virker. 

Når humanisme bliver selektiv, bliver den meningsløs. Det er ikke så lidt sigende, at samme politikere, der kalder en forsvarskrig for "folkedrab", kalder en deportation for "kidnapning" og "koncentrationslejrophold". Underkastelsen er total.

End ikke kirken stod fast. Otte af landets 10 biskopper valgte i 2024 at fordømme Israels militære fremfærd — men uden ét ord om de jødiske gidsler, de voldtagne kvinder eller Hamas' børnesoldater. Ej heller har de otte biskopper hverken tid, energi eller kristelighed nok til at fordømme de titusindvis af kristne lig, der ligger i Sudan, Nigeria, Syrien eller Egypten. Kristent blod er ikke mere værd, end at det kan glemmes for at udgyde jødisk.

At Europas præster igen fordommer jøder, før de fordømmer antisemitismen, er ikke nyt. Det er en gentagelse. I stedet for at forsvare civilisationens grundprincip – at mennesket har ret til at forsvare sig mod ondskab – faldt også kirkens ledere for fristelsen til moralsk symmetri.

Europas jøder læser rummet hurtigere end deres regeringer. Ansøgninger om Aliyah — udvandring til Israel — fra Frankrig er eksploderet. I Tyskland, Holland og Storbritannien sælges hjem stille, mens børn indskrives på skoler i Tel Aviv. Synagoger har vagter. Skoler har panikknapper. Politikerne har hashtags. Biskopper har bind for øjnene.

Den nye europæiske refleks — at reagere på terror med forståelse og på vold med respekt — bør vække alarmklokker i hele Vesten. Hvis eftergivenhed gøres til princip og svaghed til tolerance, rammer det ikke blot jøderne, men hele den europæiske civilisation.

Når terror igen opleves som et legitimt politisk sprog, vil det ikke stoppe ved Jerusalems mure. De samme kræfter, der truer Israel idag, tester allerede Europas grænser — kulturelt, socialt og fysisk.

Hver indrømmelse til ekstremismen bliver en invitation til mere af det samme.

Den eneste fremtid for et muligt palæstinensisk selvstyre må begynde dér, hvor hadet ender. Som efter Det Tredje Riges fald, som i Rwanda efter folke-mordet, som i Sydafrika efter apartheid: først når befolkningen selv tager ansvar for sine forbrydelser, kan forsoningen begynde.

En kommende Truth and Reconciliation Commission [kommission for sandhed og forsoning] for Palæstina kan kun bygges på en absolut og ubetinget afvisning af terror, had, brutalitet og vold: En total og betingelsesløs kapitulation. Herfra kan en ny begyndelse vokse. Ikke som hævn, men som erkendelse. 

Men den vej blokeres i dag af Europas politik. 

Når lande som Spanien, Irland, Norge, Belgien og Slovenien anerkender en stat, før volden er afvist, lærer de regionen og deres herboende frander, at terror virker. De underminerer den fremtidige forsoning, de havder at støtte, og inviterer samtidig ekstremismen indenfor i deres egne samfund.

Europa står sandsynligvis over for en bølge af ondskab, som selv de arabiske stater var kløgtige nok til at undsige sig.

Europa finder bedemåtten frem i underkastelse.

Israel danser igen.