The biggest stories don’t always make the news. 🤔 Susan and I gave $6.25 billion to help 25 million American children build brighter futures. These handwritten thank-you notes mean more than any headline ever could. 25 million children. 25 million futures. Endless possibilities. ❤️🇺🇸

My post about Hitler and the far right got millions of views. Clearly, it hit a nerve. So today I'm going to show you, step by step, why the notion of "far right" as it's used in France makes almost no sense. And why the people who wield it are usually the last ones who should be lecturing anyone. Let's start with the only question that matters: what makes a political system work or fail? To a very large extent, it's the economy. A country that produces wealth, that lets its citizens create, trade and build, stays standing. A country that destroys that collapses, no matter how beautiful its slogans are. And in economics, there are really only two worldviews. The first is collectivism. The idea that the State knows better than you. That it must plan production, set prices, run companies, decide what you earn, what you buy, and eventually what you think. The individual is just a cog serving a grand collective project: the class, the nation, the race, the people. The second is freedom. Capitalism, property, individual liberty, individual responsibility. The idea that millions of people creating value for one another produce infinitely more prosperity than an office of planners, however brilliant they may be. Now look at the list of the great totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. Stalin: total planning, forced collectivization, millions dead. Mao: the Great Leap Forward and the deadliest famine in human history. Pol Pot: money abolished, cities emptied, nearly a quarter of Cambodia's population exterminated. Mussolini, the man who coined the word fascism: "Everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." And Hitler, leader of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, whose program proclaimed "the common good before individual good." He subjected the entire German economy to State plans: the Four-Year Plan, frozen prices and wages, unions dissolved into a single state labor front, industrialists producing whatever the regime decided. Their flags were different. Their designated enemies were different. But the machinery was the same: the individual doesn't exist, only the collective matters, and the State decides everything. Why does it always end in totalitarianism? Because collectivism doesn't work. And when a system doesn't work, it has only two options: admit failure or force people. They always choose force. Ludwig von Mises proved it as early as 1920: without free prices, without a market, a planner simply cannot know what to produce, how much, or at what cost. He is flying blind. A planned economy isn't a less efficient version of the market. It's an impossibility. Friedrich Hayek drew the political conclusion in 1944 in The Road to Serfdom, a book he dedicated "to the socialists of all parties." One chapter is titled "The Socialist Roots of Naziism." Another, "Why the Worst Get on Top." For Hayek, controlling the economy isn't controlling one sector among others. It is "the control of the means for all our ends." Whoever controls your bread controls your life. Then your speech. Then your thoughts. Milton Friedman put it his own way: a society that puts equality before freedom ends up with neither. So we know exactly what works. It's not an opinion. It's a century of real-world experiments. Listen to the Austrian school, Mises and Hayek, with Friedman from Chicago alongside them: economic freedom, limited government, individual responsibility. And this is where we get to the great accusatory inversion. Part of the left-wing press spends its time screaming fascism. Why? Because the fascism fantasy is the best way to never talk about the track record of their own ideas. Deep down, they know: if their collectivist program were applied all the way, it wouldn't work, because a collective economy cannot work. And an economy that doesn't work always ends up having to coerce, surveil and ban. In other words, it becomes exactly what they claim to be fighting. The real heirs of totalitarian logic are not the ones being pointed at. So who gets called "far right" in 2026? People who want safe cities. People who want to keep their culture. People who just want to live a peaceful life, raise their kids, and not have to board up their shop every weekend. People who want the law to apply to everyone. If that's the far right, then the word no longer means anything. And maybe that was the point.

I don't think you realize how lucky we are to have an Elon Musk at this level, actually fighting this thing. Because let's be clear about the sides. On one side, the people. The vast majority. Common sense, hard work, family, and one simple wish: to live in peace. On the other, an illegitimate elite. Mostly globalist, which at its core is a communist project: managing humanity from the top, like a system. And since that project doesn't work (it has never worked anywhere), they survive in only one way: lies. To hold on, this elite built systems of coercion and corruption. Ukraine is one of them. They've also captured and corrupted a huge share of the institutions that were supposed to protect us. Take Bill Gates. On this line for years. It's no accident he ended up at the heart of Covid policy. Just ask yourself: why is a software billionaire talking directly to Fauci before the vaccine rollout even starts, as if he were part of the operation? These people see humanity as a herd to be administered. But they're terrible at economics. They don't understand their model can't work. So instead of saying "we were wrong, let's change," they lie. They double down. And that's exactly what makes them dangerous. Honestly, this system was almost impossible to break. And then, by the most improbable of chances, there's one man. The richest man in the world. Who chose the side of the people against these illegitimate, mostly left-wing elites. And who's throwing all his power into this fight. The system is dying. And he's the one pushing. Think for two seconds. If Elon wanted to enslave humanity, he could have done it long ago. All he had to do was make a deal with the globalists. He'd have everything he wants, right now. He did the opposite. That should tell you whose side he's on.

🔥🔥🔥🔥

On my way to the office this morning, I passed a group of young people protesting, a Palestinian flag draped over their shoulders. And I asked myself a question I can't shake: why does this generation always fall into the same trap? No matter the history. No matter the context. Even the ones from wealthy families, who went to the best schools, who were dealt every good card. Always the same trap. I don't think it's stupidity. I think it's a mechanism. And a mechanism can be taken apart, piece by piece. A. The observation: everything the state touches becomes unaffordable. Look at economist Mark Perry's famous chart, the one people call "the chart of the century." It tracks US prices since 2000. At the top, what explodes: hospital services, college tuition, textbooks, childcare, housing. Increases of +100%, +150%, up to +250%, far above general inflation. At the bottom, what collapses: TVs, software, phones, toys, clothing. A TV today costs a fraction of what it did in 2000, for an infinitely better product. Look at what separates the two groups. It isn't technology. It isn't complexity. It's one variable: how much the state is involved. At the top, sectors that are subsidized, regulated, shielded from competition, where the state funds demand and blocks supply. At the bottom, sectors where companies fight every single morning to serve you better and cheaper. B. The mechanism: why it's systematic. When the state subsidizes demand without freeing supply, prices rise. Every time. Guaranteed student loans, and universities raise tuition. Housing aid plus blocked building permits, and rents skyrocket. Administered healthcare, and bureaucracy eats the budget before it ever reaches the patient. In France it's even more vicious, because the price doesn't disappear: it hides. You never see the hospital bill, you pay it through payroll contributions. You never see the cost of school, you pay it through taxes. Public spending at 57% of GDP, one of the heaviest tax burdens in the world, more than €3.4 trillion in debt. And the result? Overflowing ERs, falling PISA scores, young people who can't afford to live in the city where they work. The market didn't fail in these sectors. It was never allowed in. C. Suffering demands a culprit. A 22-year-old lives all of this in their bones. They can't find a place to live. Their degree either buries them in debt or opens no doors. The future feels blocked. That suffering is real, and I don't deny it for a second. But human beings can't stand suffering without a culprit. They need a face. A scapegoat. And this is where everything is decided: who taught them how to read the world? D. Whoever tells the story picks the villain. Schools are public. Universities are public. Culture runs on grants. Film goes through funding committees. Public broadcasting shapes the narratives. The people handing down the interpretive framework are, overwhelmingly, paid by the very system that creates the problem. Do you really think that system is going to name itself as the culprit? No. It names the capitalist. The boss. The landlord. "The rich." The multinational. The commercial West. Same role, same casting, every time. E. One lens, a thousand causes. And this brings me back to that flag. A generation taught to read every situation through a single lens, oppressor on one side, rich, Western, capitalist, oppressed on the other, will apply that lens everywhere. To housing. To climate. To conflicts on the other side of the world. The cause changes, the lens stays. That's why the trap is always the same: it's not the cause that draws them in, it's the way of thinking that was installed in them. F. The perfect inversion. Here's the irony. Capitalism is the force that drove down the price of almost everything it touched. The state is the force that blew up the price of almost everything it captured. And young people blame the first for the crimes of the second. It's like blaming the firefighter for the fire because you saw him at the scene. G. The ballot box confirms it. In the US, a few weeks out from the midterms, a large share of urban young voters is getting ready to vote Democrat for more state, more spending, more regulation. New York elected a self-described socialist mayor, carried by young voters, on promises of rent freezes and city-run grocery stores. Rent freezes, the policy that has made housing scarcer everywhere it's been tried. The cure that worsens the disease. In France, it's the same play in two acts. Part of the youth votes for the radical left, which promises more state. Another part votes for the center, which promises to "manage" the state well, and has dug the debt deeper than ever. Two different ballots, one shared assumption: the problem is the market, the solution is the state. H. The way out. These young people aren't stupid. They're right to be angry. They're just aiming at the wrong target. The day they understand that their rent, their tuition and their hospital are expensive precisely because the state runs them, their anger will change direction. They'll stop protesting against those who create. They'll start protesting against those who capture. That day, the greatest intellectual scam of our time will be over.

The Democrats never should've raided Mar-A-Lago. They opened Pandora's Box when they targeted Barron Trump and Melania.

This woman is evil incarnate. I'm a cartoonist who has drawn cartoons of the Prophet, and she is excusing the Muslims who killed the Charlie Hebdo writers and the Danish cartoonists for doing the same thing. Vile, vile, vile. w.

Here is @NYCMayor Mamdani 13 days after October 7th accusing Israel of genocide. Yet, Israel didn’t launch its counterattack on Hamas until October 27th. How is it possible for Israel to commit genocide a week before it launched its response to the massacre of 1,200 citizens and the kidnapping of 251 of its people? Mamdani’s genocide talking point was part of his hateful rhetoric even before Israel had a chance to defend itself. It has as much credibility now as it did then.

(Warning: Long post about Israel. Possible slow-motion crash out. Might want to skip this one.) This statement from @NYCMayor is evil. There’s no other way to describe it. “Despicable” isn’t nearly strong enough; “lamentable” implies that it’s something over which we might feel sorrow, rather than the outrage it demands. “Evil” is the only word for it. Deeply, profoundly evil. Perhaps the most vile statement a prominent US elected official has ever released. On the third anniversary of the worst loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust, Mayor Mamdani—leader of the city with the world’s largest Jewish population outside of Tel Aviv—has released a statement that minimizes the attacks, ignores the severity and depravity of Hamas’s crimes, and—in a manner with just enough skillful subtlety to provide necessary levels of plausible deniability—inverts the day’s attackers and victims, even obliquely blaming the victims themselves. A statement that references the attacks’ perpetrators, Hamas, but once, and the attacks’ target, the Jews of Israel, not at all. Let me repeat that: The mayor of a city with nearly one million Jews spread across its five boroughs can’t find it within himself to use the word “Jew” on the anniversary of the worst loss of Jewish life since the genocide of Nazi Germany. Mamdani dedicates one—and only one—paragraph in his statement to the attacks themselves. One perfunctory, halfhearted paragraph; a token gesture of mourning that conveniently omits the savagery of Hamas’s crimes, the widespread sexual violence of the day, the glee with which terrorists butchered young and old alike, and the deplorable conditions in which 251 innocent victims of kidnapping were kept in subterranean tunnels in Gaza. One paragraph. That’s all. And, with that out of the way, with that box conveniently checked, Mamdani is able to get to his real aim: Condemning Israel. And this he does with detail and gusto, without pause, reservation, or equivocation. The entire second paragraph is worth reviewing line by line, for it is rich in subtle but deliberate manipulation. Sentence 1: “The suffering did not begin or end that day.” This is the classic Marxist rhetorical tactic of “contextualizing,” in which any actions that might reflect poorly on The Cause (e.g., the mass rape, murder, and kidnapping of innocent Israeli civilians) are positioned in the context of information meant to mitigate their severity, deflect blame, and shift responsibility from the victim to the offender. In this case, Mamdani wants the reader to subconsciously think that Hamas’s acts of terrorism can only be viewed in the context of Israel’s historical and ongoing oppression of Palestine (hence “did not begin…that day”). And, with that context established, how could anyone hold Hamas at fault? After all, they didn’t start this war; they were only responding to “suffering [that] did not begin…that day.” If anything, it’s Israel that’s at fault, right? If this sounds like reversing the victim and the offender—the RVO in the DARVO acronym used to describe the gaslighting of domestic violence victims—it’s because it is. It’s subversive, it’s diabolical, and it’s only the first sentence of the paragraph. Let’s keep going. Sentence 2: “It instead continued through the Israeli government’s devastating, ongoing genocide in Gaza…” Hamas’s terrorism was not a de novo act, occurring without cause or justification; rather, it was merely the “ongoing” continuation of a long chain of “suffering” whose origin and fault lie with the state of Israel. Also, note the choice of the words “devastating” and “genocide” and compare them to Mamdani’s first paragraph. He is condemning Israel’s response to the attacks with language far more forceful than that used to decry the attacks themselves. Sentence 2, continued: “…in which it has killed more than 74,000 Palestinians—including more than 21,000 children.” This is additional contextualization. The reader is directed to compare 74,000 dead Palestinians with the aforementioned 1,100 Israelis and come away with the interpretation that Israel is orders of magnitude more violent than Hamas. Note that Mamdani also includes a body count for Palestinian children but not for Israeli children. Left unsaid, of course, is the proportion of those 74,000 dead Palestinians who were active Hamas fighters. Or whom Hamas was using as human shields. Or who were—unfortunately—collateral damage from being in the vicinity of the Israeli military’s justified airstrikes on Hamas fighters who deliberately intersperse themselves among the civilian populace of Gaza. Sentence 3: “Even since the so-called ceasefire, more than 1,400 Palestinians have been killed.” This is more contextualizing. The implicit message is that Israel has killed more Palestinians “since the so-called ceasefire” than Hamas killed in total. Israel’s response must therefore clearly be disproportionate. Sentence 4: “That suffering has intensified with every Israeli bomb dropped on ambulances waiting outside hospitals, every drone strike targeting a residential building or journalist, and every shipment of food aid turned away at a border crossing.” Setting aside factual errors and omissions of relevant context (ironic, given all the false contextualizing elsewhere!), note the specificity with which Mamdani condemns Israel. Israel’s response to October 7 warrants vivid detail—its bombs fall on ambulances, its drone strikes target residential buildings and journalists, its soldiers turn away food shipments—while the details of Hamas’s attacks on October 7 are described with… Nothing. No mention of the murders. The rapes. The desecration of bodies. The smiles on the terrorists’ faces; their laughter while livestreaming the carnage on social media and while calling their own parents. Not one word. When Israel responds to terrorism, graphic details are called for; when Hamas commits the underlying acts of terrorism in the first place, though, it warrants only a cursory mention in the introduction to the statement, no details necessary. Sentence 5: “Many New Yorkers are reckoning with this unbearable grief, and we mourn alongside them – all while knowing that our tax dollars fund these war crimes.” Note the similarities in language between this sentence and the final sentence of the first paragraph. The reader is meant to draw parallels between Israel’s dead civilians and Hamas’s dead fighters. The parallel language is meant to convey a false moral equivalence between the two. Also note the reference to “our tax dollars”: You paid for this. You are morally complicit. Therefore, if you object to the mayor’s statement, you are just trying to willfully ignore your own guilt. How dare you. The last two paragraphs (yes, he keeps going) are more of the same. More moral equivocation, more inversion of responsibility, more criticism of Israel. The word “apartheid” is thrown in for good measure, of course, because no statement on the anniversary of the worst day in modern Israel’s history would be complete without undermining the nation’s very existence. Every word of this is shameful, every sentence detestable, every paragraph overflowing with covert lies and overt moral cowardice. But we should expect nothing less of Zohran Mamdani, a man whose only talent is the ongoing profanation of an office he doesn’t deserve, in a great city he will slowly—or maybe not so slowly—destroy. This statement—and the man behind it—are worthy of nothing but our scorn and should warrant nothing but our contempt.

An absolutely atrocious statement that epitomizes the Mayor’s deep antisemitism and anti-Americanism. And of course, the senior aides around him who painstakingly helped write this vile garbage are so imbued themselves with antisemitism that they don’t even realize how heinous this is. There is a reason both Democrats and Republicans are condemning this absolutely tone deaf and outrageous statement. October 7, 2023 was the bloodiest day for the Jewish people since the Holocaust when innocent civilians including Americans were raped, slaughtered, and killed by Hamas jihadist terrorists.

What Hamas did three years ago today is an atrocity. That is the word for it: an atrocity. What followed from its supporters, explicit and tacit, is atrocious. The continuing propaganda is atrocious. The just asking questions is atrocious. The moral inversions are atrocious.